London-West Midlands) Bill

HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2013-14

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON-WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Notice of Objection

to the

locus standi

HS2 ACTION ALLIANCE LIMITED

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF HS2 ACTION ALLIANCE AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS NABAR R HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2013-14

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON-WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Notice of Objection to the locus standi of

HS2 ACTION ALLIANCE LIMITED

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF HS2 ACTION ALLIANCE

AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS

Tab Document

1 Skeleton submissions of Richard Harwood OBE QC

2 Report from the Select Committee on Hybrid Bills 1948 (paragraphs 1-34)

3 HC Deb 14 February 1949 - volume 461 cc791-838

4 HS2 Judicial Review transcript extracts from Day 9 (13 December 2012)

5 Selected Articles from the Codified EIA Directive 2011/92/Eu (Articles 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9)

6 Witness Statement of Hilary Wharf with enclosures IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2014 - 2015

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

SKELETON SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF HS2 ACTION ALLIANCE ON STANDING

1. This skeleton outlines HS2 Action Alliance's submissions to the Select Committee on 9th July 2014 in response to the Secretary of State's Notice of Objection.

2. The Notice of Objection raises two points:

(a) HS2 Action Alliance do not have and should not be given locus standi (para 1-7, 10);

(b) The matters in the petition are principally ones which 'affect the public at large' and the Select Committee cannot consider matters which may be considered by a Standing Committee (para 8) and that 'certain' (but unidentified) objections go to the principle of the Bill (para 9).

Standing (locus stanch)

3. There are two types of standing: standing as of right where the petitioner's property or interests are directly and specially affected' or where the Standing Orders give an entitlement2 to be heard; and standing granted by the committee. 3 In the latter cases, standing has been given without a hearing, in the absence of a challenge.

4. The Select Committee is asked to admit HS2 Action Alliance to be heard as an association representing interests in the districts to which the Bill relates (SO 95(1)) and representing the inhabitants of areas alleged in the petition to be injuriously

affected by the Bill (50 96(2)). In the Standing Orders as in legislation generally, 4 singular includes plural, so an organisation representing inhabitants or interests across a long line is within these provisions.

5. The facts of this representation are set out in the petition (paragraphs 60 to 61) and elaborated upon in Hilary Wharfs witness statement. In addition letters from action

' Erskine May page 95 8. 2 Standing Orders 93, 97, 102. Under Standing Orders 92, 95, 96, 99, 100, 101. Interpretation Act 1978.

1 groups and residents directly affected by the scheme explain that HS2 Action Alliance represent them, see the appendices to Ms Wharf's statement. Some of those residents and groups have petitioned themselves and their standing is not challenged. It follows that HS2 Action Alliance represent persons who do have standing. The Secretary of State (through Mr Mould QC) explicitly accepted in the High Court that HS2 Action Alliance represents the interests of village residents associations and individuals

affected by generalised blight. 5

6. HS2 Action Alliance's contribution to the scrutiny of HS2 has been accepted and welcomed by Parliamentary Committees, the Courts, the Secretary of State and H52 Limited.6 This Select Committee invited HS2 Action Alliance to attend and speak at the programming hearing and we did so.

7. The special role of H52 Action Alliance in contributing to the Committee's processes is recognised by:

(i) The letter from Rt Hon John Bercow MP, Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP and Rt Hon David Liddington MP and from the 51 M group of local authorities (both dated 30th June 2014) explaining their helpful and representative role and supporting their standing;

(ii) The local residents and groups who explain that they have not petitioned on particular matters because they were being taken by the 11S2 Action Alliance in its petition. They were sensibly leaving matters to the route-wide scope and the pooled expertise of HS2 Action Alliance

8. The Secretary of State did not object to HS2 Action Alliance's presence and role at the programming hearing. If he considered that we should not be heard by the Committee then he should have taken the point prior to or at that hearing.

9. The hybrid Bill process needs to achieve the objectives of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive for the exception to the Directive's requirements to apply. 7 A failure to be within that exception would mean that a planning permission or development consent order would be needed (going through fresh processes) to

See Mr Mould's submissions in the High Court. 6 See petition para 64. ETA Directive, Article 1(4).

2 authorise the works and the compulsory purchase powers could not be exercised before that further authorisation was in place.

10. Giving effect to the requirements of the Aarhus Convention, the ETA Directive gives a special status to the 'public concerned' who are 'the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2).8 For the purposes of this definition, non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law shall be deemed to have an interest.' 9 The status of environmental NGOs, such as HS2 Action Alliance, is the same as the public affected by the proposal - that is, those entitled to locus standi. It is the public concerned who are entitled to 'early and effective opportunities to participate in the environmental decision- making procedures' and consultation 10 and their views require particular consideration." Whilst the principle of the Bill is considered by the House at Second Reading, detailed environmental impacts and the measures to address them are considered by the Select Committee. The roles of the Public Bill Committee and Report stages are inevitably more general. The Select Committee can only deal with points raised by petitioners - it does not have a roving brief - and so the public concerned must have standing to petition on environmental matters.

11. In achieving the objectives of the ETA Directive the Secretary of State for Transport has relied in Court on the Select Committee process and in particular national non- governmental organisations such as Save Britain's Heritage and the Ramblers Association participating at the Crossrail Bill Select Committee stage. 12

8 Derived from Article 2(5) of the Aarhus Convention. Article 1(2)(c). 10 Article 6(4), (5), for example by written submissions or by way of a public inquiry. Article 9(1). 12 R(Buckinghamshire County Council) v Secretary of State for Transport [2013] EWHC 481 (Admin) per Ouseley J summarising the Minister's submissions '256 The Select Committee would be an important part of the overall process in the eyes of the SST; "authorities concerned by the project by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities", who had to have an opportunity to express their views on the environmental information and the request for development consent, (Article 6), would have locus standi at the Select Committee. The range of persons with locus under Standing Order 96 was extensive since it covered those whose property interests were specifically and directly affected, trade bodies representative of those affected in an area, bodies representing amenity, educational, travel or recreational interests which were materially adversely affected, local authorities of any area affected injuriously, the inhabitants of such an area, commons Conservators and the like. 257 It was up to the promoter to take a locus objection; none had been taken on the Crossrail Bill. NGOs such as Save Britain's Heritage and the Ramblers Association had participated at the Committee stage. Published rules governing participation at an oral stage before the decision-maker were not incompatible with the objectives of the Directive.'

12. The Select Committee are therefore asked to recognise or grant H52 Action Alliance's standing to petition on the Bill.

The scope of the Select Committee's consideration of the Bill

13. There are two limits on the matters which may be raised by petitioners:

(i) They may not argue on matters which do not give them locus standi including matters affecting the general public; 13

(ii) The Committee should stay within the instructions given by the House, including any instruction as to the principle of the Bill.

14. The concept of the principle of the Bill requires elaboration. The Committee on Hybrid Bills (Procedure in Committee) Report in 1948, subsequently adopted by the House, decided that 'provided that his arguments do not exceed his locus standi, a petitioner may traverse the principle of the Bill'. 14 In reality the point on principle is three-fold:

(I) The expediency of the Bill does not have to be proved by the promoter;

(ii) a petitioner may not challenge the public policy decision of the House at Second Reading'5 but may argue about the expediency of the Bill insofar as it affects it interests including contending that this hardship outweighs the public benefits; 16

(iii) The Committee cannot consider matters that it is instructed not to - such as the principle set out by the House's resolution. Although it can ask the House to instruct it to consider matters it could not otherwise do. 17

15. In practice therefore, the House's instructions limit the scope of the consideration.

16. The application of these conceptual issues is however straightforward for this Bill.

The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court did not consider whether and how standing would comply with the EIA Directive. 13 See the Committee on Hybrid Bills (Procedure in Committee) Report ("the Report") para 21, 34(2), adopted by the House on 14" February 1949. 14 Report, para 34(3). 15 For example, in support of the nationalisation of private companies, but it would be possible to challenge the principle of a Bill to acquire land for a particular purpose - see the Report at para 22, 23. 16 If such an argument is accepted then the committee would make a special report to the House: Report, para 25. 17 Such as the third Instruction to the Crossrail Bill Select Committee to consider extending Crossrail to Reading or Ebbsfleet: Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, First Special Report of Session 2006-07, para 30, 31.

4 17. The Bill does not affect 'the public at large'. It is almost all concerned with the construction and operation of a particular proposed railway line between the West Midlands and London. Its powers, impacts and mitigation measures affect interests on or in the vicinity of the line, including those represented by HS2 Action Alliance. Whilst many of those are expressed in general terms, they may be petitioned against. The exception to the Phase 1 project is the right of entry for further high speed rail links (clause 51) but that specifically affects interests on or near the proposed Phase 2 route so gives standing to those interests. As an integrated route, many of the design parameters for Phase 2 will be fixed by Phase 1.

18. The particular concerns of petitioners may be met by general solutions. The Secretary of State will argue that many concerns are addressed by the general provisions in the Bill, the general law and by the measures outside the Bill such as the Environmental Minimum Requirements. The Committee will have to consider their adequacy. It may find that a particular petitioner's concern should be met by a general amendment to the Bill. 18 In considering whether to make any change, it must address the public benefits and disbenefits of the existing provision and the possible amendment as well as the effect on the private or local interests involved.

19. The Secretary of State's Notice of Objection is inadequate and defective as it does not identify the parts of the petition to which the Minister objects. It should have, shortly, spelt out the paragraphs or the points so that HS2 Action Alliance could deal with them.

20. The matters raised in the petition are all ones which affect the interests which it represents and on which it has standing and which do not contravene the principle of the Bill. For example, a reduction in the speed of the line will reduce noise impacts on residents and allow greater flexibility in the detailed alignment of the line (within the broad route alignment) allowing impacts to be avoided or reduced. One of the effects of lower speed, which would have to be considered in making that change is the reduction in carbon emissions which results. The enforcement of the environmental protections proposed and compensation arrangements are commonplace matters for railway bill select committees.

18 Such as limiting the period for compulsory acquisition: Crossrail Select Committee, First Special Report of Session 2006-07, para 118.

5 21. The petition of the 11S2 Action Alliance is therefore firmly within the scope of its standing and the Select Committee's deliberations.

Costs

22. This standing challenge imposes a significant drain on the finances of the HS2 Action Alliance and so hinder its ability to present a properly funded case on the merits of the petition. Inflicting the costs of this satellite litigation upon 11S2 Action Alliance undermines their ability to participate and the effectiveness of the process, contrary to the ETA Directive and the Aarhus Convention. 19 The Select Committee are able to award costs against the promoter. 20 The raising of the standing challenge by the Secretary of State is vexatious and unreasonable. 21 In this case a costs order should not depend upon whether HS2 Action Alliance are able to secure amendments to the Bi1122 as the effect of this challenge is to reduce its ability to secure those amendments.

23. The Select Committee are therefore asked to require the Secretary of State to pay the petitioner's reasonable costs of this issue if the notice of objection fails.

Richard Harwood OBE QC Thirty Nine Essex Street

4th July 2014

19 EIA Directive Article 6 (see Commission v Ireland C-216/05 para 43-45) and Aarhus Convention Article 6. 20 Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, First Special Report of Session 2006-07, para 121-123. 21 To adopt the language for private Bills in section 10, Parliamentary Costs Act 2006. 22 Which is the additional criteria for private Bill costs awards under the 2006 Act.

E. 1947-48 (191) Report from the Select Committee on Hybrid Bills (procedure in committee) together with the proceedings of the committee, minutes of evidence and appendices Wh

FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON HYBRID BILLS (PROCEDURE IN COMMITTEE)

TOGETHER WITH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE AND APPENDICES

Ordered by The House of Commons to he prhited 21$! uly 1948

( )

LONDON HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE

PRICE 3s- od. NET 191

Weclnesday,. I7 V 4Qe em6er, 1947 Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the procedure in Select Committees on Public Bills to wich the Standing Orders relative to Private Business apply and to report whether any, and if so what, rules should be laid down to regulate their proceedings: And the Cornjjrittee was nmint,ed of Or. B.,esou, Mr. .Lino-, Sir Hugh Lucas-TOOZ3JD, Mrs' MoLevy, Mt. Hofkin.Morris, Mr.’Shtb5Mr. Sparks and Mr. William Wells. Ordered, That the comi'uift,e have powett .$end fbr persons, papers and records. Ordered That Three be .the Quorum of the Ggn]mit'tee._{M?r; Rbert

Thursday, 5th February, 1948 Ordered, That Mr. Granviile Sharp be discharged from the Select Committee on Hybrid Bills (Procedure i Committee); and that Mr. Anthony Greenwood be add d to the Comite.(fr. Robert Tylor.)

E1I)

COMMITTEE ON HYBRID BILLS%(BROCEIURE IN COMMITTEE). "99i

TABLE O CONTENTS

Page

REPORT ... ... ... ... .. . iv

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ... ... ... . .. ... xiv

LIST OF WITNESSES ;.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Xviii

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE' ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

AiPENICEs A. Further. Memorandum on Evidence by W. Craig Henderson, K.C. 105 B. Note on Precedents for preventing opponents from impugning the principle oftheBillLbyL.A.Abraham ... ... ... C. Correspondence on precedents for iejection of hybrid bills by - joint committees or -select committees of the House of Lords 109-

()

The cost of preparing for publication the shorthand Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee was 8o 7$. Oii. The cost of printing and publishing this volume is estimated by H.M. Stationery Office at L273 IOS. od. 62573 A 2

REPORT The Select Committee appointed to consider the procedure in select committees on public bills to which the Standing Orders relative to Private Business apply and to report whether any, and i so what, rules should he laid down to regulate their proceedings has a agreed to the following Report:

I.Introduction x. Your Committee have held 14 meetings and examined the following witnesses: Mr. 'L. A. Abraham, Clerk of Private Bills; Mr. A. Ellis, CB.,* First Parliamentary Counsel to the Treasury; Mr. B. H. Coode, Clerk of Public Bills; Sir Charles Browne, Parliamentary Agent for His Majesty's Government and a -member of the firm of Messrs. Dyson Bell and Co., Parliamentary Agents; Mr. W. Craig Henderson, K.C., Leader of the Parliamentary Bar; Mr. A. H. Jeffreys, Chief Clerk, Committee and 'Private Bill Office, House of Lords; and Sir Thomas Barnes, G.C.B., C.B.11., Treasury Solicitor. II.Definition of a Hybrid Bill 2. It will be useful at the £ utset to state the difference between a public bill and a private bill. According to Erskine May, "Public bills ...... relate to matters of public policy and are introduced directly by Members of the House: Private Bills are bills for the particular interest or benefit of any person or persons, public company or corporation, or local authority, and are solicited by the parties themselves, who are interested in their promotion, being founded upon petitions deposited in accordance with the Standing Orders relating to Private Business."t A hybrid Bill is a public bill which affects private interests in such a way that, if it were a private bill, it would, under the Standing Orders relating to Private Business, require preliminary notices to be served on affected parties. A hybrid bill is a public bill, since it accords with the two fundamental criteria of public bills described by Erskine May; it has also, in large or small degree, the character of a private bill, since it affects the interests of specific individuals or corporations as distinct from all individuals or corporations of a similar category.

111.Types of Hybrid Bill 3. This definition embraces a number of different types of hybrid bills. 1 : There are, first, bills promoted by Ministers of the Crown to acquire particular sites for the construction of public offices or post offices. The Public Offices (Site) Bill, 1947, fs the most recent example. Your Committee are aware that section 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, gives power to certain Ministers to acquire land by order for these purposes; so that in future the number of these hills will he considerably reduced. But as Sir Thomas Barnes has pointed out4 an act of Pariiamdnt will still be necessary where there are statutory restrictions on the use of the site. Secondly there are bills regulating Crown property which, if they affect private rights, must proceed as hybrid bills. Thirdly, there are bills such as the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1944, which are public bills with only one or two clauses which affect private rights. 'Finally there are bills involving the transfer of properties belonging to particular corporations or companies to the State or to public boards. The London Passenger Transport Bill, 1931, the Bank of England Bill, 7946, and the Cable and ireless Bill, 1946, are examples of this type of hybrid bill.

* Now Sir Alan Ellis, K.C.B. f 14th Edition, P. 463. Evidence, Q. 886.

4. This last group does not, however, include bills affecting all the undertakings of an industry throughout the country, even- where particularexceptions and exclusions have been made. Rulings of Mr. -Speaker that the Railway Bill, T21, and the Electricity Supply 'Bill, 1926, should not be regarded as hybrid, bills, have -rved as precedents for proceedingith recent bills nationalising Coal, Transport, 'Electricity and Gas, in which all private rights in a particular industry ,are taken away, * as public bills. Most public bills in some sense affect private rights, so that the decision to treat a measure of public policy as a hybrid bill when if affects the private rights of certain members of a class and as a public bill when it affects the rights of all members of that class is difficult to justify on grounds of principle or eqiity; but Your committee consider it defensible as a procedural expedient, in as much as a select - committeeto which all hybrid bills are committedwould be a wholly inadequate piece of legislative machinery for considering either these large complex bills nationalising whole industries or the extensive opposition which they arouse. 5. A hybrid bill may be introduced by a private Member as well as by Ministers of the Crowii. At a time 'when corporations such as County and Rural District Councils -were not empowered to promote private bills, private r) members would introduce bills on their behalf which those introduced as public- bills were, in effect, private bills. Since- the pssiñg :01 the Local Government Act, 933, 'howevet, no individual, company or ofporation has been disqualified from promoting a private bill, and if a hybrid bill had been introduced by a private member since that date, its main object -mtt have been to advance . the public interest. Although the vast majority of hybrid bills are introduced by a Minister , of the Crown, Your committee -have therefore referred throughout to "the promoters" of a hybrid bill, and have found no reason for differentiating in their recommendations between hbrid- bills introduced by a lMinister of the Crown and by a private Member.

IV.Survey of past practice and precedent 6. A public bill becomes a hybrid bill when the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills have reported that it affects private rights in a manner which requires the serving of notices under the Standing Orders relating to Private Business. The office of Examiner was instituted -by the House in 1847, superseding the Select Committee on Petitions for 'Private Bills, which had performed similar functions since its first appointment in the session 1837-38. Before 1837, therefore, it is difficult positively to identify a bill as a hybrid* bill; and, as before 181 no minutes of evidence of committees on hybrid bills are extant, no factual account of the methods and purposes of committees before that date can be given. ,7. Some general deducticis can, however, be made from the minutes of proceedings on bills which after T837 would have become hybrid bills, such as bills promoted by ZL Minister of the Crown or bills regulating Crown prOperty whih a,ifected particular interests or areas. These bills were undoubtedly publlceasures and were brought in on motion as public bills; but wherever they affected private interests the Standing Orders which related to the serving of notices had to be complied with, and compliance had to be proved before the select committee to which the bills was referred. It is now impossible to judge on what principle, or even to discover by -what machinery, it was decided in each particular case that the standing orders did apply. But where compliance was enforced, bills were treated in the same manner as private -bills, except that either -before or after committal to a select committee they were invariably considered in a committee of the whole House. By* x83o

' Evidence, P. 46, paras. 5 and 6. 6257,3 . A3

f t

1 Vi .’ 'REOROT.flE

it is; true to say-that'-these, bills, either through an undue: emphasis on their anal bgous. features or more probably through the; indifference. f the House, had been virtually assimilated to practice and procedure on private bills. & At tfie sanue time a radical change was taking place in the powers and prbcedui-e of committees on private bills. The multiplication of private bills made it iniposstble for the. House to do other thati condone, the usurpation by committees of its powers to pronounce upon the expediency , of a bill, aid' to mutilate or even to reject it. As Ley, Clerk of the House, id of private bill ommittee in evidence given before the Select ’Committee on Ptivate Business, 1838: "the real province of the committee is only to make the 'bill perfect according to the intentions of' the promoter 's and to See' that proper onipenSátion is niade to those whose propttr may be taken by the dësotic 'power of Parliament; but 'in consequence of the Rouse having declined, to hear counsel and evidence on second reading, according - to frrmer practice, upon the principle of the bill, that inquiry has d'evolved' upon the committee, and the committee have' in fact 'become the Rouse in this respect ". Henceforward the onus of proving that the powers sought in the biif should. be granted fell upon the promoters; and the committee gave their decision after weighing the expediency of granting those powers against the ( ') submissions of petitioners against the bill The appropriateness of this procedure to private' bill le&latioA has been noted by S.ir WilliamIodswoth: "Because thepromoters of. a private bill are asking for a privilegiurn. they must assign reasons for their request, and they .n'ut prove the truth of those fepns.. Moreover it is. not improbable lhat the. dv.antags sought by the -promoters. may I infringe the rights of other persons. Since these rights are given .to these, persons by law, they are entitled to ask. .that these igbts shall he protected, or if it is decided that they must be infringed, to ask compensation for the infringement." . The whole of this doctrine and tradition is not applicable to hybrid bills. As public bills they are part of the general law, not excepiions to it; and it could not have been the intention of the House that such bills should be submitted to the scrutiny of (ommittee with power to reject them4 It is difficult to point to a decision of the Rouse in which any such, .uie was applied: 'to hybrid bills. It is true that on four occasions since. 1837, 'cOIfl- mittees on hybrid bills with preambles' 'have reported that the allegations were not proved, and the House has acquiesced by taking no farther stages of those bills. But the last report of this kind being made' 'to the House of Commons was in. I8i and with the exptlon of the Ouse Drainage 'Bill, 17,. which was; considerad by a joint committee, no exathple has. been discovered of a Th select committee of the House. of 'Lords or a joint conitnittee, reporting that it' is not expedient to proceed with the bill.II Nor do the precedents. reveal that any attempt was made in constituting select committees on. hybrid bills to create an injpartial tribunal, by insisting, as in private bill committees, upix disinterested membership. As a general rule, the 'member who introduced the bill in the 'House was a member of the committee and was usually elected Chairman. A striking instance of this practice was the Teiegraph (Construction) (Bill, I9rr, where notwithstanding the' b.il was an'pposed bill; the Postmaster-General who introduced it was 'himself chosen Chairman of the committee. ioi In spite of these indications, Your Committee are aware that the question whether the expediency of a hybrid bill is a proper subject for discussion in

* Report from the Select Committee on Private Business, 1838, Pail. Pap. Sess. 1837-38, No. 805. f: Historj of English Law, Volume XI, p. 326. ' See-however, para. 25 infra. §' Evidence. Q. r6z fi Appendix C, p. 109.

select c rnmittees has ITever beem deqded, and ithat pre,cedents, even tf.rom the ’boginaiiig of the ipre8ent .º–ittiry, are conflicting. In th,e’ :Londoxi. .Watr Bill, 'I9b, aM thd, Port of London 'Bills of T9ø And 1908,* Ahe basii Ipror posal to transfer certain'properties to public boards was .placed by the corn- mittes beyond the :contitions of parties. These 'decisions were all; tbeioie signifl''t ltr that they were made by joint 'committees, Who could nOt, ,be considered bound by a previous affirthatioa of' principle, by one Hoise. On the other hand, in the Telegraph (Oonstruction)"Bill, i, the London Passenger Tralisport. Bill, 131, and the' Cable and Wireless Bill, i, no evidence as. to 'the expediency of these measures 'was eicludec1f: indeed, in theecond .case the 'Minister of Transport was called- as a leading witiiës for the promoters 'to justify 'the .'policy' 'which had inspired thebili. 'In effect, all the .aEguments. 'which had been put forward in the House during the second reading debate were 'reproduced by the advocates of' the partiesbefore the Comniittee. ' ' ' ii. Procedure in joint committees on ,hybrid bills lies outside the prince of Your Commiftee In select committees on hybrid bills, however, Your Committee consider that the broad principle should be upheld of restraining I -.- the 'pitionbr -fkbtil attacking: "the 'pdblic pd&y' which inspires 'a hybrid hull. At the samet time they have no wish to prevent any person whose mterets have' 'bèeñirijutio'uslr afféctéd by the 'provisions of the 'bill' from defending those interests' before 'the'select coithitteê. The, exception' to the rile 'that the expêdiency 'o'f the bill is 'to 'be decided by the House may be 'appropriate "fO private bills It should not apply to hybrid bills, which despite a resemblaiice to prhate bills 'vhiCh has led some commitires 'inadvertently to "treat then as such, are primarily measures of public policy. V.Present Proedure on Hybrid Bills. x A ’public bill is ref&red’ to the examiners of Petitions for Private Bills if it 'appears that -the Standing 'Orders relative to Private Business apply to R. The Standing OEdeis in question are those dealing with the giving of notices to persons 'Whose property or -rights are proposed to be compulsorily acquired or otherwise 'affected by the bill, -with publication of a summary of the bill's prpoes Jp iertain journals, and 'with the depoit of plans and .documents. If the Examiners report that these Standing Orders are applicable and have been complied with, the second reading of the bill can be taken. When the Examiners report that the Standing Orders 'are .applicable but have not been complied with, their report is referred to the. Standing Orders Committee,,, who recommend whether compliance should be dis,pensed It may h,ppen, for example, that a hybrid bill. is not introduced at a su1ficient' early date for the 'Orders prescribing dates for the publication and service of potices to be complied with. In such a case, compliance with the S'tant1ing Orders would be dispensed, and the bill could proceed as a hybrid bill If the Standing 'Orders Committee recommend that compliance should not be dispensed, 'the order for second reading is discharged. If' the Examiriers re thatat 'none of the Standing Orders applies to the bill, it proceeds through its several stages as an ordinary public bill. 13. After ,second reading a hybrid bill is committed to a select, of in some cases a joint committee. The order of the House appointing the 'Com- rnittee provides that petitions against -the bill presented within a defluréd 1 eriod shall be referred to the Committee and that petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel or agents shall be heard against the bill, and counsel or agents heard in support of the bill. If objection is taken to the locus siandi of petitioners, the Committee decide the matter on 'the basis of previous decisions by the Court of Referees.

