PRIVATE BUSINESS STANDING ORDERS (Hansard, 9 March 1977)

§ The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare)
My Lords, following 1037 the example of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, may I speak to all five of my Amendments together and move them en bloc? They appear as Appendix 2 in the Minutes of yesterday's Proceedings. The first Amendment is to Standing Order No. 117, which deals with the locus standi of Petitioners against Private Bills; that is, their right to appear before a Select Committee. Select Committees in this House may at present, if they think fit, admit any society or association as Petitioners against a Private Bill if they sufficiently represent any trade, business or interest in a district to which any Bill relates, if they allege that such trade, business or interest will be injuriously affected by the provisions of the Bill. It has therefore been within the discretion of Select Committees to admit any society, association or other body as Petitioners against a Bill representing amenity, educational, travel or recreational interests. But some uncertainty has arisen, because this discretion is not precisely spelled out in the Standing Order. The first Amendment will serve to remove this doubt, and will also bring our Standing Order No. 117 into line with the corresponding Standing Order in another place.
The second Amendment relates to recently amended Standing Order No. 121 and provides for an Unopposed Bill, which is not to be recommitted to the Unopposed Bill Committee when there are no Amendments proposed; and the last three Amendments, Nos. 3, 4 and 5, provide for fees in respect of Private Bills to be adjusted by the House on report from the Offices Committee and not by Amendment of Standing Orders. This is a parallel provision to the one just moved by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. As a consequence of the last three Amendments, I shall be moving the second Motion standing in my name, which fixes the fees at the present level. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 1 to 5 en bloc.

§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS
My Lords, as the noble Chairman has said that Amendment No. 1 removes all doubt, could he tell me whether the result of the new paragraph means that a Petitioner who feels he has a grievance has the right to appear in front of the Select Committee? The last line of the paragraph leaves it completely to the discretion of the Select Committee. I should have thought that the last line, which qualifies the power, negates the whole purpose of the remainder of the paragraph. Has the Petitioner any right that he can claim? Until this point is cleared up, I should not have thought that all the doubts were removed.

§ Lord ABERDARE
My Lords, it is always up to the Petitioner to prove his locus standi to the Select Committee. This merely allows those who are interested in rather wider interests, such as amenity, education, travel or recreation, to have a more clearly expressed locus than they had before; but in the last resort it is up to the Select Committee to decide whether or not they have a locus.

§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE
My Lords, may I again bring to the attention of the noble Chairman the same point which, mutatis mut[...]andis, I brought to the attention of the Lord 1039 Chancellor? I think that the availability of Standing Orders in the Private Bill procedure, not only to the profession where the matter can be catered for but also to the public, is probably not good enough. Will the noble Chairman make sure not merely that these Amendments, although what I say applies to them, but the whole of the Private Bill procedure are made sufficiently available to the public?

§ Lord ABERDARE
Yes, my Lords, I am very happy to take that point on board from the noble and learned Lord. The Standing Orders are about to be reprinted, and that would be a very suitable occasion to look at the matter.