Appendix B, pp. X07, xo8. t Appendix A, 'p. i05 62573 ' A4

e4. Procediljte in committee has varied considerably acC9rdag. to the presence or absence of a preamble mil- the bill under cQnsideratien... In order to unUêrstafid why this has been so, it is necessary to bear in mind .that it *h§ on the pretext of examining the allegations contained -in the preambles Of biis that committees on private bills assumed ppwer to decide the ex- pedinhcy as well as the details of the bills. So, ivhcze a hybrid bill has had a preamble, procedure in the select committees has by extension been generally similar 'to the procedure of private bill; committees.*. Counsel for the promoters -has opened proceedings with a speech in. support of the expediency of the bill, calling evidence and commenting on petitions -against the bill. - The petitioners have then presented their case against the bill. If they called witnesses. or put in documentary -evidence, the promoters have been entitled to a right of reply. The Committee have then decided the expediency of the bill on the question whether the preamble had been proved, and have then considered the clauses, disposing of opposition to them In like sequence. 15. Where the bill has not contained a preamble, two courses have been oliowed. f In some cases, the promoters have .undertaken to establish the xpedjpcy of the bill, notwithstanding the absence of a preamble. In other ..cases no evidence has been adduced- inupport of expediency on the ground that as the bill contained no preamble, the priiciple of the bill must be ,taken as affirmed by the second reading in the. House. In presenting their - qase the petitioners have called in question the expediency of the bill, unless debarred from doing so by the committee. The committee have either, passed a resolution as to the expediency of the bill, or have immediately considered the clauses. 16. With unopposed bills, though on a few occasions evidence ha" s been called in 'support of the expediency of the bill, the preamble has generally -been formally proved, or, if there was no preamble the agent or counsel-for the promoters has confined himself to an exposition of the bill's provisions. The committee have either taken a decision as to the expediency of the bill or, more usually, have pass4t-directly to consider the clauses. i. When the committee has reported the bill, it is re-committed to a committee of the whole House, and passes through its remaining 'stages as a public bill. VI.The effect of the second reading of a hybrid bill. 18 The principle of a public bill is affirmed when the House has given it a second reading. From this usage stems the rule that no amendment 4estrucye of the principle of the bill may be moved in the comrittee to which t is referred. In reading a private bill for the second time, the House is by pracicé understood to convey nothing more than that the bill is not prima fade objectionable n public grounds; but any affirmation of principle is conditiOnal upon the allegations of the bill being proved before a private bill committee. Your Committee consider that neither doctrine can be applied inflexibly to all hybrid bills. In a particular jnstance it might blearly indicated in the course of the debate on second reading that the afffrmation of principle was conditional upon the finding of the select committee, that the expediency of the bill had been established. Again it would be open either to the Government or to private Members to put down Instructions to the select committee in which the expediency of the measure is specifically referred to the committee for investigation and decision. In the absence of any indication or instruction to the contrary, however, Your Committee consider that the second reading of a hybrid bill should relieve the promoters of the onus of establishing the expediency of the bill.

* Evidence) p. a, para 4. t Evidence, p. 3, paras. 5-7.

VA.Eurpose of cornmiuinga hybrid bill- to a select committee. 19. Since a hybrid bill by' definition affects paFtinularititetesin in a -manner different from all other interests in the same category, an opportunity riust be provided for those interests which have been singled. out to state fully their case for. amending tile bill, in order to secure their protection or compensation. This seems: to Your -Committee to- be the purpose of committing tue bill to a .select committee.. Unless otherwise instructed, the function of a select committee on a bill should, not he to conduct roving investigations into its general -merits. Your Committee cannot accept the view that "it is only before a select,committee' of the bir'. . . that Parliament for the first 'time is put in. a position to judge calmly the whole question and to ,thve at a decision which can be justified on the basia ,that the question in, lisp.ute has 'been .fully and fairly considered* ". If the proposition be accepted that the House could not form an opinion upon the merits of a hybrid bill and must delegate the function to a select committee, this would be an argument for committing a hybrid bill not to a committee of a forensic character, but to an ordinary select committee which would not be dependent for its facts on evidence furnished. by promoters and. petitioners pleading solely in favour ( . of their .private interests. The practice of giving select committees on- hybrid - bills power to send for persons, papers and records was, 'however,, discontinued by the House in order to prevent - such ,general inquiries being held, and, ±o: prevent committees from hearing parties who had not presented petitions against the bill. This confirms Your Committee in. -the view that the peculiar function of a select committee on a hybrid bill is to hear those affected parties who petition and to reduce as far as possible the hardship and inconvenience which would 'be inflicted on them if the bill passed into law.

VIII.Rights of Petitioners against a. hybrid bill. 20. The initiative in the select committee rests therefore with the petitioners, for it is to hear their case that the committee has been primarily convened. It does not follow that a petitioner's opposition to the bill 'should be Un- restridteci. It has been :represnted to Your Committee that the right of a petitioner to present, and to be heard upon, a petition against the bill is specifically given to him by the order of reference without any limiting con- ditionst". The fact thai: no limiting conditions are expressed in the orders does not mean that none is implied. One such condition is that the petitioner must have a locus standi to speak for some interest or property upon whii the bill impinges. Nor does it follow from the right of a petitioner to be heard, that he is enthied to be heard in support of all the allegations in his petition. Even in the case of private bills, it is' competent to a qqm- mittee to restrict petitioners as to the topics they may bring forward. So in the case of hybrid bills, Your Committee cannot see that any injustice is done to a petitioner, who is allowed to be heard only because his property or interest are affected by restraining him from urging objections which, if they were the only ones he had to urge, would not entitle him to be heard. 21. The validity of this conclusion may be tested by contrasting the rights of a petitioner against a hybrid bill with the rights of members of the general pub1i. It has been stated that only parties-with- a' lo-c-& standi will be heard by a.slect committee against a hybrid bill. A member of the general public may -'object to the bill but will not be heard, since the House will not 'take notice of persons, other' tha'Members, discussing the merits of public legislation. It is reasonable, therefore, that an interested petitioner should not be heard in his capacity as a member of the general public, and should not be permitted to urge objections which might equally well be urged by a Evidence, P. 72, pLta, Evidtmce, P. 56, para. x.

member of the general public. Your . oipnittq cpnsider,, in fact'', th.t a petitioner may no., aKgge .on, p4qtters which cannot give hm a locus standi. : Piin ope±atioxi of thi pi'op6a1 nlay b'e ilhistráte& by referene to 'the reeedihgs in 61ect cbntulttee on. tWc recent opposed' ihybfid , bijl,s.. In the ca'e of th6 Cable and Wireless Bill, 1946, the ,only petitioners,. Cable and' Wireless' Ltd., whose 'corhplein thdrtã.king Wast. to be.. acquired. by the State 'u1der the bill, Would have been debarred from questioulng; the thrits of"the bill as a iti6a5urê of publicpoitcy: on this they were no - -more and' no less' entitled. to- be heard than. any. member of the -general public Who 'objèdted tb the bill. They 'Wo'uld. have been ëntitled to i full tèrietit !of thedthage done to their ininrests 'arid of the hardship inflicted iip'Od' them; aiid' ;ther could h&ie' challthi'ged the terms of. compensation, qi eo'ght' pr'othdtibii; ftr any of.' their servants or enloyees, whidb wa in fát made the subject of a special 'report by the select cdm'mittee.. In the cá'se of' the Public Offices (Site)' Bill', 'I947, the two petitioners: against the Bill Were Laings Properties, Ltd., who owned: the site which the bill , pro- p'cised to acquire, and the LondOn Passenger Transport Board whose district railway ran dose to the site and was' liable to , be' affected; by 'the 'nature, of the loildirig' which the.' Government were proposing to erect. Throughout, the proceedings 'in the select committee'. the 'argrments of - both petitioners ±e- mamed within the limits imposed by their locus standt,, the one in seeking a. gatantee’ -ofjust terms of ofrpensatioi from 'the promoters the other in obtaining' a. protective' clause which 'insulated their :property frum possi- bifity 'of serious damage.

23. There remains1 the question whether, in the absep"e of any mitruction or intimation from the Rouse that the expediency of the WE should be proved before the committee, a petitioner should be allowed to traversp the principle of the' bill, where he can show that his locus stantli entities him to, do S9. This position would arise, for example,, where a. bill t acquire a parbcular site for a post Office or Public Ofice, encountered the resistance of the owner of tliat property Of all hybrid bills this type 6f '5il approxi- mates most nearly to a private bill, for although it is a puhht measure, since it e'manates from a. government department, it clearly does iot involve general and controversial princ iples of public policy in the same way as the Cable 'and 'SVir.eless Bill, the Traf.lgar Estates Bill or the B'anl4 of England Bill Before a select committee therefore a j?etitioner's plea tliat the gijury to his personal interests outweighs. the benefit which the whole community will derive from the proposed bill, assumes an altogether diffei'u1 importance relative to the 'pablic issues at stake. Your Committe.e consOr that such ' a petitioner, in pleading that nothing could compensate hkn f ar th d,ispossession of his land;' could properly suggest alternative site% just as he would be able to do before a committee on a private bill: in so doing he Would certainly be dall'ig in question the principle of the bill, which is the acquiio of his particular piece of prope't. 24. Your Committee realise that, in suggesting rules for the guidut"e df future select committees when hearing petitioners, they cannot hope to take acdount of every particiar case. The application of these rules to proedings of a, particular' bill be - isponsibilIty of each select eommitteq n particular,- the limits 'bf 'the Zocus stand of each petitioner and therekre of the arguments which he may properly lead', will be t the discretioi'df' the committee. Your Committee do not Co e'fht ji uialcing this e:Oui mendation they will be setting future select committees a task of insupenibl fficulty and they, ar strengthen,ed Ia this opinkn bythe concurrca1 of

~!1r Charl es Browne.

* Evidence, Qs. 593-597.

25. Nor lo Your Committee ap.preend that, Jf a ptti9ner is ppitd to traverse the principle - of the bill wh ere his locu stan4i entitles him tp,dp .o, any great complication will, arise If his’ase is upheld. Itr such a’ ce .the select committee have power to make a special .repot sathg thaj in thir view) 'the ;hardship infliptqd on the petitioner outweighs. the .advmtage likely to .acrL e to le public if the bill becomes law, leaving the liie, to tale what action 'it.deems fit.

TX.Order of Proeeeding in the 'selct committee. 26. Your Committee's recommendation that, in the absence of any instruction ror indication from the House to the contrary, the onus of provhg the expedienãy of the bill should be considered to have been removed from the promoters, makes necessary an alteration of the present order of proceedings in the select committee. As the purpose of the select committee is to hear the case of petitioners 'for amending the bill to secure their protectiQp and compensation, Yout . *.CommitteeCommittee believe that this case should be stated at the outset. The agent or counsel for the petitioner should open, ca.11h!g witnesses who would be examined, cross-examined and re-examined. The Agent or Counsel for the promoters would then reply to the case made out by the petitioners, and their witnesses would be examined in the same manner. If the promoters called witnesses or put in documentary evidence (but not otherwise), the petitioner would be entitled to a right of reply. 27. This method of proceeding, which would be a return to the older practice when petitioners were heard against bills at the bar of the House, seems to Your Committee to posss two decisive advantages. In the first place, it gives the first and, in most cases, the last word to the petitioner, for whom after all the select committee stage in hybrid bills is designed, thus setting the case for amending the bill in its true perspective. Secondly it must suit the convenience of the promoters, since, as Sir Thomas Barnes has pointed out,* they would be in a position to decide what evidence is necessary to meet the contentions of the petitioners, instead of, as at present, having witnesses, available to justify any and every part of the bill. Having suggested this manner of proceeding as a norm, Your Committee realise, however, that it must remain flexible. Clearly if the House 1 -equires the expediency of 'a particular bill to be investigated by the committee, the promoters would open the proceedings with a speech in support of the bill. Even where such an investigation is not to be held, a select committee might wish to hear from the promoters a brief summai'y of the provisions of the bill and the contents of the petitions, before the case was opened by the petitioners. The method of proceeding suggested by Your Committee should, in fine, remain subject to the will of each Lommittee and the requirements imposed by each bill.

X.The effect of the Pre amble on procedure in cozitte 28. 'Witnesses before Your Committee were in unanimous agreement that the presraee or absence of a preamble in a hybrid bill committed to a select committee should not influence the method of proceeding. Your Committee are dmposed to concur with this view. In considrthg the preamble, Your Com ittee have been convinced that they were 'handling a piece of legislative formt with a distinnithedpast 'rather than a promising future. In public bills, its survil is al+ea' '~etigial. In hybrid bills, the statistics of bills with and without a preamble (in the twentieth century)foreshaduw its ultimate disappeaTance-f Even iñ privaite bills, preambles though invariably prese.n are so summarily drafted that it is frequently difficult to discover any reference

:gvidence, p. 9,5, .par. I . f E'ddenes, P. 85,

iiii thOrn 'to a part of the bill which 'is being contested by the petitioner. 'Moreover; Your Committee have fouid no uniformity of content in the pr6alnblès of'hybrid bills'. Some, but not all, have recited the expediency of en- acting the bill; ’others’have statOd’ the factsor some of themon which the bill Ws allegedly based; Others have simply been used as'.depositries for thatter Which ctild not usefully be inserted elsewhere in--the bill’. Finally Your Committee 'have the authority of Mr. (now Sir Alan)- Ellis for the statement that, apart from the reasons of ceremony or drafting convenience, the presence or absence of a. preamble in a 'hybrid bill is entirely cap ricious.* 29. Your Committee consider therefore that the preamble would be too shifting a foundation on which to erect a procedural structure. They are inclined to agree that if the allegations of a prearnlle in a hybrid bill had to be proved befo'e the select committee, promoters might be tempted' to omit preambles in order to escape the obligation of proof. 'Nor do Your Committee favour the guggestion. that all 1bills should contain 'pream.bles reciting ex- ’pediency, as this proposal derives from the premisewhich Your Committee ’cannot acc,eptthat the expediency of a hybrid bill would noi’nially be’piOved Wore the' select committee. 30. As far as the petitioner is concerned, Your Committee wish. to see ,the preambleif there be oneplaced on a. footing of equality with the’ clauses of the ,bill. Discussion, of it wo'ul'd not - be ruled -_ ut; nor would its contents be, exempted from the challenge of ,a petitioner whose locus standi all-owed him to do so. If it were challenged in this way it would normally be considered by the committee before the clauses,; if not, it would be postponed, 'together with uncontr6versial clauses, until opposition to the disputed parts of the' 'bill JiácT been settled. It would then be amended if necessary, to conform with alterations mad to the bill. -

XI.Unopposed Hybrid Bills - z. A cleavage of opinion existed among two of 'qur Committee's witnesses on the question whether the double commit-tee stage should be retained for hybrid bills against which no petitions have been deposited. On the one hand,, it was submitted that, as the object of the committing of hybrid bills 'to a lelect committee. was to give private persons :injuriously affected an opportunity of stating their case, there could be no point in sending tills which were -not opposed to select cothftees. t OjR the other hand, it was thought possible that the owner of a property affected by the provisions of a hybrid bill 'might not petition against the bill owing to lack ,pf means or for any other reson; and it was stigg'èsted that, even, though the' bill, be unopposed, the affirmative evidence should 'be given by the promoters.' 32. If affirmative evidence "is given by the promotersp it could only be directed: towards establishing the expediericy of a bill, and Your Committee ,have already recommended that the onus of proving expediency is removed from the promoters by the second reading, in the absence of any intimation from the House to the contrary. In the case of unopposed hybrid bills, .moreover, Your are. confirmed in this recommendation y the weight of precedent: §- on at least four occasions,, the select committee stage hag been dispeed -with altogether; on several occasions, no proof -tf the expediency of the bill has 'been given; and inrry o'ther"cases. the .expediency of the bill has only been, formally proved', noe%lence being adduced except ,a witness who 'tesified, that he had read the preamble and that it was true..

240. ' ' P. 56, para. 14. t Evidence, P. 9. para. 27. § Evidence, p 2, para; 4, and p'. 3, pam. 6.

33. There remains the question whethei a select committee can do duty for petitionersif there be anywho do not appear by virtue of ignorance, poverty, or absence or other reasons. As to ignorance, Your Committee are satisfied from the evidence of Sir Thomas Barnes, that the fullest efforts are made by the Government even before a bill is in draft to consult with interests known to be affected; and they are convinced that anyone else concerned would learn of the impact of the bill upon his property from the notices which have to be given under the Standing Orders relating to Private Business. Com- pliance with these orders has already been proved to the satisfaction of the Examiners before the second reading of the bill can be taken. As to poverty, absence and cognate reasons, a member of a itzlect committee is faced with the insuperable difficulty of speaking for petitioners whose existence is at best hypothetical on a subject about which he has no information save that which has been tendered by the promoters. The committee can in effect do little more than duplicate work which has already been done by the Examiners. Any amendment which might be offered by a Member in the select committee on an unopposed bill could equally be proposed in committee of the whole House. Your Committee therefore recommend that the select committee is dispensed with in the case of unopposed hybrid bills, that a proviso in the terms suggested by Mr. Abraham* be added to the order (.) referring petitions presented against the bill to the committee.

XII ...Summary of Recommendations 34. Your Committee's recommendations may be summarised as follows:- (i) Subject to any instruction or indication by the House referring the expediency of a 'hybrid bill to a select committee for investigation and decision, the second reading should be considered to remove from the promoters the onus of ,proving the expediency of the bill; (paragraph 18). () A petitioner against a hybrid bill, who can only be heard by virtue of his locus standi, may not argue on matters which cannot give him a IL cus standi; (paragraphs zo and ci). () Provided that his arguments do not exceed his locus standi, a petitioner may traverse the principle of the bill; (paragraph 23). () The limits of the locus standi of, each petitioner and, therefore, of the arguments which he may properly 'adduce should be decidec, where necessary, 'by the select committee to which the bill is committed; (paragraph 24). () The onus of proving expediency having been removed from the promoters, the petitioner should open to the committee, calling uch evidence as he wishes. The promoters would then answer the petitioner's case calling evidence and, if they did so, entitling the petitioner to a right of reply. Procedure in committee would, however, be flexible, remaining subject to the will of the committee and the requirements imposed by each bill; ,(.paragraphs 26 and 27). (6) The presence or absence of a preamble in the bill under consideration should not affect the method of proceeding in committee. The 'ontents of a preamble would not be exemft Ifrtm the challenge of a petitioner whose locus sandi allowed him to do so; (paragraphs 28 to 30). (7) As the pprpse,,o.committing hybrid bills to a select committee is to give those whose- nerests are specially affected an opportunity of stating their case, hybrid bills against which no petition has been lodged should be coh'miitted to n. committee of the whole House without being sent in the first instance to a select committee; (paragraphs 31 to 33). - ' * P. g, para. 27,

House of Commons Parliamentary Papers Online. Copyright (c) 2006 ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 1 of 23

Search Help HANSARD 1803-2005 -* 1940s -* 1949p February 1949 --> 14 February 1949 -* Commons Sitting HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE)

HC Deb 14 February 1949 vol 461 cc 791-838

Ordered: 'That the Report from the Select Committee on Hybrid Bills (Procedure in Committee) be now considered. "[Mr. H. Morrison.]’

Report considered accordingly.

3.42 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison) I beg to move: 'That the recommendations contained in the Report from the Select Committee on Hybrid Bills (Procedure in Committee) in Session 1947-48 be approved, subject to the qualification that a Bill against which no Petition has been lodged may be committed either to a Committee of the Whole House or to a Standing Committee, as the House may determine.' From time to time we in this House, like people in houses everywhere, have to spare a few minutes to do a bit of spring cleaning. We have to sweep away any dust that has accumulated and tidy out all the corners. That is what the House is respectfully invited \( ) to do in relation to this important Report of the Select Committee. The Report which we are inviting the House to approve is really a piece of Parliamentary spring cleaning, and the dusty corner we want to start to sweep out is our procedure for handling hybrid Bills on the Committee stagethat is, those Bills which are public Measures but which also affect private interests in such a way that we apply to them our Standing Orders and procedure relating to private business.

We have had before us in the last few years quite a number of hybrid Bills, some important, some relatively unimportant; and I have no doubt that more will be needed in years to come The House will remember that the irii of England Bill was a hybrid Bill; so was the Cable and Wireless Bill, in relation to which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave evidence at some length before the Select Committee; and so was the Trafalgar Estates Bill; and there have been many others. Among others before the war was the London Passenger Transport Bill which had quite a lengthy hearing before the Select Committee, with a great assembly of learned counsel and expert witnesses. I remember in connection with that Bill, which I introduced as Minister of Transport, that I myself was called out of a Cabinet meeting and required to give evidence on that Bill at the request of its opponents. I am afraid I had very little notice to prepare my case, but it was a most interesting experience for two days, and I think a good time was had by all. Anyway we got the Bill through Committee, and, in the end, it was amended and passed by the National Government that followed in 1933

All these hybrid Bills start in this House in the same way as other public Bills, that is to say, they have a Second Reading, in the course of which we discuss the general policy and principle of whatever is proposed in the Bill. But next, under our present procedure, the Bill is usually committed to a Select Committee, before which anyone whose interests are specially affected may appear and petition against the provisions of the Bill. This is most important, and I think the whole House will agree that we must uphold the right of those individuals, undertakings and public authorities directly concerned to appear and to be heard before the Select Committee. This is all straightforward and sensible.

The part of the procedure which has become untidy is the extent to which the person petitioning against a hybrid Bill in this way may attack the public policy which inspires the Bill. In other words, can someone whose interests are affected contest only its provisions which directly affect him, or can he attack the whole principle upon which the Bill is based and which, of course has by that time had a Second Reading in one of the Houses of Parliament? At the moment, of course, we are dealing with this House. There is another question closely connected with this one. Is it the responsibility of the promoter of the Bill, who is usually, but not always, a Minister of the Crown, to prove to the Select Committee that the Bill as a whole is expedient, or can he rely on the fact that the House has given it a Second Reading and regard this question as closed?

http://hansard.millbanksystems.conilcommons/ 1949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 2 of 23

In practice these questions have been largely answered over the last 100 years according to whether or not the Bills have had Preamblesa question which has often depended on no more than a personal preference and the drafting technique of the draftsman. This might not have been a matter of any great importance if it had been merely a question of untidiness, but variations in the procedure, and the uncertainty which they have cast on the whole question of the true functions of these Select Committees, have been a source of difficulty to the Committees themselves and have undoubtedly been unsatisfactory for the House as a whole.

It was as a result of this state of affairs that the House in December, 1947, appointed a Select Committee to go into the whole question of procedure in Select Committee on hybrid bills. I think I shall be speaking for all parts of the House when I say we are grateful to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) and his colleagues on the Select Committee for their labours. They have had to examine in detail the past practice and a wealth of conflicting precedents, and to ferret out from them the principles on which they appear to have been based. The conclusions they reached and the suggestions they made for reforming the procedure are clearly set out in the Report which is now before us. The Government have studied this Report with interest and care, and we think it is a good Report. I hope and expect that the House as a whole will agree that it is a good one. There is one small point to which I shall come in a minute, on which we have a slight further refinement to suggest, but the Report as a whole has our entire approval.

The doctrine on which the Report proceeds must, I think, be agreed by everyonefirst, that the functions of a Select Committee are those which the House expressly delegates to it; second, that the purpose of committing a hybrid Bill to a Select Committee is to give an individual whose interests are specially affected a chance to state his case and defend his interestsa right, of course, we wish to preserve. Those are the two basic principles which underlie the recommendations in the Report which we are considering. The first and main recommendation is none the worse, I think, for being a compromise. It is a compromise between two different forms of procedure which we adopt. There is the procedure of public Bills whereby the principle of a Bill is taken to have been affirmed by Second Reading and cannot be questioned in Committee. There is the practice we follow on private Bills when we use the Second Reading merely to convey that there is no serious objection to the Bill on public grounds, leaving the affirmation of the expediency of the Bill to be approved before a Private Bill Committee. The hybrid Bill is somewhere half-way between the ordinary public Bill and the private Bill, and so it is not very surprising that the procedure we recommend the House to adopt lies somewhere half-way between the two forms of practice which I have just described.

What is suggested is that unless the House especially instructs a Committee that it has to investigate and decide on the expediency of a hybrid Bill, the Second Reading is to be taken as conveying the approval of the House to the principle of the Bill, so that the promoters will not be required to prove its expediency to the Select Committee, and an objector will not be allowed to argue against its expediency except as it affects him especially. But if, as may happen in some cases, the House thinks that the Bill ought to be treated more on the lines of a private Bill, then the House can arrange for the procedure to be modified accordingly. This is the main recommendation in the Report, and we commend it to the House as providing a far more certain and logical method of procedure than the present anomalous practices.

I shall not discuss the other recommendations which the Select Committee have made, since these are clearly summarised at the end of the Report, and also, I gather that the chairman of the Committee will hope to do so in the course of this discussion. The slight refinement to which I referred earlier, and which is mentioned in the Motion I have moved, relates to the seventh and last of the Committee's recommendations. The purpose of committing a Bill to a Select Committee is to allow anyone especially affected to prepare and voice his objections. The Report, bearing this in mind, makes what we think is a very sensible recommendation, that if no one petitions against a Bill, the Select Committee stage is unnecessary, and the Bill can go straight on to the next stage. This seems to be sound and reasonable. The Standing Orders relating to private business, providing for the publication of the notice of persons appearing to be specially affected, give them an opportunity to lodge petitions and to be heard if they so wish. Apart from this, the ordinary practices of consulting at an early stage all interests likely to be affected by a hybrid Measure give everyone an ample opportunity to make themselves heard or to seek to be heard.

The refinement which we think may be added is that, in such cases, the House should have the option of committing the Bill either to a Committee of the whole House or to a Standing Committee. When I say "such cases," I mean cases in which no petitions are promoted against the Bill and, therefore, the Bill does not proceed to a Select Committee. We have to consider what is the next stage, and obviously the next stage is the ordinary Committee stage which would

http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/ 1949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 3 of 23

apply to a public Bill. We think that the House should be free, according to the nature of the appeal and the wishes of the House, either to take the Bill on the Floor or commit the Bill to a Standing Committee upstairs. There are some Hybrid Bills which could appropriately be considered by Standing Committee, and we feel it would be convenient to the House to have this option. I do not think that this refinement, which aims at keeping the procedure flexible, goes against anything which the Select Committee have in mind. Indeed, on reading their report, I wondered if they had not perhaps intended to make this part of their recommendations.

With this small but, as we thought, useful addition, I invite the House to give the Report its approval. I have spoken quite shortly on the Report of the Select Committee, but I thought it right that a brief statement should be made on a matter of this character, which has some effect upon private rights, and I hope that, with that short explanation and any observations which hon. Members may wish to make, the House will be good enough to agree to the Motion which I have moved.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford) The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if this were an ordinary spring-cleaning or tidying-up Measure, to use his own words, as the House, by almost universal agreement, was accustomed to indulge in from time to time in order to bring their Measures up to date. I hope that hon. Members of this House who have not read the Report will not be deceived by that statement. This Report, in parts, involves a major change in our machinery, and the dusty corner which the right hon. Gentleman said that we were now engaged in tidying up is one of the few remaining corners where private rights can be preserved, and where the benefit of these private rights to the public interest can also be preserved.

There are some parts of the Report with which we on the Opposition Benches do not quarrel. The right hon. Gentleman made reference to the presence or absence of a Preamble. He referred to the London Passenger Transport Act. I believe that in that case counsel for the Government declared that there was a notional Preamble and commented on it along those lines. But that illustrates that the Preamble has ceased to have the importance which it used to have, and we on these benches do not quarrel with the view that the presence or absence of a Preamble should not affect the procedure in Committee. However in other respects, and in one major respect, there was certainly no unanimity on the Committee.

As the right hon. Gentleman was commending the Report to the House, perhaps it would have been a little better if he had mentioned the fact that there were two Divisions on the Select Committee, and the two Opposition Members, of whom I was one and the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) was the other, supported the minority Amendment. We did not accept the view that this is merely a piece of small administrative machinery. We believe that private rights are going to be seriously curtailed and through these private rights being curtailed the State will suffer. It is a very important proposal indeed, and the Report and this Motion approving it are of considerable Parliamentary importance. Hon. Members who have done us the credit of reading the Report, will notice the evidence of Sir Charles Browne, the very distinguished Parliamentary Agent and, indeed, the Government's own agent. He said: ’If’’ as the result of this Select Committee’s activities ’the terms of the order of reference were altered so as to give a petitioner only a conditional right of opposition, I think that would be a material alteration of the practice of the House.' In our view this is happening. What we are now discussing is a material alteration in the practice of the House.

The Lord President of the Council referred to the London Passenger Transport Bill. As Minister of Transport he had two days in the witness box being cross-examined at very short notice and in great detail on the details of the Bill, and also on the policy behind it, but no one at that time suggested that petitioners should be stopped from challenging the principles of public policy involved in the Bill. Had this Report been accepted by the House before that Bill came before the Hybrid Bills Committee, that procedure would not have been possible, and in all probability the chairman would have ruled that the House had given unconditional approval to the principles of the Bill, and would have limited what any petitioner might say to the areaif I can describe it in that wayof the petitioner’s own locus standi.

Mr. H. Morrison I quite agree with what the hon. Member is saying; he is quite right. I intervene only to say that from a purely selfish point of view I should have been exceedingly sorry to miss that experience: they were two of the most enjoyable days of my life. http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/1 949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 4 of 23

Mr. Lennox-Boyd Then in the un-likely event of the right hon. Gentleman's party ever providing Ministers to be cross- examined again, I think it is a little harsh of him to deprive them of such future pleasures.

Since that Bill we have had a further Bill: the Cable and Wireless Act. That was a hybrid Bill; a Bill of enormous importance, of great international significance, the full consequences of which this country has not yet wholly realised. On the Committee stage of that Bill before the Select Committee, while the chairman certainly indicated that he did not require from the promoters detailed evidence in support of the Bill, he madeas the hon. Gentleman who was chairman well remembers himselfno attempt whatever to challenge the petitioners from advancing arguments against the expediency of the Bill. They were allowed to do so, and indeed did so at considerable length. It would no longer be possible to do this, and the freedom allowed to private interests, genuinely believing they were serving the public advantage, could not now take place if a strict interpretation of this Report guides future chairmen of Committees.

The more important of the two Amendments which my hon. Friend and I moved to this Report can be found on page 17. It was our view that a petitioner 'should not be debarred from advancing any argument tending to show: either that the justice done to himself and other particular persons in a similar position to or associated with himself is so great as to outweigh any public advantage,' or that the alleged public advantage relied upon by the promoters to justify the interference with private rights is insufficient for the purpose, or both of these contentions. It is the view of the Conservative Party that once a petitioner has established his locus standi, there are very few limiting conditions that should be imposed upon what he can say. His petition is lodged "against the Bill"that is the time-honoured phrase: not against one particular aspect of the Bill, but "against the Bill."

It is, of course, one of our chief criticisms of this proposed change in our machinery that it is unfair to private rights, and a hybrid Bill is a quasi-private Bill. But this is not our only contention. It is our contention, as I have said, that the public interest suffers by curtailing these private rights. The effect of some of the recommendations in this Report is to make rules which will in future prevent petitioners putting forward arguments to protect the public interest. In the case, for example, of the Cables and Wireless Act, to which I have made reference, the company put forward arguments which were not known to the House as a whole, and which it was in the public interest that the House should know; and undisclosed facts emerged before the Committee which might have made many lion. Members question whether the Bill should have had a Second Reading at all.

There is another and a very important point to which my hon. Friends and I attach a great deal of importance. Since the sitting of this Committee, I have read and re-read the Report with great care, and I must confess that I am now seriously concerned with what is the petitioner's right if he wants to claim that he should be excluded from the operations of a future hybrid Bill. Paragraph 19 provides that an opportunity must be afforded for those whose interests have been singled out for treatment to state fully their case for amending the Bill in order to secure their protection or compensation. Those are the important words: 'in order to secure their protection or compensation.' Paragraph 26 repeats those words "protection or compensation," and words of rather similar form were used by the right hon. Gentleman only a few moments ago.

Now, does this emphasis on protection and compensation imply that no petitioner will in future be entitled to contend that he should be excluded from a Bill? Would he be now prevented from claiming that he be excluded from a Bill? If the right hon. Gentleman could give us some guidance on that at this point it would, I think, make the Debate a little more profitable. He has had a little more notice about this Debate today than he had at the time of the London Passenger Transport Bill, and I should be very grateful if he could answer this: would a petitioner be entitled to claim before the Select Committee that he be excluded from the operations of a Bill? After all, in the case of the Iron and Steel Bill he had a little longer to make up his mind; a large number of concerns were, in the Bill itself, excluded from the operations of the Bill. The Iron and Steel Bill was saved only by a last minute Amendment from itself becoming a hybrid Bill and being treated as such. It would, I think, be a little absurd for the Bill to exclude certain firms but for a petitioner to be prevented from moving for his own exclusion when it goes before a Hybrid Bills Committee. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that question? It would help if we could know at this stage.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall) As I understand the hon. Gentleman's question, it is whether a petitioner, supposing he has an objectionand he is not the only one who might object; he has rights, but

http;//hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/1 949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 5 of 23

his rights are particular and peculiar to himselfwould be permitted to petition so far as he himself is concerned, without others who might be joined with him. I think the answer is: most certainly, if he has locus standi.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd And having locus standi, he would be allowed to claim and argue that he be excluded from the operations of the Bill?

Mr. Glenvil Hall Quite obviously.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd I am very glad to hear that. That is of very considerable importance from the point of view of the liberty of the subject. My first question is, Is there any ground on which it can be seriously contended that, where a Private Bill affects the interests of six persons, one of them cannot seek exclusion from the Bill? To that we have had an answer that there is no ground; one of the six can claim exclusion from the Bill. But now, if such a one is entitled to claim exclusion, then it surely is absurd to say that all six, if there were six interests affected, cannot claim exclusion from the Bill because they would be challenging the whole principle of the Bill. So, if all six, assuming six firms were involved, can claim exclusion from the Bill it would then be our contention that if only one interest, one firm, or one individual, is affected by a hybrid Bill, that single firm, or individual, or interest, can itself claim exclusion from the Bill, and therefore argue against the expediency of the Bill.

Mr. H. Morrison No. I am speaking on the spur of the moment, of course, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. Supposing there is provision in a Bill which affects six undertakings, six businessesI am giving a quick answer, and ’( ) I hope I am rightthen I should have thought the whole six could appear, or that any one of the six could appear and argue their case. I should have thought that the argument, under the decision I am asking the House to approve, would be in relation to the specific undertaking with which the petitioner was associated; but I do not think that he would be permitted to argue against the expediency of the Bill in the sense of inviting the Select Committee to reject the Bill, because we take the view that the Bill has already been approved by the House on Second Reading, and that it would be wrong to permit a continuing power of the Select Committee in the case of a hybrid Bill to take action which would amount to the rejection of the Bill which the House had passed.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd We are now in rather a difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that if one petitioner asks to be excluded he can argue in favour of his exclusion, and I said that it would surely be monstrously unjust to prevent all six doing that, on the ground that if all six of them did so it would challenge the expediency of the Bill. Now if six interests are allowed to do that, there is no reason why a single interest should not be allowed to do so. This shows the difficulty in which we are landing ourselves, and before the Debate comes to an end some of my hon. Friends will, no doubt, press for further information on this point, because it is of fundamental importance.

I took it that the word "protection," when dealing with paragraph 19 covered the claim of exclusion, but if that is not the case, our agreement to Clause 19 would not have been given. The argument of any petitioner for exclusion must () surely amount to an argument that it is not in the public interest that he should be included. We are now told by the Financial Secretary that a single petitioner out of six can claim exclusion from the Bill, on the grounds, presumably, that it is not in the public interest that he should be included.

Mr. Glenvil Hall No. As I understand it, the grounds of his complaint are that it would be unfair to him; that his private rights are affected by the Bill and therefore, so far as he is concerned, and in so far as his private rights are concerned, he obviously would be at perfect liberty to appear to put his case. But that surely is a different thing from going over the whole policy underlying the expediency of the Bill as it has passed its Second Reading in the House.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd It is a little difficult for the right hon. Gentleman and myself to carry this to a satisfactory conclusion by question and answer, but what is right for one petitioner is surely right for all six petitioners, if each has a case as good as the others. If all six are allowed to claim exclusion, what is the position if there is only one firm or individual affected by the Bill, say, Lord Nelson in the case of the Trafalgar Estates Measure? If Lord Nelson had been allowed to claim exclusion from the Bill, would that not be doing something fundamental to the whole principle of the Bill?

Mr. Morrison I see the point. It is a perfectly fair and logical point. Presumably all these questions as to who is entitled to appear will be a matter for the interpretation of the Standing Orders by the Select Committee concerned. It

http://hansard.mjllbanksystems.comjconmions/1 949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 6 of 23

is not for me to tell the Select Committee what they will have to do. I am merely indicating what is the common sense interpretation of the Motion I am moving. If it be the case that there are six petitioners covering the whole of the undertakings concerned in a Bill, or one petitioner as in the case of Lord Nelson and the Trafalgar Estates Bill, and they disagree, then, if their petition to omit the operative Clause of the Bill is upheld, it will kill the Measure. I do not dissent from that, but I do not wish them to have power under this Motion to challenge the expediency of the Bill. I agree that there may be cases where, if a petitioner were upheld, it would destroy the Bill, and I do not want to interfere with their rights at all.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd The tidying up process is being carried a stage further, and I think we are beginning to see some way in which private interests may be more adequately protected in the future. But, in arguing for exclusion, the individual, be he one or six, the individual must be allowed to argue that the public interest which included him has been wrongly assessed and that the damage he is to suffer far outweighs any public interest involved. My hon. Friend and I moved an Amendment to that effect, and if that Amendment had been included in this Report, it might have had a unanimous passage. The majority of the Select Committee say that a petitioner should be allowed to traverse the principle of the Bill only when he can show his locus standi entitles him to do so. It means that the chairmen of Hybrid Bill Committees in future will have to define each particular area of locus for each petitioner. Interminable discussions are likely to take place on this in the future instead of on the merits of the Bill. In an effort to tidy up our machinery we shall have got ourselves into deeper difficulties.

I should like to make one brief point on compensation. There are a great many people who do not value that which they are engaged upon, by monetary considerations. It is of course important that when ruthless things are done by the State proper compensation should be paidwhen people see their life’s work confiscated and their businesses closed down. If compensation were the only thing that mattered and the only purpose of referring a hybrid Bill to a Select Committee as some people seem to think, then there would be scarcely any reference of hybrid Bills to Select Committees because every hybrid Bill includes provisions for the question of compensation to be referred to the arbitration of an independent tribunal. Therefore, to that extent compensation comes outside the discussion of the Select Committee.

As I have indicated, we cannot accept the Motion as it stands, or the Report as it is finally issued. That is not to say that we did not have a harmonious and friendly discussion in the Committee, which was of the greatest interest to me personally. We differed on a fundamental point, and it is that fundamental point I have been trying to explain today. It is true that this Report is only a guidance for future chairmen, but naturally and properly, they will pay considerable regard to it. They will I hope pay just as much regard to some of the statements that have come from the Government Front Bench in the course of this Debate. Although this Report is only a guidance to chairmen of Select Committees, there is a clear indication running through it that the petitioner should be entitled to challenge the expediency of a Bill only in the most unusual circumstances. The tendency in future will be to weight the scales still further against the private citizen.

As to paragraph 20, against which we divided in the Committee, there was much expert evidence tendered to us against it in the course of our proceedings. The leader of the Parliamentary Bar, speaking, he said, for all of his colleagues, opposed the principle of curtailment of discussion. The first Parliamentary Counsel to the Treasury took the same view, as well as the Parliamentary Agent to the Government. There was a very formidable battery of information and experience against what has emerged in paragraph 20.

It is our regretful conclusion that the Report as finally drafted will do a grave injustice, will harm the State, and will leave resentment in the minds of many petitioners who will feel that they have not been allowed to talk. There appears to be a strange refusal to face the view that a Committee can hear evidence without being obliged to listen to it or take it seriously. But if a man is refused permission to give evidence, there is permanent resentment after the hearing is over. It almost looks as if the Government are frightened to allow members of their party to hear evidence because they are uncertain of the conclusions to which those members may come. It may cause Bills that have been finalised to be reversed later on. People will argue that there was no full and frank discussion at the time of the Select Committee. It will cause petitioners undoubtedly to leave the defence of their own private interests and their public duties to another place, where the rules of procedure will be more generous to people who are threatened in their

http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/1 949/feb/ 14/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 7 of 23

private capacities, or through their private capacity in their possible contribution to the State. Aimed at preventing private rights holding up the national will, it will end by harming both private rights and the national interests.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Benson (Chesterfield) When the Select Committee met to consider the Procedure on Hybrid Bills they discovered that the origin of hybrid Bills was wrapped in obscurity and that there never had been any attempt either to formulate the purposes for which a Committee on a hybrid Bill was appointed or the procedure that it should adopt. When we came to examine the precedents we found that they were so conflicting, and in certain cases so irrational, that they offered us no guide whatever. In some respects this position simplified our task, for it enabled us to start with a clean sheet in deciding what was the purpose of setting up a Committee on a hybrid Bill, and having decided that, to formulate procedure which should be the most suitable to achieve that purpose.

The purpose of a hybrid Bill is set out in paragraph 19 of our Report, where it is stated: 'Since a Hybrid Bill, by definition, affects particular interests in a manner different from all other interests in the same category, an opportunity must be provided for those interests which have been singled out to state fully their case for amending the Bill in order to secure their protection or compensation.'

Mr. Mannin,gham-Buller (Daventry) It does not bring in the point that it is in order to secure their exclusion from the Bill.

Mr. Benson The idea of exclusion was never for a moment considered by the Committee because it had not at that moment arisen. It is not for me definitively to interpret this Report, nor is it for the Lord President of the Council. This Report, if accepted by the House, will have to be interpreted by future Select Committees according to the situation which arises. There can be no definitive interpretation. That was the decision of the Committee as to the purpose of a hybrid Bill and that decision was accepted by all Members. There was no Division and, so far as I can remember, there was little or no criticism of paragraph 19.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd In order not to give the impression that I supported something on the Committee and afterwards attacked it, perhaps I may say that at the time one assumed that protection covered exclusion from the Bill; and, of course, at the time one was hoping to carry the Government on the side of paragraph 20, which was coming on shortly afterwards. If there are doubts in the minds of the hon. Member, I am reassured by the right hon. Gentleman from the Government Front Bench, who was much more encouraging.

Mr. Benson I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman assumed that exclusion was covered by protection, because nobody had thought in terms of exclusion in those days. It was a great piece of foresight on the part of the hon. Gentleman. Certainly, exclusion can be included in protection, but that again is a matter for the Committee considering a particular Bill.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South) At a later stage in the Report it is specifically stated that with certain types of Bill it would be necessary for the petitioner to ask to be excluded in order to get any protection at all.

Mr. Benson I shall deal with the rights of a petitioner in a moment. In fact, I think it follows logically upon our decision as to the purpose of a Committee on a hybrid Bill. We have had a very long discussion on what were the rights of the petitioner, particularly in respect of his right to challenge the basic principle of a Bill. As the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) said, that point arose because we had had, in Cables and Wireless, an example of a Committee on a hybrid Bill being used for little more than a Second Reading Debate. It is true, that as Chairman of the Committee, I did not pull the petitioner up on that occasion, because we have no precedents available to us to prevent it.

Mr. Manningham-Buller The hon. Gentleman should remember that others were serving on that Committee as well as he.

Mr. Benson Yes, I know, and I think I said, "We had not," or at least I intended to do so. There were no precedents available to the Committee to say whether that was or was not a correct Procedure on the part of the petitioners.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/1 949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 8 of 23

The Committee as a whole accepted the principle that a hybrid Bill was a public Bill. They accepted also the principle that a Second Reading of a hybrid Bill was an acceptance by the House of the principle of the Bill. Iwould refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Amendment moved by his colleagues, which will be found on page xvii, in which the Movers say, talking of the petitioner: 'He should not in general be allowed to develop a case that the Bill is bad in principle as being contrary to the public interest as such: to do so would be merely to arrogate to himself the proper function of a Member of Parlament.' It goes on to say something which I wholeheartedly commend: 'On the other hand, a petitioner should not be debarred from advancing any argument tending to show. . .that the injustice or damage done to himself and other particular persons in a similar position to or associated with himself is so great as to outweigh any public advantage.' As a matter of fact that principle is also embodied in the Report of the majority.

Mr. Manningham-Buller indicated dissent.

Mr. Benson Why was an Amendment moved, when the whole principle involved was embodied in the Report? The more one studies the majority Report, if one may so call it, and the Amendment, the more narrow the line between us becomes. If hon. Members will look at paragraph 25 they will find there exactly the same principle embodied in the Report of the Committee. There was little between the Report and the Amendment except perhaps of phraseology.

On both sides of the Committee there was a desire that there should be the right of the Select Committee to give the widest opportunity in certain cases. There are cases where, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford has said, compensation does not meet the case. There may be an immensely powerful sentimental association which has been broken. Compensation might not be suitable. There might be the case of a piece of land where severance does very considerable damage, and again compensation might net be suitable. In those cases the petitioner ought to be able to argue that the damage done to him outweighs the advantage to the State, but that is an entirely different thing from saying that every petitioner can come along and challenge the fundamental principle of the Bill and turn the Select Committee stage into a Second Reading Debate as did Cable and Wireless. In view of the guidance which the Report gives future Select Committees, I am certain that if Naboth had had an opportunity of bringing the case of his vineyard before a Select Committee on a hybrid Bill, the very widest facilities would have been given to him to oppose the unfortunate outcome of the proceedings. Save in phraseology the principle in the Report is identical with that in the Amendment.

I want to deal with a point concerning the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford, and it relates to the question whether a hybrid Bill against which there are no petitioners should or should not be sent to a Select Committee. I want to say in respect of our recommendation that there was no question in the mind of any member of the Committee about whether if we recommended that the Select Committee stage should be dropped, the Bill should go to a Committee of the whole House only. We never considered that point. As a matter of fact, we were not competent to consider it because it was outside our terms of reference which were strictly limited to the procedure of the Select Committee and not subsequent stages of the Bill.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth As to the rider added by the Governmentthat it should be possible to send an unopposed Bill either to a Committee of the whole House or to a Standing CommitteeI do not think any of my hon. Friends have any objection to it. Our objection is quite different.

Mr. Benson I was only making it clear that I thought the Government looked at the mere summary of our recommendations and not the recommendations themselves on this point.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd I hope they read the whole Report.

Mr. Benson I hope they did. It seems to me that to drop the Select Committee stage where there are no petitioners is a logical derivation from the purpose which was unanimously accepted by the Committee and that was to give an opportunity for petitioners to state their case. I am prepared to admit that logic is not everything. That equity and justice shall be done is considerably more important. However, I am not sure that the purpose of equity or justice will be served by the retention of a Select Committee stage where there are no petitions. If there are no petitions I do not see what the Select Committee can do. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford has suggested that the Committee might satisfy themselves that no interest had failed to petition as a result of carelessness, incapacity or expense, but I am not

http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/ 1949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 9 of 23

sure how they could find out. There will be the witnesses for the promoters, but I am not sure that the promoters will know why the various interests have failed to petition.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew (Ayr and Bute, Northern) Surely the Unopposed Bill Committee would be in the same difficulty? Yet we do not have that difficulty upstairs.

Mr. Benson But does the Unopposed Bill Committee know that Bills are unopposed?

Sir C. MacAndrew They are not opposed.

Mr. Benson Exactly. I suggest that if the Select Committee stage of hybrid Bills is maintained when there is no opposition, the Committee has nothing to do. We shall not be able to find out what it is suggested by the Amendment we ought to find out, why the interests have failed to petition against the Bill. The only way the promoters could find out why interests have failed to petition would be to write round to them and say, "You have failed to petition. Please tell us why."

Suppose the interests replied that they did not petition because of carelessness, incapacity or expense and suppose those answers were put before the Select Committee, what would the Select Committee do? It is not in a position to do anything. If the Committee got answers like that they might themselves attempt to represent the interests which had failed to petition. But how? The Committee would not know what questions to ask, and there is no reason to suppose that if they did know the promoters would be able to give them the answers. Even if a Select Committee on a hybrid Bill had power to send for papers and persons, which it has not, in order to enable it to conduct its investigations, immediately there would arise the problem of what papers and what persons should be sent for. The only answer is, "The interests concerned," and in effect the proposal would then be to make attendance before a Select Committee on a hybrid Bill compulsory on all interests affected? Surely that reduces the matter to absurdity?

This is not mere theory. The case has happened. I was on the Committee which dealt with the Wellington Museum Bill. In that case there was no petition and I attempted to ask questions as I thought on behalf of the interests involved. The only thing I succeeded in bringing to light was my own ignorance and ineptitude. I do not remember the proceedings with any great degree of pleasure, but it convinced me when we came to consider the matter in principle that no useful purpose was to be served by maintaining the Select Committee stage of a hybrid Bill where there were no petitions. Ifjustice were served by the Amendment, I would have supported it, but I do not believe it is.

One final pointand in this I can leave the realms of controversy and speak for the Committee as a whole. The Committee were immensely indebted for the amount of research made for us by Mr. Abraham, and also for the constant help he gave us throughout the Sittings. I would also draw the attention of the House to the lucid drafting of the Report, which deals with a complex subject, and for that credit is due to our Clerk. Mr. Bradshaw.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry) I intervene not to wind up the Debate, but largely in view of what has been said by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). I was a Member, as he was, of the Select Committee which had to consider the Cable and Wireless Bill. I thought I detected running through his speech, and indeed running through part of this Report, in questions he asked in the course of his evidence, the impression that the Committee had acted wrongly in that instance in letting the petitioners take the course they did. If that is his view, I dissent entirely from it and if, instead of this Report, we were to have another similar Bill, it is important injustice and equity, without the promoters having to establish a case of expediency, that the petitioners against the Bill should be allowed precisely the same licence and liberty as they were against that Measure.

This Report has been praised by the hon. Member for Chesterfield for its lucid drafting. but I should have thought that any Select Committeeif this Report is approved by the House, subject to the one qualification contained in the Motion now before the Housewould have found it extremely difficult to extract from it any real guiding principle in determining to what extent petitioners against a hybrid Bill could put forward arguments. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman referred to hybrid Bills as being in the nature of public Bills. I do not find that observation anywhere in this Report. They are defined in Erskine May as quasi-private Bills, but that is by the way.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/1 949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 10 of 23

Then the hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Select Committee had to consider what was the real purpose of setting up a Select Committee for a hybrid Bill. He told us that it was set out in paragraph 19, as being to enable petitioners to put forward their case in order to secure their protection or compensation. This is repeated in paragraph 26. He told us that while considering what was the purpose of setting up a Select Committee for a hybrid Bill, it never occurred to him that one purpose might be to enable a petitioner to come forward and say to the Committee, "I have been wrongly included by mistake." There is not one word in this Report to support the view that a petitioner can ask for exclusion, and I welcomed what the Financial Secretary said on that point. However, a great deal follows from that.

As my hon. Friend said, if a number of private interests are affected, all of which have locus standi, then they can all ask for exclusion, and that will challenge the expediency and the principle of the Bill. In fact, each one of them can contend that it is not in the public interest that he should be included. That was the argument in the Cable and Wireless Bill where there was only one private interest affected. It was argued that it was not in the public interest that they should be taken over, and in my view that was a perfectly proper argument for them to put forward.

The hon. Member for Chesterfield seeks to contend that there is no material difference between the Report as it now stands and the Amendment moved in the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox- Boyd).

Mr. Benson It was redundant.

Mr. Manninham-Buller If it was redundant it was certainly clearer than the words now contained in the Report, because the Report would seek to imply that first one must engage in this difficult task of defining a locus standi, defining the area of it, and then relating each argument to that particular area; whereas the Amendment makes it quite clear that the petitioner can, as part of his argument, show that the public interest has been incorrectly assessed, and show that the extent of that injury to him outweighs the alleged advantage of the public interest. It that were in the Report, both sides of the House would welcome it, but it is not, and the indication from the speech and questions of the hon. Gentleman was that there should be a principle that there should not be any right for the petitioner other than the right of obtaining compensation. That one can see in Question 302 which he put. But the hon. Member has gone further today; he has indicated in his speech that the right of claiming exclusion should exist only where compensation could be shown to be insufficient.

Mr. Benson The point that the hon. and learned Member has just put to me is merely an extension, of the previous point he raised, the difference between the Amendment and the Report. There is very little difference, and certainly the Amendment does not bear the interpretation which the hon. and learned Gentleman attempted to put on it. It says quite clearly that the petitioner: 'should not in general be allowed to develop a case that the Bill is bad in principle as being contrary to the public interest as such to do so would be merely to arrogate to himself the proper function of a --" Member of Parliament.' That Amendment goes on to point out that the case in which a petitioner should be entitled to challenge the principle of the Bill is only where he can establish that the damage to him, apart from compensation, is so great that it outweighs the public interest.

Mr. Mann ingham-Buller I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting me, but nothing I have said has contradicted the terms of the Amendment. I entirely agree that in general the petitioner should not be allowed to develop a case that the Bill is bad in principle as being contrary to the public interest as such, but the words which follow are the important words which the hon. Gentleman has completely ignored

Mr. Benson No, I have not.

Mr. Mannin.ghani-Buller The Amendment says: 'On the other hand, a petitioner should not be debarred from advancing any argument tending to show: either that the injustice or damage done to himself and other particular persons in a similar position to or associated with himself is so great as to outweigh any public advantage; or that the alleged public advantage relied upon by' the promoters to justify the particular interference with the rights of a subject belonging to him and others is insufficient for the purpose; or both of these arguments.' That passage is perfectly clear and correctly states what in my belief has been the practice in the past, and in my belief what should be the practice in the future. That passage is not contained, nor is there anything so clear as that passage, in the body of the Report. If

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/comrnons/l 949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 11 of 23

the hon. Member says the Report, in other words, is meant to convey precisely the same meaning as that passage, I would not agree with him that the Report is a lucid document worthy of such praise as he gave it. If the view of the Government be that that passage correctly states the position, it is a pity that the majority voted against the inclusion of that passage in the Report.

As I see it, under this Report the rights of petitioners are likely to be most seriously affected, reduced and prejudiced. It may well be that, if the views put forward by the hon. Member for Chesterfield are adopted by a Select Committee, a petitioner would be prevented from putting forward matters peculiarly within his knowledge, and matters which might result in the House taking quite a different view of the question of the public interest. If that happens, in my belief it will be neither to the advantage of the petitioner, nor to the advantage of the public.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. William Wells (Walsall) There is much which the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham- Buller) has said with which I disagree, but there is one point that emerged from his speech which reduce this Debate to its bare essentials. That is the question of principle that arises on the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). Speaking, of course, only for myself, may I say that when we were considering the other Amendments put forward on behalf of the Opposition by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), I, and I believe other hon. Members of the Committee, who ultimately voted the same way as I did, were genuinely sympathetic towards the motives which, as we understood, inspired the mover of that Amendment.

Speaking entirely for myself, I was convinced by the evidence. I may have been wrong, but I was convinced that there would be no injustice, no hardship, and that every opportunity lay open to members of the public directly affected to make representations and that this was an unnecessary complication. I may have been wrong in that view, but I believe that is purely a question of detail and interpretation of the evidence and that no question of broad principle underlies the issue that divides us. The real issue, I believe the only underlying division between the members of the two sides of the Committee, arose on the second part of the alternatives posed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Hendon. That Amendment states: 'On the other hand, a petitioner should not be debarred from advancing any argument tending to show: either that the injustice done to himself and other particular persons in a similar position to or associated with himself is so great as to outweigh any public advantage;' I will pause there. I think the only difference between the two sides of the Committee was that we would have removed the words after "himself." In other words, we said every member of the public whose own interests are affected by a proposal should be allowed to come before a Committee and make his arguments and have a clear run. But the second alternative was one with which we wholly and entirely dissociated ourselves.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth To what does the hon. Member suggest the arguments under the first part of the Amendment -" should be directed? If they are not directed to what is stated in the Amendment, to what does the hon. Member think they should be directed?

Mr. Wells The words with which I should agree would be: 'either that the injustice or damage done to himself is so great as to outweigh any public advantage.' If the sentence had read that way, I should have had no quarrel with it. I am sorry that I failed to make myself clear. The great issue of principle arose on the second part of the Amendment: 'or that the alleged public advantage relied upon by the promoters to justify the particular interference with the rights of a subject belonging to him and others is insufficient for the purpose.' That is the whole core of the difference between the two sides of the Committee. We are wholly unwilling to admit the right of any private person to come before a Select Committee and argue what are in fact questions of policy; that is to say, not questions affecting his own private right, but questions affecting the rights of other people.

It is very interesting to see the line that the Conservative Opposition appear to be taking this afternoon. It is a little difficult to follow the way in which their minds are working. The hon. Member for South Hendon very rightly and properly said in his Amendment that the member of the public 'should not in general be allowed to develop a case that the Bill is bad in principle as being contrary to the public interests as such; to do so would be merely to arrogate to himself the proper function of a Member of Parliament.' If a witness is to be allowed to come before a Committee and argue not only that he is badly, injuriously and wrongly affected by a Bill and that either he ought to be taken out of

http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/ 1949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 12 of 23

its scope or, if he is the only person concerned, the Bill should be rejected altogether, that is one thing. But if, in addition, he is to be allowed to say, "Not only am I affected, but my neighbour who is not here but may have quite different views, is affected. Please remember the case of Mr. Jones, who is not represented, and has not bothered to be represented"what is the position then? We would be allowing a member of the public to come before a Select Committee and constitute himself either as a part-time Member of Parliament raising issues of general policy, or as a kind of unpaid advocate for other people who are not there and have not taken the trouble to put their views forward and whose true views the Committee have no means of ascertaining.

The hon. and learned Member for Daventry referred in his speech, as did other hon. Members, to the Cable and Wireless Bill. He said quite definitely and, I imagine, definitively, on behalf of the Opposition what their attitude would be to a similar Bill in future. I think it was clearly in the minds of the majority of the Members of the Committee and certainly it was clear in my mind, that in no circumstances whatever, in so far as it lay in my power should a repetition of that procedure be tolerated. To my mind it is quite wrong, and almost indecent, that Ministers of the Crown should be brought before a Select Committee and cross-examined on questions of public policy by counsel, who are paid to be there for the purpose. My belief is that the only proper place for a Debate on policy of that kind is the Floor of this House.

Mr. Manningham-B u/Icr Whether it be quite wrong and indecorous for Ministers to be cross-examined before Select Committees, or not, is one question, but the question here under consideration is that to which I endeavoured to address my remarks. It is the liberty given the petitioner, not the necessity for the promoters to establish expediency. The hon. Member's last remarks seemed to be relating purely to the need to establish expediency and not to the rights of the petitioner. If the promoters must establish expediency then, in order to do so under a Bill like Cable and Wireless, they must put the Financial Secretary into the witness box, which is quite a different thing, surely, from saying that the rights of the petitioner should be restricted.

Mr. Wells I am sorry that I do not quite follow the hon. and learned Gentleman. The first recommendation of the Report is that subject to any instruction or indication by the House referring the expediency of a hybrid Bill to a Select Committee for investigation and decision, the Second Reading should be considered to remove from the promoters the onus of proving the expediency of the Bill. That, as I understand it, was not controversial. The first 19 paragraphs were agreed to without a Division and the paragraph which covered that particular aspect was paragraph 18.

Mr. Manningham-Buller What the hon. Gentleman was saying was that he objected really to the Financial Secretary having to give evidence on the Select Committee considering the Cable and Wireless Bill. That was done merely because at that time it was the custom of the promoters to try to establish the expediency of the Measure. If my recollection is right, as I think it is, he was called not by the petitioner but by the promotersthe Government. If the hon. Gentleman is saying he would not like that to happen again because he thinks it is indecorous, then no one, on either side, is saying that that part is necessary in future. That, however, is quite apart from the rights of the petitioner.

Mr. Wells I may have misapprehended the hon. and learned Member but I understood him to say, on behalf of the Opposition, that the Cable and Wireless precedent would be followed, so far as it lay in the power of the Opposition to follow it, on any future occasion.

Mr. Mannin.tham-Buller Solely as to the rights of the petitioner. That was all.

Mr. Wells I think that that term is still open to ambiguity. The Opposition view, had it been conceded, would have been to discuss before the Committee the whole range of policy of the Cable and Wireless Bill. The occasion for the Financial Secretary's coming would, of course, have been different. He would not have been one of the witnesses who were called at the start, but probably would have had to be called in reply. It is perfectly clear that, whilst one allows this wide range of Debate before a Select Committee, it must almost inevitably follow that the Minister who is responsible for the public policy must come and explain his public policy before the Committee and will be subject to such cross-examination. It is that possibility against which I, at least, wished to insure.

The hon. and learned Gentleman criticised the drafting of the Report. It is no part of my business here to defend that, but I think that if there were any fault in drafting it lay entirely with the Members of the Committee, of whom I am

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com]commons/1 949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 13 of 23

one, and not with the Clerk, who gave us such valuable help. So far as it lay within his power, this document is a model of what a Select Committee report should be.

I believe there is only this one issue of principle between the two parties. Both sides want the individual who is affected to be able to make his own case clearly and in an untrammelled way. It is only when we come to the question of the making of other people's cases that there is any difference between the two sides of the House.

In one respect the hon. and learned Member for Daventry did less than justice to the Report, in that he appeared to have overlooked paragraph 25, which was not, I think, a disputed paragraph. It states: 'Nor do your Committee apprehend that, if a petitioner is permitted to traverse the principle of the Bill where his locus standi entitles him to do so, any great complication will arise if his case is upheld.'

Sir H Lucas-Tooth I think it would be proper if I said that the reason why paragraph 25 was not traversed was that the whole question of principle in this issue arose on the earlier Amendment. When that Amendment had been carried, against the minority on the Committee, obviously it would have been ridiculous to try to amend the rest of the Report to make it conflict with paragraph 20.

Mr. Wells I accept that entirely. I will, if! may, complete the paragraph: 'In such a case the Select Committee have power to make a special report stating that, in their view, the hardship inflicted on the petitioner outweighs the advantage likely to accrue to the public if the Bill becomes law, leaving the House to take what action it deems fit.' ( The recommendation of the majorityand, indeed, of the Committeeleaves the Committee free to refer a Bill back to the House if satisfied on evidence that it is impracticable or injurious to the individuals concerned. For my part, I believe that the difficulties anticipated by the other side, in deciding how far in each case the words "locus standi" are to be interpretated, are exaggerated. In practice the commonsense of Members and the experience of the staff of the House will provide a solution. I hope that the House will approve the Report, which was based on evidence collected from a great number of distinguished and learned authorities.

5. 8p.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities) The House has had the advantage of hearing three hon. Members who sat upon the Select Committee. Speaking as one of the few hon. Members who are intervening who did not sit on that Committee, I should like to express my indebtedness to the Select Committee for their labours and to assure them that I treat with respect any conclusions to which they have come.

I think that the difference between the two sides is on a comparatively narrow field but that it is of great importance. I should like, if I may, to try to explain to the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) the reasons that make me question certain conclusions to which the Select Committee came. The matters to which I shall invite the attention of ;) the House are those summarised by the Committee in paragraph 34 (3) and (4). I am perfectly certain that the majority of the Committee think that by these recommendations they have shortened the proceedings on hybrid Bills and avoided waste of time. Although that was their intention they have not, in my view, achieved it. What they have done will, in fact, cause considerable difficulties both to the Committees which sit and to petitioners and their professional advisers.

In order to make clear the point which I wish to bring before the House, let me state clearly what is a perfectly simple but vital distinction, that is the distinction between questions of who should be allowed to be heard at all, who, that is to say, shall be allowed to appear as a petitioner, and questions of what arguments such a petitioner shall be entitled to advance. On the first question, I make no quarrel with the conclusion of the Committee. I agree, of course, that a petitioner must have a locus standi, but, though we limit those who have a locus standi, it does not in the least follow that we are either shortening the proceedings or serving any useful purpose, if we also seek to limit the arguments which they may seek to bring forward.

In contrast to the hon. Member for Walsall I find nothing derogatory to the dignity of the House or to any Committee that expert argument should be addressed to it. On the precise wording of the Amendment moved in the Committee by my hon. Friend, who is to speak later, it is quite obvious that it would be more appropriate for him to speak than for

http://hansard.mi!lbanicsysten-is.coni]commons/ 1949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 14 of 23

me, but I wish to say first what I think is wrong in the two principles of the Summary of Recommendations to which I have drawn attention, and then to make quite a short statement of what I believe is the correct principle.

What I object to in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) is the mention of arguments which 'do not exceed his locus standi," and "the limits of the locus standi." These are very difficult conceptions indeed, and will lead to endless argument and waste of time. It is comparatively easy for lawyers and others to decide whether a man has a locus standi or not, but, once it is decided that he has a locus standi, I regard discussion of the extent of his locus standi as a time-wasting affair. It is a difficult legal conception. I am sure that Members opposite will agree with me that those arguments will raise before Committees very difficult questions of what is and what is not admissible evidence.

Now let me state quite clearly, and in far better language than I could choose, what I believe is the right principle which the Select Committee should have adopted. I do not believe that it differs greatly from what they had in mind as to the working of the Committees, but I am afraid that it differs a good deal from the way in which their recommendations will work in fact. I believe that the true principle is stated in page 106 of the Report we are considering, in the Further Memorandum submitted by Mr. Craig Henderson, K.C. If hon. Members will look at the penultimate paragraph on that page they will see what I believe is the right principle, which I should like to read to the House and adopt as my own argument. He stated: 'I humbly submit that Parliament, on matters between the State and subjects should never close the door against admission of evidence from those whose interests are directly affected, which is directed to prove facts, and put forward arguments on them, which throw light on the expediency or otherwise of accepting the proposals in a Bill.' I will not read the remaining sentence of that paragraph, although I equally agree with it.

Mr. W. Wells May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at page 17 of the Report, and then tell the House whether or not he accepts the view, attributed to Mr. Pelham, as far back as 1753. Mr. Pelham saysI quote from Question 73: 'In matters of public concern no body of men, how respectable soever, have a right to come here and tell us what we ought or what we ought not to do: to attempt it is an attack upon the dignity of Parliament.'

Mr. Strauss Speaking quite ex tempore, and without looking at that quotation, I should say that it is directed to the persons who have the right to come and speak. If I am wrong, I crave leave not to answer such a question without notice.

What I am saying is that I am not in the least criticising the suggestion as to who shall be allowed to be petitioners. My point is that once a man has been allowed to be a petitioner we should not try to create quite new and extremely difficult rules of evidence which will both hamper petitioners in preparing and presenting their case, and, in my view, will greatly embarrass Committees, which will, I know, be most anxious to do justice. I believe that the attempt which is summarised in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 34 is really an attempt to shorten proceedings which will prove unavailing, and I hold the view that the adoption of the words of Mr. Craig Henderson, which I have quoted, would avoid that difficulty.

In spite of what I said a moment or two ago, possibly it would be as well for me to complete that paragraph of Mr. Craig Henderson's Memorandum, which I quoted. It ends 'Where the Bill is, in the true sense, a public Bill, the interests affected are so wide that it is impracticable to hear individual objectors, and the debate must be completed on the floor of the House, but on Hybrid Bills this is not the case, and that difference is at the root of the difference in procedure.' With that statement by one who is admittedly a master of this branch of the law, I respectfully associate myself, and commend the wisdom of it to the House. I am grateful to the House for allowing me, as one who did not sit on the Committee, and who appreciates their labour, to express my views. I regret very much that the Government have not found it possible to get what I believe would be unanimity by modifying sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 34 on the basis of Mr. Craig Henderson's Memorandum.

5.19 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall) I should like to say how much I agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) and others, in appreciation of the work which has been done in connection with this Report. Both those who gave evidence and those who served on the Committee have performed a public

http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/1 949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 15 of 23

service for which the House should be grateful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has said, before the Select Committee was set up, there was no regular procedure so far as Hybrid Bills were concerned. In fact, the Committee was set up to advise the House as to what that procedure should be.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has apparently forgotten that the Report is practically unanimous. On only one paragraph does the written document indicate that there was any real difference of opinion.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? I think it is unfair to allow him to proceed on this line. We did put down an Amendment at the first place where a substantial difference of opinion arose. That Amendment was carried against us. Thereafter it would have been necessary to put down. a whole string of other Amendments, in fact to recast the Report. It would have been ridiculous to do that, as the essential Amendment had been carried against us, but it must not be accepted that the rest of the Report was in accordance with the views of my hon. Friend and myself, because it was not.

Mr. Glenvil Hall I must, of course, accept what the hon. Member says. But I have only the Report to go by. I have read it with some care over the weekend and I have noticed that paragraphs ito 19 were accepted. without any Amendments being moved and that paragraphs 21, certainly as far as 31, were likewise accepted. Perhaps I may refer to that again, because I would like to make some observations on something which was raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd).

The hon. Member had some hard things to say about the Government's acceptance of this Report. Among other things, he said that private rights would be seriously curtailed by the recommendations in the Report, which the Government have accepted with one small modification. He also said that a petitioner could only challenge a Bill in the most unusual circumstances and that a man might be refused the right to give evidence. Does the Report bear out these strictures? Is it a fact that the Motion, if accepted, will cause unfairness to private petitioners? I think that the Lord President showed clearly in his speech that no one on this side of the House would desire to prevent any petitioner who feels aggrieved by a hybrid Bill from putting his case with the utmost force and freedom before the appropriate Committee. But I must say that some Select Committee proceedings have been in the nature of a "Roman Holiday." From the evidence of the Report, I suspect that both the hon. Gentlemen opposite who served on that Committee also agreed that a good deal that happened when the Cable and Wireless Select Committee was sitting should not have been allowed to happen.

Mr. Manningham-Buller Will the right hon. Gentleman be more precise about that? There were two things. One was that the promoter sought to justify the expediency of the Bill. That we are agreed is unnecessary, at least in the future, and also that it was unnecessary then, although it was not declared to be so, because this Report had not been made. Is he saying that Cable and Wireless should not have been entitled to pursue the course they did in petitioning against the Bill?

Mr. Glenvil Hall Yes, Sir, that is my view. I have a fairly lively recollection of what happened then and I am of the view that a great deal was said and a great number of questions put in the course of the Select Committees proceedings which were in a sense usurping the functions of this House. It is obvious that both the hon. Gentlemen shared that view, because they voiced that complaint, by implication at any rate, in the Amendment to paragraph 20 of the Report. If there were time, I could develop this case at greater length.

The criticism that has been levelled against this Motion can be concentrated within very narrow limits, as the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities observed. There is only one particular pointand I am not quarrelling with thiswhich the Opposition fears may curtail the rights of a petitioner. We think that this is due to a misapprehension and that, on a proper reading of these recommendations, it will be seen that when a hybrid Bill is being discussed upstairs, petitioners will have no fewer rights than they had before, except that they will be unable to go outside their own interests.

On their own showing, both the hon. Gentlemen who were parties to this Report agree that that right of petitioners to traverse the world, if they are so minded, should be curtailed. That is the only real change which the acceptance of these recommendations makes. In proof of that, let me refer to the recommendations themselves. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford asked a very pertinent question which he also put to the Lord President. At different times he was

http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/1 949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 16 of 23

good enough to give way, so that one or other of us could give the assurances he wanted. I am here to repeat those assurances, which seem implicit in the recommendations made by the Committee and set forth on page xiii. Quite obviously, if a petitioner can show that he has a separate special interest, he is entitled under a hybrid Bill to ask if he can come and put his grievance to the Select Committee. There is nothing in these recommendations which robs him of that right. In fact, in more than one paragraph, that right is established and underlined.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd May I ask if there is only one interest affected, can that one interest petition to be excluded from the Bill?

Mr. Glenvil Hall That is what I am saying. But I would put one question to the hon. Member. Did this right exist under the old system? If it did, it will continue. As I read these recommendations, the only right that will be taken away is the right of any petitioner to go outside his own immediate interests. Again, as I read the Report, and both hon. Gentlemen opposite agree, the petitioner should not be allowed to go right round the world. An ordinary member of the public has no right to come here and put forward his views on matters under discussion. Why then should a petitioner, when he appears before a Select Committee on a hybrid Bill, be allowed that right? Surely his interest is only concerned with the effect that the Bill will have on his property or his life or something in which he personally has a special interest. That right is preserved.

Mr. Mannin.gham-Buller I am trying to follow what the right hon. Gentleman has said. In the first place he said he ( thought that on the Cable and Wireless Bill the petitioners went outside their proper limits. Now he has said, and I agree, that petitioners, even if they are the only petitioners in the Bill. can do anything proper to protect their own interests. In what respects does he say that Cable and Wireless, who after all do cover a great deal of the world, went outside the protection of their own interests?

Mr. Glenvil Hall I have no wish to turn this into a debate on what happened in the Select Committee proceedings on the Cable and Wireless Bill. I do not think it would be profitable. It is old history. The promoters of that Bill had to establish the expediency of the Measure. Among others, I was put into the witness box. That occasion gave the petitioners against the Measure the opportunity to go well outside the actual interests affected.

Mr. H. Strauss It is possible for a man to find out whether or not he is allowed to be a petitioner. Assuming that he is allowed to be a petitioner, can the right hon. Gentleman tell me any means by which he and his advisors can discover the meaning of the words: 'arguments which do not exceed his locus standi."' Have such words, or anything like them, appeared in these Rules before?

Mr. Glenvil Hall There are various points at which a hybrid Bill comes before the House. We have not discussed them today because the point has not arisen; but there are Examiners of these Bills, who are under certain obligations to let the interests who are or may be affected know what is proposed. I think that this point can safely be left to that stage ) of the proceedings. If any petitioner has a locus standi, I see no likelihood of his being unaware of it.

Mr. Strauss The right hon. Gentleman inadvertently, I am certain, completely misunderstands me. I agree with what he has just said about his being able to appear if he has a locus standi, and I do not criticise it. The only point I criticised in my speechand I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with itis the restriction of the arguments that he is allowed to put forward when he does appear. He must not put forward arguments which exceed his locus standi.

Mr. Glenvil Hall At present on private Bills, he is so confined to his locus standi. If that does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, may I draw his attention to the fact that when the petitioner appears and puts his case, as he will have every right to do, it will be for the Select Committee to tell him then whether what he is saying, either in person or through counsel, is or is not in order in the light of the existing circumstances? It will be perfectly easy, generally speaking, for the locus standi of any single petitioner to be established. I see no difficulty in that direction.

I should like to indicate why the Government feel that a petitioner need have no fear of these recommendations, if they are accepted. The first recommendation, which apparently was accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite without any serious objection, states that: 'Subject to any instruction or indication by the House . . . "-' which makes it very elastic '... referring the expediency of a hybrid Bill to a Select Committee for investigation and decision, the

http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/ 1949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 17 of 23

Second Reading should be considered to remove from the promoters the onus of proving the expediency of the Bill.' It has been generally agreed that, once this House has agreed by a majority on the expediency of a Bill, the Government themselves should not have to go once more over the whole of that ground before a Select Committee upstairs. Subparagraph (3) recommends: 'Provided that his arguments do not exceed his locus standi, a petitioner may traverse the principle of the Bill.' In those words, I can find no limitation. Provided he has the right to be there and has a case to present, he can traverse the principle of the Bill. He has had that right up to now and we do not propose to take it from him. As far as I know, neither of the representatives of the Opposition on the Committee objected. In fact, they approved of that wording. In proof of that, I turn to the Debate in the Select Committee on paragraph 20 and to the Amendment which was moved by them and defeated. I have taken the trouble to analyse the wording which they desired to be inserted and the wording which was accepted. There is no great difference between the two versions. I find that they said this: 'In the case of a hybrid bill, Your Committee are of opinion that the limits to which a petitioner should be allowed to go in the course of his arguments and evidence should be the same as those permitted in the case of a private bill.' To what extent can a petitioner go in the case of a Private Bill? In paragraph 20 are the words: 'Even in the case of private bills, it is competent to a committee to restrict petitioners as to the topics they may bring forward.' Therefore, even if we permit the full licence and liberty which may obtain when a private Bill is before a Select Committee, in these recommendations we are not limiting a petitioner more than that. In fact, he gets here what he gets on a Private Bill which, by general consent, is considered to be as wide a latitude as anyone should be allowed.

The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford asked whether a petitioner would be confined in his petition to the question whether the compensation payable to him was or was not sufficient. I can assure him that he need have no fears and that a petitioner will not be so confined. If he has a grievance or a claim in any other direction, he will be able to put it freely. He will not be bound to limit what he has to say or any claim he has to make, solely to the question of compensation.

I think I have answered most of the points that have been made. In summing up, I should like to say that it is our view that these recommendations are reasonable; that the fears which have been expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite have no substance in fact; and that under these recommendations petitioners will be just as free as they always have been, and in some directions more free, to put their point of view, if they have locus standi. The acceptance of the recommendations will do two things. It will regularise the proceedings which is something that I think we all desire. It is high time that this was done.

Secondly, it will cut out what I would describe for want of a better phrase as a lot of dead wood. It is quite obvious that, if there are no petitioners against the Bill, it is absurd to waste time by setting up a Select Committee and sending the Bill to it. I think I carry hon. Gentlemen on the other side with me when I say that it is not right that, when Parliament has decided on the principle of a Bill, the whole of its principles and the whole expediency of the Bill should be traversed again in a Committee upstairs by individuals who have no locus standi on many parts of the Bill. They should be confined to the parts of the Bill which affect them personally or in groups. That being so, I hope that the House, without a Division, will accept the Motion which has been moved by my right hon. Friend the Lord President.

5.41 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South) The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has paid a graceful tribute to those persons outside hon. Members of this House who assisted in preparing this Report. My hon. Friend and I who served on the Committee, would like to be associated with the right hon. Gentleman in that tribute, and would like to thank those who were of very great assistance to us.

When I have said that, I am going to say that I find that the Report itself is self-contradictory, and I do not wish to suggest that that is in any sense the fault of the draftsmen or of any hon. Member who assisted in preparing it. The reason why the Report conflicts with itself is that the majority of hon. Members who supported the Report tried to draw a line which I believe it was impossible to draw. I think they tried to do something which simply could not be done at all, and I hope I may be able to indicate why that is so.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/1 949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 18 of 23

First, I think it is fair to say that, for practical purposes, it is the summary of the Report in paragraph 34 which is important. It is to that summary that the chairman of the Select Committee on a hybrid Bill will normally turn for guidance, and, therefore, it is convenient to deal with our objections to the Report as objections to that paragraph of the summary. The first paragraph is acceptable in all parts of the House, but I think it is important to notice that what it does is to lay down that, when a hybrid Bill has received a Second Reading, the effect of that Second Reading is to shift the onus of proving the expediency of the Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate and several hon. Members on the other side have said quite rightly that the Second Reading of a Bill by this House approves the principle of the Bill. May I remind hon. Members opposite that there is some difference between principle and expediency, a thing which they are sometimes apt to forget in other connections? It may well be that the policy which gives rise to a hybrid Bill is acceptable to a majority of the House, but it does not mean to say that, if that policy would inflict too great hardship on sections of the community, it ought to be persisted in, even though it is the right policy, and it is exactly that question which the Select Committee on hybrid Bills has to determine. It is for that reason that we fully accept this first paragraph, and think that it is right that it calls attention to expediency and not principle.

Secondly, perhaps I should point out that there is a certain importance in the use of the word "onus." When we speak of the Government having to discharge the onus of proving something, we do not mean to say that it is conclusively and finally proved. All that they have done is to say that they have discharged the onus which lay upon them to show a ( prima facie case, and it is then for those who oppose the Bill, the petitioners, to show that, in fact, although that onus has been shifted to them, there is a case against the Bill which would throw the onus back against the Government. I think those who support the Motion before the House do not realise that what this paragraph does is to shift the onus of proof of expediency, and to leave it open to the other side, the petitioners, to disprove expediency and so object to the whole of the Bill.

Paragraphs (5) and (6) of the summary are really consequential on the first paragraph. Paragraph (5) is consequential in that it merely lays down the general rule that, where the onus has been shifted from the promoters to the petitioner, it should be for the petitioner to open against the promoters before the Select Committee. May I draw the attention of the House to these words: '(5) The onus of proving expediency having been removed from the promoters, the petitioner should open to the committee, calling such evidence as he wishes.' By implication, that means that it is even here laid down that there should be a right on the part of the petitioner to call evidence to disprove that of which the onus has laid on him; in other words, the expediency of the Measure.

Mr. Benson Would the hon. Gentleman allow me? He has missed out paragraph (2), in which it is laid down that the petitioner cannot argue on matters which cannot give him a locus standi, and that is really the essential thing in this Report.

"--' Sir H. Lucas-Tooth That is exactly the point to which I am coming. I am saying that paragraphs (I) and (5) are in conflict with paragraph (2); that (1) and (5) indicate that it is open to the petitioner to oppose the expediency of the Measure, and that, in paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), we find that it is not. Therefore, what has happened is that those who support the Report tried to do something which they found it physically impossible to do, and, when they came to summarise the recommendations in the body of the Report, it was necessary to set conflicting principles side by side.

Paragraph (2) of the summary states that the petitioner is not to argue on the bare grounds of public policy I have no quarrel with that, and I think it would be wholly wrong if a petitioner were to appear before the Select Committee and argue, for example, against the general principle of nationalisation I think that would be wholly wrong, and I do not think that that conception would have support on the other side of the House. I do not think that a petitioner should arrogate to himself a duty which is clearly the duty of a Member of Parliament, but, of course, paragraph (2) has to be read alongside paragraphs (3) and (4). In that connection, we find that the position is wholly different, because whereas paragraph (2) merely says that a petitioner against a hybrid Bill cannot argue on matters which cannot give him a locus standi, in paragraph (3) it is stated: 'Provided that his arguments do not exceed his locus standi, a petitioner may traverse the principle of the Bill.' Again, in paragraph (4) it is stated: 'The limits of the locus standi, of each petitioner and, therefore, of the arguments which he may properly adduce should be decided, where necessary, by the select committee' It will be seen, therefore, that paragraph (2) does not merely prevent a petitioner from arguing various or general questions, but prevents him from arguing special questions unless they are questions

http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/1 949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 19 of 23

regarding his own personal interest in the subject matter of the Bill We on this side of the House think that is too narrow.

I will, if I may, give the House an example showing how, in a particular case, the recommendation is too narrow. I think it would preclude an employer from giving any evidence or from arguing about damage done to his employees or customers. In the case of a hybrid Bill which takes over an industrial concern, the recommendation as set out in these paragraphs would prevent that concern from using any argument to show that the taking over of its business would cause a hardship to those employed by it or to those who had relied upon it in the past for their necessities. Paragraph 22 on page X of the Report dealing with the case of Cable and Wireless says: 'They would have been entitled to make a full statement of the damage done to their interests and of the hardship inflicted upon them; and they could have challenged the terms of compensation, or sought protection for any of their servants or employees, which was in fact made the subject of a special report by the Select Committee.' I do not think that either side of the House would wish to prevent a petitioner calling in aid and pointing out to the House the particular hardship which might be inflicted on its employees or upon the customers' minds. That was certainly not the intention of the majority of the Select Committee, as is clear from the paragraphs I have just quoted. It is necessary to refer to paragraph 20 on page IXthese were the specific words we sought to deletewhich says: ’So in the case of hybrid Bills, your Committee cannot see that any injustice is done to a petitioner, who is allowed to be heard only because his property or interest are affected by restraining him from urging objections which, if they were the only ones he had to urge, would not entitle him to be heard.' In other words, it would be impossible for an industrial concern to put forward any ( .) case founded on hardship done to its employees. The great mass of wage earners of industrial concerns would have no means whatever of having their case put before a Select Committee if this recommendation were accepted. I do not think that was the intention of those who signed the Report, or of this House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) drew attention to the ridiculous position where two or three concerns in a similar position were objecting to the provisions of a hybrid Bill. In paragraph 23, on page X we find this passage: 'Before a select committee therefore a petitioner's plea that the injury to his personal interests outweighs the benefit which the whole community will derive from the proposed Bill, assumes an altogether different importance relative to the public issues at stake.' That means a wholly different importance from the other type of case referred to in this paragraph, namely, the hybrid Bill for taking over a particular piece of land. It is rather surprising to find that this paragraph implies that where we are concerned only with a smaller public interest, then we should have regard to the private interest, but that where a substantial public interest is concerned, then any private interest can be overridden

Mr. Benson Is there not an excellent precedent in Mr. Speaker's Ruling that where a whole industry is nationalised the question of hybrid Bills does not arise?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth At the moment we are dealing only with hybrid Bills. The principle laid down here is that if one ( ) man's land is taken away from him that man is entitled to object on the ground that it causes hardship, but where two men’s land is taken away, those two are not entitled to object because the amount of damage done

Mr. Benson I do not accept that as being the interpretation of the paragraph at all. As I read it, what was in the minds of the Committee was that where there was damageit may be between a dozen individuals who are concerned in a hybrid Billif that individual damage outweighs the advantage to the community, then they would have a right to establish. If it were a matter outside the possibility of compensation involving simply sentiment, that would be very different from taking over a great industry like Cable and Wireless where the main interest is purely a shareholding interest.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth It seems to me that the real distinction is that if what is intended to be done is done in pursuance of a political policy, then it must be clear that if it is part of the ordinary course of Government administration there should be a right to object.

Mr. Glenvil Hall Surely, the hon. Gentleman is being unfair to the Report. The fact is that a hybrid Bill is not left to the Select Committee; in a sense it reaches its "hybridity" by stages long before it reaches this House.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/1 949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 20 of 23

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth I am not certain that I follow the relevance of the right hon. Gentleman's interruption, but I agree, of course, that the views of the Select Committee are not final; all they can do is to make a report to the House.

Mr. Glenvil Hall The Government do not decide whether it is to be a hybrid Bill; another authority decides that. If it is a hybrid Bill, then these regulations will apply, and the fact that it is one man, two men or a dozen who may be interested in it has nothing to do with the matter at all.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has not followed my argument, which is, where you take one man's land he has a right to object whereas I say the Report reads that if you take two men's land then those two men are each precluded from objecting on the ground that they cannot argue the other's case. I am quite certain that the effect of the Report is that if you take a large number of men's land in pursuance of a broad policy, whatever that policy may be, you say to that large number of men, "You shall not object because it is wrong that you should object to the policy of the Government of the day."

Mr. Benson Surely the difference is this: If you take away the land from a large number of men you are there involved in a very large measure of public policy. It is the weighing of the individual damage against the whole public policy of the Bill which is involved in this question and it can only be where very small public interest is involved that private damage can outweigh that small public interest.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth As the Financial Secretary pointed out just now, all the Committee has to do is to receive evidence. I should have thought that, even holding the views of the hon. Member for Chesterfield, it is still most desirable not to curtail any evidence. If the evidence is considered by the Committee, and the Select Committee report that they feel the case shown is so strong that it is at least doubtful whether the Bill should be proceeded with, having regard to the alleged public advantages, it will be for the Government of the day to make up their mind. I am not questioning that. What I say is that it is wholly wrong to deprive these individuals whose rights are affected by the particular action of the Government from at least offering evidence to show why those rights should not be affected or should be treated in a different way. I believe this is another example of the axe at the root of the tree of liberty. I agree it is not taking out a very large pieceit is a relatively small chipbut all the same, it is a chip and I think this House ought not to allow it to be done.

May I turn to another aspect? Here again there was a difference between two sections of the Select Committee. It has been pointed out already in the course of the Debate that we considered the possibility of a Bill failing to be opposed on account of poverty or absence. Perhaps, again, I might put a concrete case to the House. We might find a case, such as the Trafalgar Estates case, where an annuity for some public benefit was given to a particular family to descend generation after generation, and it may be a question of terminating or otherwise dealing with that annuity. Very often the annuity will be vested in some living person and the next person entitled to it will not yet have been born. The interests of the person at present entitled are obviously in sharp conflict with the interests of the successor. That may very easily happen. The successor in title not having been born, he cannot be served with any notice of the Bill and he cannot possibly petition the Committee. There is a case in point which may easily arise and it is a case which is arising almost every day in the Law Courts. Wherever a question arises concerning a settlement and where there are unborn children who may be interested in the capital of their settlements, the courts always insist that there shall be someone before them who is able to argue on behalf of those unborn children.

It has been suggested here that the only thing petitioners can do against a hybrid Bill is to bring forward evidence. That is not so. The petitioners can not only bring forward evidence but can put their case and, very often, having regard to their own particular circumstances, putting their case is extremely valuable. It seems to me that it is vitally important that this House should make certain that before it affects individual interests that there has always been an opportunity to put a case.

Perhaps I may refer the House to Question No. 503 on page 61. Sir Charles Browne is answering certain questions. I asked him a question in connection with proof being tendered before the Committee on Unopposed Bills, and I said: ’The proof is only formal unless the Committee require definite proof in the light of what has been saidis not that so?' Sir Charles Browne replied: 'I think Mr. Abraham would support me in saying that I believe there are cases in which the Committee on Unopposed Bills has rejected an unopposed Bill.' The report continues with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford asking: ’Having asked a question of the petitioners and got no answer?Yes.’ ’It has the http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/1 949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 21 of 23

value of eliciting something of which even the promoters are ignorant?Yes.’ The Chairman then asked: ’Has it ever happened in the case of a House of Commons Bill?I cannot say it has happened in my experience but I believe there is on record (Mr. Abraham can confirm it) a case where the Unopposed Bills Committee have rejected an unopposed Bill.' By "a House of Commons Bill," I think is meant a hybrid Bill.

That will show that even where there was no opposition at all, a Select Committee, after considering a Bill, saw good reason for saying, "This Bill should not go forward at all." That is much stronger than saying it should be amended in the interest ofparties who for some reason or another have been precludedfrom coming forward. That is not a point of wide importance; I regard it as a relatively small matter, but it is another small chip from the trunk of the tree of liberty. Hon. Members opposite may smile. They may think it is not important. We think every chip means that the tree is less strong, andfor that reason we oppose the Motion before the House.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 89.

Division No. 49.j AYES [6.10 pm. Adams, Richard (Balham) Evans, John (Ogmore) McEntee, V. La T. Albu, A. H. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) McGhee, H. G. Allen, A C (Bosworth) Ewart, R. Mack, J. D. Attewell, H. C. Fernyhough, E. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, NW.) Austin, H. Lewis Follick, M. McLea, F. Awbeiy, S. S. Gallacher, W MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Ayles, W. H. Ganley, Mrs. C S. MacPherson, T. (Romford) Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B Gibson, C. W. Mainwaring, W. H. Balfour, A Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield) Barstow, P. G. Gordon-Walker, P. C. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Barton, C. Grey, C. F Mathers, Rt. Hon. George Battley, J. R. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Mellish, R. J. Bechervaise, A. E. Guest, Dr. L. Haden Messer, F. Benson, G Gunter, R. J. Middleton, Mrs. L. Berry, H Guy. W. H. Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R Beswick, F Hale, Leslie Mitchison, G. R. Binns, J Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Moody, A. S. Blackburn, A. R. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Blyton, W. R. Hardman, D. R. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W. Harrison, J. Moyle, A. Braddock, Mrs E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge) Haworth, J. Mulvey, A. Brook, D. (Halifax) Hewitson, Capt. M Naylor, T. E. Brooks, T J (Rothwell) Hobson, C. R. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Brown, T. J. (Ince) Holman, P. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Brown, W J. (Rugby) Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Oliver, G. H. Bruce, Maj D. W. T. Horabin, T. L. Paget, R. T. Burden, T. W. Hoy, J Palmer, A. M. F. Gastle, Mrs. B. A. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Parker, J. Champion, A. J. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Parkin, B. T. Chater, D. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Chetwynd, G. R. Hughes, H. D (Wlverh'pton, W.) Paton, J. (Norwich) Cobb, F A Hynd, H (Hackney, C.) Pearson, A. Cocks, F S Irvine, A J. (Liverpool) Piratin, P. Colman, Miss G. M. Irving, W J. (Tottenham, N.) Popplewell, E. Cooper, G Isaacs, Rt, Hon. G. A Porter, E. (Warrington) Cove, W G. Jeger, G. (Winchester) Porter, G. (Leeds) Crawley, A Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Pritt, D. N. Daggar, G Jenkins, R. H. Prootor, W. T Dames, P Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Pursey, Comdr. H. Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Randall, H. E. Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.) Keenan, W Ranger, J. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Kenyon, C. Reeves, J.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/I 949/feb/I 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 22 of 23

Deer, G. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. Reid, T (Swindon) Debbie, W Kinley, J. Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Dodds, N. N Kirby, B. V Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) Driberg, T. E. N. Leslie, J. R. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Dumpleton, C W. Levy, B. W. Rogers, G. H. R. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Edwards, John (Blackburn) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Royle, C. Edwards, Rt Hon. N. (Caerphilly) Longden, F Sargood, R. Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) Lyne, A. W. Scott-Elliot, W Evans, E. (Lowestoft) McAdam, W. Shawcross, Rt. FIn. Sir H. (St. Heletts) Silkin, Rt. Hon. L. Tolley, L. Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B Silverman, J. (Erdington) Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Simmons, C. J Turner-Samuels, M. Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland) Skinnard, F. W. Ungoed-Thomas, L. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Smith, C. (Colchester) Usborne, Henry Williams, Ronald (Wigan) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Vernon, Maj. W. F. Williams, W. R. (Heston) Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.) Viant, S. P. Willis, E. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Wills, Mrs. E. A Sparks, J. A. Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.) Woodburn, Rt. Hon A Stamford, W. Warbey, W. N. Woods, G. S. Sylvester, G. 0. Webb, M. (Bradford, C.) Yates, V F. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Weitzman, D. Young, Sir R (Newton) fl Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Wells, P. L. (Faversham) Youngar, Hon. Kenneth Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Wells, W T (Walsall) Zilliacus, K Thomas, I. 0. (Wrekin) Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. T. (Edinbgh, E.) Thurtle, Ernest Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Titterington, M. F Wigg, George Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins. NOES Amory, D. Heathcoat Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Peake, Rt. Hon. 0. Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Peto, Brig. C. H. M Astor, Hon. M. Head, Brig. A. H. Pickthom, K. Baldwin, A. E. Hinchingbrooke, Viscoum Pitman, I. J. Baxter, A. B. Hogg, Hon. Q. Prescott, Stanley Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Hollis, M.0 Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0 Bossom, A. C. Howard, Hon. A. Raikes, H. V. Bower, N. Hurd, A. Ramsay, Maj. S Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Keeling, E. H. Renton, D Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Lambert, Hon. G. Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham) Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W Lancaster, Col. C. G. Ropner, Col L. Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow) 0 Butcher, H. W. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Smithers, Sir W. Carson, E. Linstead, H. N. Spearman, A. C. M. Challen, C Lipson, D. L. Stanley, Rt. Hon. 0. Channon, H. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Strauss, Henry (English Universities) Clarke, Col. R. S. Low, A. R. W. Studholme, H. G. Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'tn, S.) Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. 0. Teeling, William Crowder, Capt. John E. MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) Cuthbert, W. N. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Thomton-Kemsley, C. N Darling, Sir W. Y. Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Touche, G. C. Digby, S. W Maitland, Comdr J. W. Vane, W. M. F. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Manningham-Buller, R. E Walker-Smith, D. Drewe, C. Marlowe, A. A. H. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) Erroll, F. J. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. Mellor, Sir J. Gage, C. Morris-Jones, Sir H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Gridley, Sir A. Nicholson, G. Brigadier Mackeson and Grimston, R. V. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Colonel Wheatley.

Question put, and agreed to.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/1 949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 HYBRID BILLS (COMMITTEE PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 14 February 1949) Page 23 of 23

Resolved: 'That the recommendations contained in the Report from the Select Committee on Hybrid Bills (Procedure in Committee) in Session 1947-48 be approved, subject to the qualification that a Bill against which no Petition has been lodged may be committed either to a Committee of the whole House or to a Standing Committee, as the House may determine.'

http://hansard.millbanksystems.comlcommons/1 949/feb/i 4/hybrid-bills-committee-pr... 03/07/2014 Day 9 Buckinghamshire & Ors v Secretary of State for Transport 13 December 20 12

1 sealed. The facts of the case, viewed always in their 1 MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: Yes. 2 statutory context, will steer the court to a more or 2 MR MOULD: This is not a case where, on any sensible 3 less intrusive quality of review. In some cases a

5 the applicant's stance, may involve questions of general 5 persons. Here, we have a balance being struck on social 6 policy affecting the public at large or a significant 6 and economic grounds between, on the one hand, 7 section of it, including interests not represented 7 a substantial number of property owners in the vicinity 8 before the court. Here, the judges may well be in no 8 of the proposed route and the interests of the entire 9 position to adjudicate, save at most on a bare 9 population of the United Kingdom; that's to say their

11 the policy maker which they cannot wear. The local But, my Lord, I come back to what is said at letter 12 government finance cases, such as Hammersmith and 12 G on page 1130 where Lord Justice laws noticed that 13 Fulham, exemplifL this ...( Reading to the words) ... 13 matters may appear very different depending on one's 14 here, with respect, lies the importance of the fact in

16 the promise in question. The case's facts may be 16 receiving from, in this case the Secretary of State, has 17 discrete and limited, having no implications for an 17 been denied them, they may very well feel a profound 18 innominate class of persons. There may be no 19 wide-ranging issues of general policy or none with 19 "Unfair from the applicant's stancc 20 multi-layered effects upon whose merits the court is 21 asked to embark. The court may be able to envisage 2 that categor? . They feel that th~pl~p~ity bond

22 clearly and with sufficient certainty what the full 22 _.. ie that they have consistently advocated as the 23 consequences will be of any order it makes. In such a 23 fairest solution to the problem of generalised blight is

the basis upon which my

1 relieved of its character as abusive only if an 1 learned friend puts his case. But that has to be

3 a whole who may very well feel that, whilst that is an 4 democratic power. 4 important consideration, the degree to which the "There will of course be a multitude of cases 5 government is able to address it through extending the 6 falling within these extremes or sharing the 6 statutory scheme of compensation is limited and has to 7 characteristics of one or the other. The more the 7 be balanced and mediated with other pressing calls on 8 decision challenged lies in what may inelegantly be 8 the public purse; to take an obvious example, the need 9 called the macro political field, the less intrusive 9 to maintain hnding for the National Health Service, the

11 field true abuse of power is less likely to be found I I questions of macro economic and political judgment 12 since within it changes to policy, fuelled by broad 12 which, as Lord Justice Laws says, falls squarely within 13 conceptions of public interest, may more readily be

16 of that balance is one that displays any intimation of I draw your Lordship's attention in particular, as 17 an abusive approach in the legal sense. My Lord, that's the broad context in which this case 19 the subject matter of this case -- that's to say what

21 compensation measures to alleviate generalised blight, 21 a complaint about unfairness of consultation in the 22 over and above those that are available under the 22 Hillingdon case. 23 statute -- is a long way towards the end of the macro 23 So, my Lord, if we leave Begbie, put away volume 3 24 economic spectrum that Lord Justice Laws identifies 24 and turn to volume 5 of the authorities, tab 108. 25 there. 25 I hope my learned friend will forgive me. I am not Page 10 Page 12 3 (Pages 9 to 12) Merrill Corporation 8th Floor 165 Fleet Street (+44) 207 404 1400 London EC4A 2DY

EUR-Lex - 3201 1L0092 - EN - EUR-Lex Page 1 of 1

Article I 1. This Directive shall apply to the assessment of the environmental effects of those public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment- 2. For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply: (a) 'project' means: - the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes,

-- other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources;

(b) 'developer' means the applicant for authorisation for a private project or the public authority which initiates a project;

(c) 'development consent' means the decision of the competent authority or authorities which entitles the developer to proceed with the project;

(d) 'public' means one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups;

(e) 'public concerned' means the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2). For the purposes of this definition, non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements wider national law shall be deemed to have an interest; (0 'competent authority or authorities' means that authority or those authorities which the Member States designate as responsible for performing the duties arising from this Directive. 3. Member States may decide, on a case-by-case basis if so provided under national law, not to apply this Directive to projects serving national defence purposes, if they deem that such application would have an adverse effect on those purposes. 4. This Directive shall not apply to projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation, since the objectives of this Directive, including that of supplying information, are achieved through the legislative process.

http://eur-!ex.europa.eullegal-content/EN/TXT/?uriuriserv:OJ.L_.20 12.026.01.0001.... 03/07/2014 EUR-Lex - 32011 L0092 - EN - EUR-Lex Page 1 of 1

Article 2 1. Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Those- projects are defined in Article 4. 2. The environmental impact assessment may be integrated into the existing procedures for consent to projects in the Member States, or, failing this, into other procedures or into procedures to be established to comply with the aims of this Directive. 3 Member States may provide for a single procedure in order to fulfil the requirements of this Directive and the requirements of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control ()) 4. Without prejudice to Article 7, Member States may, in exceptional cases, exempt a specific project in whole or in part from the provisions laid down in this Directive. In that event, the Member States shall:

(a) consider whether another form of assessment would be appropriate;

(b) make available to the public concerned the information obtained under other forms of assessment referred to in point (a), the information relating to the decision granting exemption and the reasons for granting it;

(c) inform the Commission, prior to granting consent, of the reasons justifying the exemption granted, and provide it with the information made available, where applicable, to their own nationals.

The Commission shall immediately forward the documents received to the other Member States. The Commission shall report annually to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this paragraph.

http://eur-lex.europa.eullegal-content/EN/TXT/?uriuriserv:OJ.L_.2O 12.026.01.0001.... 03/07/2014 EUR-Lex - 3201 1L0092 - EN - EUR-Lex Page 1 of 1

Ar/ide 6 1. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure- that the authorities likely to be concerned by the project by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities are given an opportunity to express their opinion on the information supplied by the developer and on the request for development consent. To that end, Member States shall designate the authorities to be consulted, either in general terms or on a case-by-case basis. The information gathered pursuant to Article 5 shall be forwarded to those authorities. Detailed arrangements for consultation shall he laid down by the Member States, 2. The public -shall be informed, whether by public notices or by other appropriate means such as electronic media where available, of the following matters early in the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2) and, at the latest, as soon as information can reasonably be provided:

(a) the request for development consent;

(b) the -fact that the project is subject to an environmental impact assessment procedure and, where relevant, the -fact that Article 7 applies;

(c) details of the competent authorities responsible for taking the decision, those from which relevant information can be obtained, those to which comments or questions can be submitted, and details of the time schedule for transmitting comments or questions;

(d) the nature- of possible decisions or, where there is one, the draft decision;

(e) an indication of the availability of the information gathered pursuant to Article 5;

(f) an indication of the times and places at which, and the means by which, the relevant information will be made available;

(g) details of the arrangements for public participation made pursuant to paragraph 5 of this Article. (9 3. Member States shall ensure that, within reasonable time-frames the following is made available to the public concerned: (a) any information gathered pursuant to Article 5;

(b) in accordance with national legislation, the main reports and advice issued to the competent authority or authorities at the time when the public concerned is informed in accordance- with paragraph 2 of this Article;

(c) in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental in -formation ("), information other than that referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article which is relevant for the decision in accordance with Article 8 of this Directive and which only becomes available after the time the public concerned was informed in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.

4. The public concerned shall be given early and effective opportunities to participate in the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2) and shall, for that purpose, be entitled to express comments and opinions when all options are open to the competent authority or authorities before the decision on the request for development consent is taken. 5. The detailed arrangements for informing the public (for example by bill posting within a certain radius or publication in local newspapers) and for consulting the public concerned (for example by written submissions or by way of a public inquiry) shall be determined by the Member States. 6. Reasonable time-frames for the different phases shall be provided, allowing sufficient time for informing the public and for the public concerned to prepare and participate effectively in environmental decision-making subject to the provisions of this Article.

http ://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uriuriserv:OJ.L_.20 12.026.01.0001.... 03/07/2014 EUR-Lex - 3201 1L0092 - EN - EUR-Lex Page 1 of 1

Article 8 The results of consultations and the information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 shall be taken into consideration in the development consent procedure.

http://eur-lex.europa.eullegal-contentlEN/TXT/?uriuriserv:OJ.L_.20 12.026.01.0001.... 03/07/2014 EUR-Lex - 32011 L0092 - EN - EUR-Lex Page 1 of 1

Article 9 1. When a decision to grant or refuse development consent has been taken, the competent authority or authorities shall inform the public thereof in accordance with the appropriate procedures and shall make available to the public the following information:

(a) the content of the decision and any conditions attached thereto;

(b) having examined the concerns and opinions expressed by the public concerned, the main reasons and considerations on which the decision is based, including information about the public participation process;

(c) a description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects.

2. The competent authority or authorities shall inform any Member State which has been consulted pursuant to Article 7, forwarding to it the information referred to in paragraph I of this Article. The consulted Member States shall ensure that that information is made available in an appropriate manner to the public concerned in their own territoiy.

http://eur-lex.europa.eullegal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L.20 12.026.01.0001 .... 03/07/2014 HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2013-14

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON-WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Notice of Objection to the locus standi of HS2 ACTION ALLIANCE LIMITED

WITNESS STATEMENT OF HILARY WHARF

1. I, HILARY WHARF, am a director of HS2 Action Alliance Limited (HS2AA). HS2AA was incorporated on 19 April 2010 as a company limited by guarantee with a registered office at The Red House 10 Market Square, Old Amersham, Buckinghamshire, HP7 000.

2. HS2AA is a not for profit organization, with all funds received spent on its objectives and does not undertake any commercial activities. HS2AA's activities are overseen by five directors - Bruce Weston, Hilary Wharf, Thomas Crane, Andrew Bodman and Graham Long, who all serve without remuneration on a purely voluntary basis. Four of the five directors live very near the proposed route of Phase I of HS2. In particular, Bruce Weston and I, who are the only members of the limited company, both live within 300m of the proposed route of Phase I of HS2 and are specially and directly affected by HS2. Our home falls within the zone of the proposed "home owner payment" for those properties which are close to the route of HS2.

Objectives 3. HS2AA was set up with the objects stated in Clause 3.1 .1 of its articles, namely:

"to question and evaluate the economic case and environmental impact of the proposals for the HS2 rail link and to communicate the facts about the HS2 rail link in a clear, accurate and timely manner; to facilitate co-ordination of community level organisations, specialist companies and government groups to ensure efforts are maximised without duplication and to pool the best resources and talent; to investigate and implement ways of minimising any adverse impacts the l-1S2 Rail Link may have on individuals, communities and the environment."

4. HS2AA was not therefore specifically set up in 2010 to object to the HS2 project.

H2953/00004/76963290 v.2 PH/CFS/03 July 2014 1 5. HS2AA initially worked exclusively on matters of compensation, seeking to develop better compensation for the generalised property blight caused by the announcement of the preferred route of Phase I of HS2 in March 2010, and the accompanying compensation proposals for an Exceptional Hardship Scheme. It proceeded from this to explore the economic case for HS2, on which it was agnostic until detailed investigation demonstrated that it lacked a credible economic, social or environmental justification. Since then (summer 2010) HS2AA has opposed HS2, but has continued to represent the interests of those with properties near the line through its pursuit of better compensation and environmental mitigation. Better compensation and improved environmental mitigation are the objectives of HS2AA's petition.

6. From the outset, HS2AA has focused on an evidence-based approach, seeking to apply rigorous standards of research to explore and subsequently challenge the claims made for the HS2 project.

( Role 7. The role of HS2AA is to provide a national organisation, capable of raising funds, undertaking detailed research, utilizing and co-ordinating the expertise of those on the route, building broader alliances with other groups and representing the interests of those specifically and directly affected by engaging with decision makers and the press on HS2. HS2AA has also mounted challenges where it believes the Secretary of State for Transport has acted unlawfully. This contrasts with local action groups, who are locality-focused.

8. HS2AA has engaged with Parliament and the broader decision making process on HS2. HS2AA has provided detailed written submissions to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee (May, June 2011, November 2013) as part of its review of the proposals for HS2. HS2AA undertook detailed work to establish the facts on capacity on the West Coast Main Line, including commissioning an independent report on passenger numbers (December 2011) and producing a detailed response to the Government's consultation on high speed rail (July 2011). HS2AA gave evidence to the National Audit Office (2012/13); provided responses to the Safeguarding Consultation (January 2013); the Draft Environmental Statement Consultation (July 2013); the Phase I Environmental Statement Consultation (February 2014), and the Phase 2 consultation (January 2014). In addition Bruce Weston of HS2AA was asked to give evidence to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee (September 2011) as part of the Committee's work on HS2 and Emma Crane of HS2AA was asked to provide evidence to the HS2 (Preparation) Bill Committee (July 2013), and the Environmental Audit Committee on HS2 (March 2014). Hilary Wharf of HS2AA was asked to appear before the Hybrid Bill Select Committee in May 2014. HS2AA has also engaged directly with HS2 Ltd, the various Secretaries of State for Transport and Department for Transport. There is a large volume of correspondence contributed by both sides.

9. HS2AA has also been centrally involved in proposals for better compensation arrangements representing the interests of communities and households blighted by HS2. This has included

H2953100004176963290 v.2 PH/CFS/03 July 2014 2 championing proposals for a property bond to deal with the problem of generalised blight; taking up issues raised by affected individuals; requiring further data to be published on blight necessitating an extension to the consultation period; and successfully challenging the 2012 decision on compensation in the courts. HS2AA has worked with property professionals and other experts on blight issues, conducted surveys, met with representatives of the Department for Transport, including the Secretary of State for Transport and the Promoter. The Department for Transport agreed that HS2AA's proposals for a property bond, which reflects private sector best practice, should be one of the proposals consulted on in the 2011 consultation on high speed rail. HS2AA has provided detailed responses to the five consultations on compensation (covering the Phase I and 2 Exceptional Hardship Schemes in 2010 and 2013), and the long term proposals (in 2011, 2012, 2013) raising the many concerns expressed by its constituent individual supporters and its affiliated groups, who are specially and directly affected.

Registered individual supporters and affiliated groups 10. HS2AA operates on the basis that individuals can become registered supporters by signing up at www.hs2aa.org/siqnup or organisations which agree with the objectives of HS2AA can become affiliates, who may be viewed at .http://www.hs2actionalliance.org/locaf--qroups/ -

11. HS2AA currently has over 100 organisations signed-up as affiliates. A list of those affiliates is contained in Appendix 1. Affiliates of HS2AA receive regular campaign updates, they help with fund raising by donating to HS2AA and contribute ideas, comments, information and evidence for the HS2AA submissions and analysis it develops and publishes. Affiliates include local anti-HS2 action groups, parish councils and other residential associations and organisations. It is difficult to put a precise figure on the number of people represented by HS2AA's affiliates but it is reasonable to assume it is many thousands - given the large number of organisations, the localities they represent, the impact of the 300 mile high speed line in these areas, and the known number of properties that lie within 1km of the line or 250m of a bored tunnel (172,000 within phase I alone).

12. HS2AA currently also has over 15,000 individuals who have signed up as registered supporters. A significant proportion of HS2AA's registered supporters live in communities close to the proposed route, both on Phase I and Phase 2. HS2AA's registered supporters campaign against HS2, engage with their elected representatives on HS2, as well as engaging with HS2AA, and provide donations to HS2AA. HS2AA volunteers also provide assistance to registered supporters faced with difficult personal circumstances due to blight. HS2AA also pools and follows up on ideas and issues raised by its registered supporters and affiliates, and gives guidance on responding to the numerous consultations since 2010, as well as utilising web tools to aid individuals responding.

13. HS2AA represent these groups and individuals on matters related to the Hybrid Bill, seeking in particular better compensation and mitigation for those specially and directly affected by the proposed works and operations. That HS2AA represent these groups and individuals is evidenced by the letters stating just this, sent by affiliated groups and registered individuals in support of

PH/CFS/03 July 2014 H2953/00004176963290 v.2 3 HS2AA's right to be heard by the Select Committee. Examples of these letters can be found in Appendix 2 along with letters from John Bercow MP, Cheryl Gillan MP, David Lidington MP, Andrea Leadsom MP, Michael Fabricant MP, Chris Pincher MP, Jeremy Lefroy MP , Frank Dobson MP and Councillor Martin Tett - Chairman of 51 m.

14. The current Hybrid Bill process concerns (inter alia) how the adverse environmental impacts of HS2 can be more appropriately mitigated. Petitioning has a crucial role in seeking deficiencies in the Environmental Statement be put right and more appropriate and superior mitigation introduced. A problem with the Environmental Statement and the mitigations contained in bill is that the issues are often highly technical and are beyond the expertise of any single affected individual. Obtaining specialist technical advice on the environmental impacts covered in the Environmental Statement is also beyond the financial capability of all but the most wealthy individuals and local groups. In this context, HS2AA has served the crucial role of employing experts on behalf of the groups and individuals it represents, and responding to the Draft Environmental Statement and Environmental Statement from an expert perspective, exposing the inadequacies of the proposed mitigations. HS2AA's petition seeks that the systematic understatement of adverse environmental impacts be corrected. The understatement arises from misapplications of national policies, the failure to correctly implement environmental legislation, and disregard for the unfairness of imposing property blight without adequate compensation. Its consequence is that the Hybrid Bill proposes needlessly bad environmental impacts and inadequate mitigation.

15. HS2AA notes that the Promoter is now contesting that HS2AA represent people who are specially and directly affected when in front of Mr Justice Ouseley, Mr Mould QC, for the Secretary of State, argued that HS2AA did represent groups and people affected by property blight. In particular he stated at the High Court hearing on compensation:

the claimant [HS2AA] is clearly representing a wide range of interests, including the interests of village residents association, and indeed individuals, who are concerned about the impacts of the proposed railway from London to Birmingham on their property values." (transcript of Judicial Review, 13 December 2012, page 42 lines 7-12)

And again:

"... In other words, in its representative capacity, the alliance was able to say that all that it wished to say on, firstly, the principle of a generalised blight discretionary package. Secondly, on the relative merits of the components of such a package, responding to the options set out by the Secretary of State in annexe A, and thirdly, to explain in detail why, in the alliance's judgment, the property bond component should be included as the optimal solution to meet the principle of fair

compensation that it said was appropriate, in order to alleviate generalised blight. .... (page 68, lines 6 to 17)

PH/CFS/03 July 2014 H2953100004176963290 v.2 4 16. Of course, as Mr Wolfe, QC, (acting for HS2AA at the same hearing) stated, HS2AA is representative in the way of "an umbrella representative organization", which does not mean that the local groups and individuals represented cannot have their own separate views, as indeed they do, or that they are represented in the way that a level of government represents them. The Promoter previously concurred with our affiliates and individual supporters that HS2AA represents a large number of people who are specially and directly affected on the matters on which HS2AA is petitioning.

Petitioning 17. The Government's submissions in the course of judicial proceedings highlighted the importance of the petitioning process to raising concerns about the environmental impacts of Phase I of HS2 and ensuring better mitigation arrangements. HS2AA therefore applied to the Legal Services Commission to obtain legal aid for the preparation of a petition on key route wide environmental impacts. This application was declined. HS2AA was therefore required to identify a limited number of route wide issues upon which it could utilise its financial resources which were landscape, carbon, noise, waste, and biodiversity. By pooling the donations of many hundreds of individuals and groups, HS2AA was able to commission specialized reports from known experts in each of these fields. These reports were detailed in HS2AA's Environmental Statement response and formed the basis of HS2AA's petition.

18. HS2AA's petition therefore built on the information set out in the response to the Environmental Statement to argue for three key items:-first that the Environmental Statement be done properly; second that the speed of H52 be reduced from 400 km/h to 300 km/h; and third that an independent ombudsman body be created to oversee mitigation and environmental impacts effectively. Having an adequate Environmental Statement enables the Select Committee to evaluate the petitions and for Parliament as a whole to perform its function of adequately scrutinising the Bill. Reducing the speed of HS2 gives greater flexibility in the route, within the () broad alignment, and so enables impacts on individual residents and property owners - including other petitioners - to be reduced or avoided. Even with the same route, a reduction in speed will benefit those living and working in the vicinity. The nature and effectiveness of the mitigation measures is a critical issue for many petitioners and part of that is the nature of the regulator who will enforce the requirements. The petition made no suggestion that the line should not be built nor did it advance any argument against the principle of the Hybrid Bill.

19. In the event that HS2AA's petition is not heard, the Select Committee will not hear from the experts on the issues highlighted above and hear the arguments as to why each of the requests in the petition be implemented. Given the complexity and costs involved in bringing these matters to the Committee, the effect will be to disenfranchise the thousands of people who are registered supporters or affiliates of HS2AA, and in particular those individuals and affiliated groups who have relied on the HS2AA petition to take these route-wide points and have not covered them in their own petitions. A number of the letters included in Appendix 2 make this point.

H2953/00004176963290 v.2 PH/CFS/03 July 2014 5 I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signed

Hilary Wharf, Director, HS2AA

Date: 4 July 2014

PHICFS/03 July 2014 H2953/00004176963290 v.2 Appendix I HS2AA Affiliated Groups

Affiliated member groups include action groups, residents' associations, societies, parish councils and other locally based organisations.

Phase One Euston Against HS2 Ballinger Road Residents Boddington Parish Council Association

Stalbridge House Residents Lappetts Lane Neighbourhood Priors Hardwick Stop HS2 Association Watch Scheme Action Group

Pan Camden HS2 Alliance Wood Lane Residents Ladbroke HS2 Action Group Association

Camden Cutting Group Speen Area Action Group Southam Area Action Group

Gloucester Avenue Association Chiltern Countryside Group Offchurch Action Group

The Park Village (and Environs) Chiltern Ridges HS2 Action Weston under Wetherley Residents' Association Group Action Group

North Westminster Against HS2 Cholesbury Action Group Cubbington Action Group Action Group Against HS2

North Ealing Against HS2 The Dunsmore Society Stareton Action Group

South Ruislip Residents HP22 6PN Wendover Action Stoneleigh HS2 Action Group Association Group

Ruislip Against HS2 Wendover HS2 Kenilworth Stop H52 Action Group Hillingdon Against HS2 Wendover Society Crackley Residents Association

Ickenham Residents Association Stoke Mandeville Action Group Burton Green HS2 Action Group Denham Against H52 The Aylesbury Society Balsall Common Village Residents' Association Harefield Against H52 Pitchcott Parish, Aylesbury Berkswell Society

Chalfonts NO to HS2 Quainton and Waddesdon Berkswell Parish Council Action Group

HS2 Amersham Action Group Twyford HS2 Action Group Heart of England High Speed Railway Action Group

Amersham and District Residents' Godington Action Group Hampton in Arden Parish Association Council Little Missenden Stop H52 Preston Bissett Action Group Water Orton Stop H52 Action Group

Little Kingshill Village Society Chetwode Action Group Middleton Action Group

Hyde Heath Village Society Beachampton Action Group SNOW (Action groups in North Warwickshire _&_Staffordshire)

PH/CFS/03 July 2014 H2953/00004176963290 v.2 7 Barn Management UK 2 Villages of Oxfordshire Drayton Bassett HS2 Action Opposing HS2 Group

South Heath Action Group Turweston Action Group Hints and Area against HS2

Great Missenden Stop HS2 Transport Sense Tamworth Action Group

Residents' Environmental Greatworth Action Group Whittington & Lichfield STOP Protection Association HS2 Action Group

Potter Row Action Group South Northamptonshire Action Fradley & Streethay Parish Group Council (Lichfield)

Aston-le-Walls H52 Action Kings Bromley Stop HS2 Group Action Group

Phase Two Manchester

Ridwares Against HS2 Swynnerton HS2 Action Group Agden, Broomedge and Lymm East

Colton Against HS2 Whitmore Heath & Baldwins Warburton HS2 Action Group Gate HS2 Action Group

Ingestre and Tixall Against HS2 Madeley Stop HS2 Action Rixton with Glazebrook HS2 Group Action Group

Staffordshire Against HS2 (Phase Mid Cheshire Against HS2 Culcheth and District Rail 2 Staffordshire groups) Action Group

Hopton Against HS2 One Voice Against HS2 in Lowton East Neighbourhood Cheshire Development Forum

Marston Against HS2 HS2 Parish Council Action Group Cheshire East

Phase Two Leeds

Kingsbury and District HS2 Strelley Action Group Altofts and Kirkthorpe Against Campaign Group H52

Polesworth & District Action Killamarsh & Renishaw HS2 Swillington, Oulton & Group Against HS2 & The Y Action Group Woodlesford HS2 Action Route Together

Tonge & Breedon HS2 Action STOP HS2 South Yorkshire Church Fenton says NO to Group HS2 Action Group

PHICFSI03 July 2014 H2953/00004176963290 v.2 Appendix 2 Letters from MPs, 51m, Affiliated Groups and Registered Supporters

John Bercow MP, Cheryl Gillian MP and David Lidington MP Andrea Leadsom MP Michael Fabricant MP, Chris Pincher and Jeremy Lefroy MP Frank Dobson MP Natascha Engel MP Nick Hurd MP 51m Group

Affiliated Groups: Camden Cutting Group Hillingdon Against HS2 Denham Against H52 Residents' Environmental Protection Association Chiltern Ridges HS2 Action Group Wendover Society Transport Sense Cubbington Action Group Against H52 Heart of England High Speed Rail Action Group Middleton Action Group Lad broke Action Group Southam Area Action group Offchurch Action Group Hints and Area Against HS2 Kings Bromley Stop HS2 Action Group Mid Cheshire Against HS2 Tonge and Breedon HS2 Action Group Killamarsh and Renishaw HS2 Action Group Church Fenton says NO to H52

Registered Supporters: Andrew Jamieson Ann and David Outen Beverley Manton Catherine Lea Christopher Triffitt Christopher Wilson Creak family Dan Mitchell David Starr Gareth and Stefanie Buckley Gordon Findlay Jerry Marshall John and Patsy Hings John Donovan John Lee Keri Brennan Kip Warr Margot Barnikel (Mrs) Martin Neal Michael Jepson Michael Johnstone Pam Mather Pauline and John Hughes Prof Mike Geddes Rose-Marie Adams Rosemary Guiot

PH/CFS/03 Jury 2014 H2953/00004/76963290 v.2 9 . John Bercow MTP Cheryl Gbn MP and David Udingwn MP Home of (mmt., 1rkn SWIA OA

Mr1oI*rtSym MP Chairman HKh SpLLJ Rd t1,P1JYfl West MiLc fldl ( kfi ( }[flflflt. House of cuu* 1tkn. SWIA O&L juiw 21114

Robert,

ri tuj .z'WL!iTYIi pU

It was with th apporntrraent that we .ard 1e2:rnl ibM I'bgh Sp] Ltd

hare deJed to clulenge the locus sun& of High Speed 2 Actil Y111. AThance m.d Stop HS2

with thr result thn, shauld the per be smccessftd, these twQ efkcew cmpaigr

airp wtu.1.d :b ptedudJ Eorn pxding your Comminice with rv&rcc

lJ }iJ dcaIm i1th ,oth t:rriatior*

ovcr the courc c:f the bl;5.t four vear and have found the der4i of 1uiowIcde and

ur-ALt2odirhg f h.eir vo1:uiteer txond to n Thgh they make :t1c secret of their

.pLL. we cet th the &r th r...dming majotity of

pLdonet; and we e firrrLh f viev that, the' hoWd not be prevented from

Pun-iding cvidenc (.1 the biS dum 'they are a ,r *tK$ teety xiid

itiii .affcetoj h the projccu

The .cctnd pom 'we houd 5kc tc, make runs fvmrn the first. 1hic twn crnpaji

Frcimps havc droc Om excellent itt flAttrfl 10 he't swaihes of otur

coiunt' ahe"I the deekpicni Of the prj I and n rtkiar - tht ofrn

itcchnv1 and ccipbctd petts of crttiiiition rc-sponscs. acid affic. PiIiamimarv

pnc. For our BuckigvIlmnshize C fltucTc1es 121 co1sL rabk number of ekkrh;

in rrd re have CXik to rry on the Arcurssibit I omtkn p'rtMded to thcrn b thsc campaign gupr inforrnadon which i 1:rt o inprekensthk thin s

he tJOCLY tun uprhet bc F1ih Sited 2 Ltd. such is the tiaxxitc o f tht rtitnship

the cintpagn grup and. s-cme Of uur ct flUTicflTS thrt 17112UIV O f ttoe hctiig In 1wkinhanh]r rc activd rdving and Stop H.2 to represent their vicws.

On that Wtis, wt wutd urge you and your t o 1n r mptthctklly upon Their cisc whcn hcdrgs start ne-xi immth and Avu renutim, 1u-pdii1 thM you WIP allow r.hcte two

rtUtofl .o presru their cat to you as they pc-k for tt huge nu i1er ul our cthtent

/ LI

eiyl Gilian David Lidington mber of Member of Patiru Mcinbtx of Pirianrrkl hm aid Ametstmm Akbrv ANDREA LEADSOM MP

. ' a I

I I L- AAAA

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Robert Syms MP Chairman High Speed Rail (London West Midlands) Bill Select Committee House of Commons London SWIA OAA

REF. MJP

3 July 2014

Dear Robert

Locus Standi challenge - High Speed 2 Action Alliance and Stop HS2

I understand a number of Colleagues have written to you on this matter and I would like to take this opportunity to echo their disappointment that HS2 Ltd. are challenging the right of High Speed 2 Action Alliance and Stop HS2 to have their petitions heard by your Committee.

I would like to reiterate the points made by my Colleagues and stress to you that the depth of knowledge and attention to detail of these orgnisations is excellent and has been invaluable to me and my constituents and, I believe, would be valuable to your Committee, You will be aware that they do object to the principle of the project but I believe it would be to the detriment of the Committee if HS2 Action Alliance and Stop HS2 were not permitted to give evidence.

These two groups have been extremely effective in conveying often very complicated and technical issues and information to my constituents and have provided excellent support with consultation responses and help with understanding the Parliamentary process to those affected. Many of my constituents and the constituents of others, who have never had to deal with an issue of this kind before, are relying on these groups to represent their views.

Like my Colleagues, I do urge you and your committee to look sympathetically upon their case and to allow these two orgarusations to present their cases to the Committee and to speak for a large number of those affected by this project.

With best wishes

1 i

Andrea Leadsom MP

Member of Parliament fr South Northamptonshire Westminster Office: 020 72197149 andrea..teadsom.mpparliament.uk www,andrealeadsom.coin Michael Fabricant MP, Chris Pincher MP and Jeremy Lefroy MP House of Commons, London. SW1A OAA

Mr Robert Syms MP Chairman High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Select Committee House of Commons London. SW1A 0AA. 2nd July 2014

Dear Robert,

Locus Standi challenge - High Speed 2 Action Alliance and Stop HS2

It was with disappointment that we - and our constituents - learnt that High Speed 2 Ltd have decided to challenge the locus standi of High Speed 2 Action Alliance and Stop HS2 with the result that, should the promoter be successful, these two effective campaign groups would be precluded from providing your Committee with evidence.

We should like to raise two points. First, we have all had dealings with both organisations over the course of the last four years and have found the depth of knowledge and understanding of their volunteers second to none. Though they make no secret of their objection to the project, we suspect this is the case for the overwhelming majority of petitioners, and we are firmly of the view that they should not be prevented from providing evidence on the basis that they are not - as organisations - specially and directly affected by the project.

The second point we should like to make runs from the first. These two campaign groups have done an excellent job in conveying information to vast swathes of our constituents about the development of the project and - in particular - the often technical and complicated aspects of consultation responses and the Parliamentary process. For our Staffordshire constituencies, a considerable number of elderly residents in rural areas have come to rely on the accessible information provided to them by these campaign groups - information which is far more comprehendible than some of the documentation supplied by High Speed 2 Ltd. Such is the nature of the relationship between the campaign groups and some of our constituents that many of those living in Staffordshire are actively relying on HS2AA and Stop HS2 to represent their views. On that basis, we would urge you and your committee to look sympathetically upon their case when hearings start next month, and we remain hopeful that you will allow these two organisations to present their cases to you as they speak for a huge number of our constituents.

Yours sincerely,

pp with his agreement Michael Fabricant Chris Pincher Jeremy Lefroy Member of Parliament Member of Parliament Member of Parliament Lichfield Tamworth Stafford From: The Rt. Hon. Frank Dobson, M.P.

top .. ..I. N I

HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON SWIA OAA

3 July 2014

Right to be heard: HS2 Action Alliance

I understand that HS2 Ltd as promoter of the H52 project are challenging the right of the H52 Action Alliance to be heard by you and your colleagues on the Select Committee. I hope you will reject this challenge as profoundly anti-democratic and totally inappropriate in the 211 century. This approach by HS2 Ltd is contrary to the general commitment to increased transparency and the encouragement of public participation in decision making processes.

If the H52 project were not being promoted byway of the Hybrid Bill it is on such a scale, geographical range and timescale that it would be subject to a major public inquiry. Under the public inquiry procedure there would be no way in which the promoters would be able to challenge the right of the HS2 Action Alliance to be heard and indeed to challenge the evidence being presented by HS2 Ltd. The concept of locus standi is archaic and from a time when there was little or no public participation in decision making around large infrastructure projects. It is likely that the promoter will cite ancient precedents to argue that HS2 Action Alliance (an organisation which clearly represents many thousands of individuals who are themselves directly and specially affected) should not be heard. I hope you will agree that it would be wrong to slavishly accept such precedents as that would leave Hybrid Bills - a parliamentary process- with a democratic deficit compared with the public inquiries which apply to most other major projects. I hope therefore that you and your colleagues will set some new forward looking precedents and insist as a general principle that all individuals and organisations who would be entitled to be heard at a planning public inquiry, will be heard by you if that is what they wish.

In any case the most recent relevant precedent was Crossrail who did not challenge anyone's right to be heard, including I believe objections from far away from the route of that project.

In the particular case of HS2 Action Alliance to hear them would provide you with a unique route wide critique of a wide range of public concerns over the cumulative impact on the environment and residents of both the construction and subsequent operations of HS2.

Telephone (020) 7219-4452 Fax (020) 7219-6956 U.... I

U UNIU U

Many individuals and organisations along the route have recognised that HS2 Action Alliance have the expertise to analyse and assess the wide range of issues on their behalf and were expecting to be able to rely on HS2 Action Alliance to present their cases. To refuse to hear the Action Alliance would leave these individuals and organisations feeling swindled out of their rights by a quirk of parliamentary procedure.

I hope therefore you will rule that anyone who could put their case to a planning public inquiry can put their case to you.

Yours sincerely,

C5Y

do Buckinghamshire County Council County Hall Walton Street Aylesbury Bucks HP2O 1UA

30 June 2014

Neil Caulfield The House of Commons Clerk of Private Bills Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SWIP4DR

Dear Mr Caulfield,

HS2 - LOCUS STANDI CHALLENGES

51m is a group of 19 local authorities that have joined together in a national campaign to actively challenge the HS2 rail project. The group is known as "51 m" because that represents how much HS2 will cost each and every Parliamentary Constituency... £51 million. This figure was based on a project cost of £33 billion; in June 2013 this was increased by the Government to £42.6 billion. The group has worked together over the last 4 years to try and give a united voice to the concerns of many affected groups and individuals who do not believe that the Government is listening to their very genuine concerns.

Similarly, HS2 Action Alliance and Stop HS2 were formed at a national level, to give a voice, advice and assistance to all those affected by HS2.

This they have done to great effect by responding to all the consultations, along with 51m. The Transport Select Committee, Public Accounts Committee and Environmental Audit Committee have all recognised the legitimacy of HS2 Action Alliance, Stop HS2 and 51m by calling them to give evidence at their various inquiries.

Far from seeking to 'gum up the process', these groups are hoping that they will finally be heard as to date, HS2 Ltd has been unwilling or unable to address their very real concerns in any meaningful way. These groups represent very real localism at grass roots level and the national umbrella organisation is properly and rightly representative; particularly for those who are unable to make their own case.

We sincerely hope you will allow these groups their standing and to be heard,

Yours sincerely,

Councillor Martin Tett Chairman of 51 m and Leader of Buckinghamshire County Council Letter of Support for HS2AA concerning the challenge to their locus standi

Dear Sirs,

Camden Cutting Group (CCG) is based in Camden, London. CCG speaks for those in the area bound in the south by Granby Terrace, in the north by Parkway, in the west by Park Village East & West (including the Peabody Estate), and in the east by Arlington Road. About 3,000 people live in this area. The open railway cutting leading to Euston is in the centre of this neighbourhood, and as such we are directly and specially affected by HS2.

As a small, unfunded, group of volunteers (all with day-jobs) we are affiliated with HS2AA to represent CCG in matters of route-wide concern. We do not have sufficient resources or expertise to obtain our own expert reports or to prepare research papers and consultation responses dealing with complex topics such as noise, carbon and blodiversity and we rely on HS2AA to provide this to our members.

While we have submitted our own petition, as have many individuals in our community, these have all been done focusing on issues especially relevant to our local area or the particular works affecting us, leaving route-wide issues to HS2AA.

If the Select Committee were to decide to refuse HSAA's locus standi and FIS2AA's petition was not heard, CCG reserves the right to amend our petition in view of this decision so that we may raise some of the route-wide issues currently being petitioned on by HS2AA.

Regards,

) - Mr Jackson Toms-Limb Co-Chair, Camden Cutting Group [email protected] / 07736470415 www.carndencutting.co.uk FBLLINGDON

Keri Brennan C Chair - Hillingdon Against HS2 17 Roundways Ruislip HA4 6EA

Dear Sir! Madam

Letter of support for HS2AA concerning the challenge to their Locus standi

Who we are

Hillingdon Against HS2 is based in Hillingdon. It was created in 2011 and represents over 3,000 residents, a variety of residents associations, community groups, schools and a chamber of commerce with the great majority being sufficiently near to the HS2 line that they are directly and specially affected.

Representation

This letter is to say that HS2AA represents Hillingdon Against HS2 in matters of route-wide concern that impact on our members who are directly and specially affected by HS2. Particular matters of route-wide concern for which HS2AA represent our Group's collective interests are compensation, a wide range of environmental issues (including conforming with policy and legislation) such as waste, noise, biodiversity, carbon.

HS2AA represent the Hillingdon Against HS2 through

Making submissions to public consultations and Committees concerning HS2 - on which our Group have input and commented the most recent four in 2013/14 being the Draft Environmental Statement, the compensation proposals, Phase 2, and the Environmental Statement Writing and publishing papers on a wide range of topics e.g. the legal opinion on HS2 Ltd.'s noise proposals; analysis of information relevant to compensation schemes and proposals Giving us advice and taking up issues of concern with HS2 Ltd on our behalf e.g. on interpretation of rules of compensation schemes; numerous procedural matters; and highlighting errors and omissions in documentation produced by HS2 Ltd such as the Environmental Statement Liaising with other bodies with shared interests e.g. on environmental matters, e.g. The Woodland Trust, CPRE, Wildlife Trust, Countryside Alliance, Green Party, 51m Campaigning and lobbying for improved compensation and mitigation e.g. with MPs, other interest groups, in media including presenting to the MPs Compensation and Mitigation group Taking legal action where HS2 Ltd/DfT fail to meet legal requirements e.g. through the courts on compensation, safeguarding the route, and on the Jan 2012 decision on HS2; and to the Aarhus Compliance Committee. Representing our interests at various select committees - including most recently the Environmental Audit Committee and the Hybrid Bill Select Committee Employing and working with experts and legal advisors to support the promotion and protection of our interests e.g. on noise, waste, carbon and biodiversity

Our support

The Hillingdon Against HS2 group has contributed financial support to HS2AA in order to assist them in representing our interests. We do not have sufficient resources or expertise to obtain our own expert reports or to prepare research papers and consultation responses dealing with complex topics such as noise, carbon and biodiversity and we rely on HS2AA to provide this to our members. Our members have worked together to raise these funds through a range of fundraising events and personal donations.

The Hillingdon Against HS2 group affiliated to HS2AA in 2011 and has remained a member group of HS2AA ever since, and regards HS2AA as representing us and our members.

Yours sincerely

Keri Brennan

Chair Hillingdon Against HS2 The New House Slade Oak Lane Higher Denham Bucks UB9 5DP 3rd July 2014

Dear Sir/Madam

To whom it may concern

I wish to register my concern that HS2 Ltd has challenged the 'locus staridi' of the HS2 Action Alliance.

I am the Treasurer of Denham Against HS2, the biggest protest group in the Colne Valley through which the planned railway will run. The group was founded in early 2011 and seeks to represent the interests of approximately 10,000 individuals in the area whose lives will be directly and specially affected if construction goes ahead. Our committee meets monthly with formal minutes, we are supported by our Parish, District and County Council and our funds are accurately and regularly audited.

Denham Against H52 provides a local voice and information exchange for residents in the local community and acts as a focus for knowledge and understanding of issues affecting the local area. There are, however, numerous route-wide issues which are equally relevant to local residents for which HS2 Action Alliance represents our Group's collective interests such as compensation to affected householders and landowners, the scale of HS2 Ltd's proposed safeguarding of land, environmental matters such as biodiversity and carbon production, loss of ancient woodland, the scarring of the Chilterns, noise, code of construction conduct and the possible effect on rare chalk streams.

These matters have to be researched, analysed and challenged at a route-wide level, and the HS2 Action Alliance enables us to do this more effectively. For this reason Denham Against HS2 affiliated to HS2AA in 2011 and HS2AA represent our group on route-wide matters. We have contributed money in response to HS2AA various appeals including those for court cases.

Furthermore, the information provided by the Alliance has assisted dozens of local people and businesses to submit petitions to the HS2 Select Committee. Without this exhaustive research, some of these submissions would have lacked the necessary weight to put a compelling case before the Select Committee. To our knowledge, none of the locally-based petitions have had their 'locus standi' challenged by HS2 Ltd, and it seems perverse that the campaign's most influential, engaged and hard- working individuals have been forced to justify their presence in front of the Committee.

Our own petition was written assuming that the HS2AA petition will proceed and that they will take up the route-wide issues on our behalf. If the Select Committee were to refuse the 'locus standi' of the Alliance, Denham Against HS2 reserves the right to amend our petition in view of that decision so that we may raise some of the route- wide issues raised in its petition.

Yours faithfully

Norman Dennis Treasurer Denham Against HS2 The Old Lamb Hybrid Bill Select Committee Potter Row House of Commons Great Missenden London SW 1 A OAA Bucks HP 16 9LT

1st July 2014

Whoever it May Concern,

I am writing as Chair of the Residents' Environmental Protection Association [REPA], a local residents group that is affiliated to HS2AA, to express my concerns regarding the challenge to their locus standi.

The Residents Environmental Protection Association [REPA] is an association of community based groups in the South Heath/Chesham/Amersham area of the Chilterns AONB. It was created in early 2013 and represents approximately 800 individuals, the great majority of whom live sufficiently near to the HS2 line to be directly and specially affected by the proposals.

HS2AA, as a national campaigning group, represents REPA in matters of route-wide concern such as compensation, environmental issues, noise and blight. It has been extremely active in communicating REPA's concerns to HS2 Ltd and DfT, and providing the group and individual REPA members with invaluable support i.e. making submissions to HS2 consultations and Committees, giving advice on compensation procedures, taking legal action where HS2 has failed to meet legal requirements and working with experts and advisors to protect the interests of affected residents. REPA, as a group of local residents, would have neither the resources nor expertise to deal with issues such as these and consequently rely on HS2AA to provide this expert advice and support to our members.

Given that HS2AA represents REPA and its members, REPA voiced mainly local concerns in its petition assuming that HS2AA's petition, which takes up route-wide issues on our behalf, would proceed. As Chair of REPA, I am speaking for the entire association when I ask that if the HS2AA locus standi is refused, which I sincerely hope is not the case, REPA would be able to amend its petition to include route -wide issues.

Yours sincerely,

Beverley Manton

Chair, Residents' Environmental Protection Association The local volunteer run group for Ballinger, Kings Ash, The Lee, Lee Common, Potter Row, and the surrounding areas Affiliated to the two National Campaigns www.ST0PHS2.org and www.HS2ActionAlliance.org

2 July 2014

The Select Committee on The High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill The House of Commons London SW1AOAA

Dear Sir/Madam

Letter of support for HS2 Action Alliance concerning the challenge to their Locus Standi in respect of the Select Committees of the HS2 Hybrid Bill

Chiltern Ridges 1-152 Action Group ("CRAG") is a voluntary group, set up in 2010, representing the communities based in the Chiltern Ridges from Hyde Heath, Hyde End, South Heath, Potter Row, Ballinger, The Lee and Swan Bottom. If the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill ("the Bill") is passed, these communities face a very uncertain future and hence there is huge public interest in petitioning the Select Committees regarding the many issues raised by the Bill which will directly affect these communities. There are approximately 600 people living in these communities who will be directly and adversely affected by the Bill if it is enacted.

ost of the people in our communities have submitted petitions regarding the Bill and none of them have been challenged regarding their locus standi. The issues of major concern are the devastation of the Chiltern Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in which we live, the operational noise of HS2 which will ruin the tranquillity of the area and is likely to affect the health of many residents living near the track, the wide range of environmental damage which will be done by the construction and operation of I-1S2, the lack of proper compensation for the loss already suffered by the community, the effects on economic and social cohesion amongst our communities during the seven years of construction. CRAG's own petition is registered with the Select Committee as Petition number 01285.

This letter is to say that HS2AA has represented and continues to represent CRAG in matters of route-wide concern that impact on our members who are directly and specially affected by HS2, including conforming with policy and legislation on these and other issues. In particular HS2AA has guided us and continues to advise us on compensation, noise, the Construction Code of Practice and spoil removal. Chiltern Ridges HS2 Action Group Registered in England Company No. 7482430 A company limited by guarantee Kingwood House The Lee Grt.t Miscnden Bucks HPI 69Nt.i Many of the above issues are route wide concerns and require legal, scientific and political input. As a small voluntarily funded organisation we are unable to deal with these issues ourselves at the level of sophistication required to represent our case in the Select Committees where HS2 Limited will have very experienced and expensive representation to present their case against us.

Specifically, HS2AA represents and supports CRAG by:

Making submissions to public consultations and House of Commons Committees concerning 11S2 Writing and publishing papers on a wide range of topics of concern to our members Giving us advice and taking up issues of concern with HS2 Ltd on our behalf Campaigning and lobbying for improved compensation and mitigation Taking legal action where HS2 Ltd/DfT fail to meet legal requirements Employing and working with experts and legal advisors to support the promotion and protection of our interests e.g. on noise, waste, carbon and biodiversity

CRAG has contributed financial support to HS2AA in order to assist it in representing our interests. We do not have sufficient resources or expertise within our own group to obtain our own expert reports or to prepare research papers and consultation responses dealing with complex topics such as noise and we rely on HS2AA to provide this to our group and its members.

To deal with this issue of complexity and expense CRAG has affiliated itself with HS2AA who have investigated, researched and advised us and the residents we represent on such issues for some years. CRAG regards HS2AA as representing us as a group and our individual members. Our own petition was written assuming that the HS2AA petition will proceed and that they will take up the route-wide issues on our behalf.

If the Select Committee were to decide to refuse HS2AA's locus standi and HS2AA's petition was not heard many of the residents we represent would be at a severe disadvantage and CRAG would reserve the right to amend our petition in view of this decision so that we may raise some of the route wide issues currently being petitioned on our behalf by HS2AA.

Yours sincerely

Simon Morris

Chairman cc: Right Hon Cheryl Gillan MP, Right Hon David Lidington MP, Mr Neil Caulfield

Chi Item Ridges 1-IS2 Action Group Registered in England Company No. 7482430 A company limited by guarantee Kmgssood Ilous I he Lee Great \insnden Bucks HPI69NV THE WE.NDOVER SOCIETY 1" July, 2014

To Mr Robert Syms,

Chair, High Speed Rail Committee

London

Dear Sir,

High Speed Rail (London West Midlands) Bill

The Wendover Society is based in Community Forum Area CFA 10 in the Chilterns. The Society was founded in 1965, and exists to protect and enhance the charm and character of Wendover. It is the largest organisation in Wendover with around 475 full members and over 600 associates via corporate membership, the overwhelming majority of whom live so close to the proposed alignment of HS2 that in one way or another they will be directly and specially affected by it.

Whilst the Society has petitioned against the Sill as currently drafted, insofar as our members interests are concerned, we have nevertheless relied on the petitioning of HS2AA in matters pertaining to general and specific route wide effects such as:

Effective compensation. Liaising with other bodies with shared interests including specialist environmental matters, e.g. The Woodland Trust, CPR.E, Wildlife Trust, Countryside Alliance, 51m. Importance and relevance of protecting the Chilterns AoNB. Providing advice and guidance on Technical subjects beyond the reasonable expertise of the Society's officers and members, such as waste, biodiversity, ecology, carbon, etc. General construction matters.

Our own petition was therefore written assuming that the HS2AA petition will proceed and that they will take up these route-wide issues, effectively on our behalf. We consider that if the Committee were not to accept HSAA's locus standii, and not to hear their petition, we might require amendment to our petition to address additional issues on such route wide matters.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Griffiths

Vice Chairman

Registered Chaiity No 258990 Website Transport Sense Ltd Greatworth Court Brackley Road G reatworth Banbury 0X17 2DX

2 July 2014

Letter of support for HS2AA concerning the challenge to their Locus standi

Transport Sense is based in North Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and South Northamptonshire. It was created in 2011 and represents a wide group of individuals with the great majority being sufficiently near to the HS2 line that they are directly and specially affected.

This letter is to say that HS2AA represents Transport Sense in matters of route- wide concern that impact on our members who are directly and specially affected by H52.

Particular matters of route-wide concern for which HS2AA represent our Group's collective interests are compensation, a wide range of environmental issues (including conforming with policy and legislation) such as waste, noise, biodiversity, carbon.

HS2AA represent Transport Sense through Making submissions to public consultations and Committees concerning HS2 - on which our Group have input and commented - the most recent four in 2013/14 being the Draft Environmental Statement, the compensation proposals, Phase 2, and the Environmental Statement. Writing and publishing papers on a wide range of topics eg the legal opinion on HS2 Ltd's noise proposals; analysis of information relevant to compensation schemes and proposals Giving us advice and taking up issues of concern with H52 Ltd on our behalf eg on interpretation of rules of compensation schemes; numerous procedural matters; and highlighting errors and omissions in documentation produced by HS2 Ltd such as the Environmental Statement Liaising with other bodies with shared interests eg on environmental matters, eg The Woodland Trust, CPRE, Wildlife Trust, Countryside Alliance, Green Party, 51m Campaigning and lobbying for improved compensation and mitigation eg with MPs, other interest groups, in media including presenting to the MPs Compensation and Mitigation group Taking legal action where HS2 Ltd/DfT fail to meet legal requirements eg through the courts on compensation, safeguarding the route, and on the Jan 2012 decision on HS2; and to the Aarhus Compliance Committee.

Transport Sense Limited. Registered Office Greatworth Court, Brackley Road, Greatworth, Banbury, Oxfordshire 0X17 2DX Registered in England No. 07429990 Representing our interests at various select committees - including most recently the Environmental Audit Committee and the Hybrid Bill Select Committee Employing and working with experts and legal advisors to support the promotion and protection of our interests eg on noise, waste, carbon and biodiversity

Transport Sense has contributed financial support to HS2AA in order to assist them in representing our interests. We do not have sufficient resources or expertise to obtain our own expert reports or to prepare research papers and consultation responses dealing with complex topics such as noise, carbon and biodiversity and we rely on HS2AA to provide this to our members.

Transport Sense affiliated to HS2AA in 201 land has remained a member group of HS2AA ever since, and regards HS2AA as representing us and our members.

Yours sincerely

B Naylor Transport Sense Ltd

Transport Sense Limited. Registered Office Greatworth Court, Brackley Road, Greatwoith, Banbury, Oxfordshire 0X17 2DX Registered in England No. 07429990

1" July 2014 11 Pinehurst Cubbington LEAMINGTON SPA Warks CV32 7XA Tel: 01926 36838

To Whom it may Concern

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Support for 1-152 Action Alliance in the matter of the challenge to their locus standi The Cubbington Action Group against HS2 was formed in the summer of 2010 in response to the announcement in March of that year of the HS2 proposal One of the first actions that our c group took was to affiliate to the HS2 Action Alliance (HS2AA), and we have remained affiliated ever since.

Our group regards H52M as representing our, and our members', interests in matters that have route-wide implications, such as compensation and general environmental issues. The expertise that HS2AA has been able to apply to such general issues has been an invaluable resource for our group, since we do not have the resources ourselves to undertake the research necessary to prepare detailed technical submissions We have found the expert publications produced by HS2AA a considerable benefit in forming our own local position, making responses to the public consultations on HS2 and taking part in discussions with HS2 Ltd

We also fully support the legal actions that HS2AA has taken against the Secretary of State and have contributed to the costs of this action as well as contributing otherwise to the funding of projects undertaken by HS2AA.

Our group has Set out its own claims for locus standi in paragraph 7 of its own humble petition (reference 1622) and has not been notified of any challenge to this status. Many of the residents of Cubbington and its environs that our group represents will be directly and specially affected" by the construction and/or operation of HS2

In the knowledge that HS2AA would be petitioning the hybrid Bill on matters with route-wide implication, our group was able to concentrate its own petitioning largely on local issues, avoiding encumbering the Select Committee of the honourable House of Commons with undue repetition. We will therefore, we feel, be disadvantaged should the Select Committee not feel able to hear the humble petition of the HS2 Action Alliance, the contents of which we fully support.

Should the HS2AA petition not be heard, therefore, we feel that our own petition will become deficient insofar as it fails to address route-wide issues that are of concern to us.

Yours faithfully

'DePeter low Chairman, Cubbington Action Group against HS2 Heart of England 23 Meeting House Lane High Speed Railway Balsall Common Action Group CV7 7FX 3 July 2014

To whom it may concern

Dear Sirs,

Locus Standi of HS2 Action Alliance

The Heart of England High Speed Railway Action Group was established in 2010 to represent the interests and concerns of thousands of residents of the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull. Some 14 km of the proposed HS2 line would be located in the Borough, which would have a direct and special impact on our residents in communities such as Berkswell, Balsall Common, Hampton-in-Arden, Bickenhill and Chelmsley Wood, by virtue of damage to their well-being, property, and environment, during both construction and operation.

Because of the technical nature of the scheme and the recurrence of issues all along the proposed line, it was realised at an early stage that HHAG needed to draw on specialist expertise and resources, and that HS2 Action Alliance (HS2AA) was one of the prime sources available to us. HHAG was pleased to affiliate to HS2AA, and to contribute significant funds to support its activities.

The relationship between HHAG and the Alliance is very much two-way, in that we are able to provide local information and evidence to inform the development, by HS2AA, of proposals to mitigate the impacts of HS2 on a route-wide basis. Consequently, where there are common issues, we are able to integrate our representations with those of other individuals and action groups, and to delegate to HS2AA the task of specialist representation.

Recent instances include the consultations on the Environmental Statement and Compensation arrangements, and interventions on process, documentation, and legal matters. For the current Petitioning process, we are indebted to HS2AA for the detail work and depositions on technical environmental issues, such as noise and vibration and the relevant legal and policy frameworks.

Were HS2AA to be denied locus standi, our residents would be deprived of representation on these key matters, and it would be difficult to raise funds to obtain equivalent specialist advice. We would need to consider carefully what recourse we would have through additional petitioning or by invoking our rights under the Aarhus convention.

Accordingly, the Heart of England High Speed Railway Action Group would respectfully urge the Select Committee to agree to hear the petition from HS2 Action Alliance.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Lloyd Chairman - HHAG IJtPi

[t,1ThIiji

To Whom it may Concern

We have also supplied, exchanged and discussed with HS2AA a great deal of evidential material which the organisation have then presented on our behalf in relevant fora.

Additionally we have provided funding and information to HS2AA so that, where required, they have been able to put in train legal actions ir fueInce of our interests. Yy* faithfu ly ;acLa Chair, Middleton HS2 Action Group

tf Ir1'c..ii'iii''a 11 ;1A:PL I LADBROKE HS2 ACTION GROUP

Newkinds

Windmill Lane

Ladboke

CV47 2BN

The Directors

HS2 action Alliance Limited 1 July 2014

Ladies and Gentlemen

Ladbroke HS2 Action Group is based in Warwickshire. It was created in 2010 and represents approximately 250 individuals with a significant proportion being sufficiently near to the HS2 line that they are directly and specially affected or will be significantly affected by the wider disruption inevitably caused by the construction works. Collectively and individually the Ladbroke HS2 Action Group and it's members were surprised and appalled to learn that HS2 Ltd is challenging the locus stand! of HS2 Action Alliance Ltd in the matter of petitioning Parliament in respect of the Hybrid Bill.

This letter is to say that HS2AA has represented and continues to represent Ladbroke HS2 Action Group in matters of route-wide concern that impact on our members who are directly and specially affected by HS2. The directors of HS2 Action Alliance may use this letter to demonstrate our support for the actions they have taken and continue to take in representing our members.

HS2AA represent the Ladbroke HS2 Action Group through

Making submissions to public consultations and Committees concerning HS2 - on which our Group have provided input and commented the most recent four in 2013/14 being the Draft Environmental Statement, the compensation proposals, Phase 2, and the Environmental Statement. Writing and publishing papers on a wide range of topics eg the legal opinion on HS2 Ltd's noise proposals; analysis of information relevant to compensation schemes and proposals Giving us advice and taking up issues of concern with HS2 Ltd on our behalf eg on interpretation of rules of compensation schemes; numerous procedural matters; and highlighting errors and omissions in documentation produced by HS2 Ltd such as the Environmental Statement Liaising with other bodies with shared interests eg on environmental matters, eg The Woodland Trust, CPRE, Wildlife Trust, Countryside Alliance, Green Party, 51m Campaigning and lobbying for improved compensation and mitigation eg with MPs, other interest groups, in media including presenting to the MPs Compensation and Mitigation group Taking legal action where H52 Ltd/DfT fail to meet legal requirements eg through the courts on compensation, safeguarding the route, and on the Jan 2012 decision on HS2; and to the Aarhus Compliance Committee. Representing our interests at various select committees - including most recently the Environmental Audit Committee and the Hybrid Bill Select Committee Employing and working with experts and legal advisors to support the promotion and protection of our interests eg on noise, waste, carbon and biodiversity

The Ladbroke HS2 Action Group has contributed financial support to HS2AA in order to assist them in representing our interests. We do not have sufficient resources or expertise to obtain our own expert reports or to prepare research papers and consultation responses dealing with complex topics such as noise, carbon and biodiversity and we rely on HS2AA to provide this to our members.

The Ladbroke HS2 Action Group affiliated to HS2AA at the outset in 2010 and has remained an affiliated member group of HS2AA ever since, and regards HS2AA as representing us and our members.

Our own petition was written assuming that the HS2AA petition will proceed and that they will take up the route-wide issues on our behalf.

If the Select Committee were to decide to refuse HSAA's locus standi and HS2AA's petition was not heard , the Ladbroke HS2 Action Group reserves the right to amend our petition in view of this decision so that we may raise some of the route wide issues currently being petitioned on by HS2AA.

Yours sincerely

1raham L

G J Long,

Chairman, Ladbroke HS2 Action Group Orchard House 45 Banbury Road Southam CV47 1HJ

01/07/2014

To Whom it may Concern Dear Sir or Madam

This letter is from Southam Area Action Group (SAAG)which was established 4 years ago to represent the 11,000 people in our area blighted by HS2.

We were deeply concerned to read that HS2AA has been challenged on Locus Standi with regards to / their Petition and wish to point out that this decision is completely wrong in the points below.

1. We as SAAG are affiliated to HS2AA, and have been since the outset, in 2010.

2. HS2AA represents the 11,000 people who live in our area (many of whom are specially and directly affected by HS2) on many route-wide matters eg on compensation and many environmental issues, in many different forums.

3. SAAG has raised and donated money to HS2AA5 work to help pursue our collective interests eg expert reports, that as SAAG, and the individuals we represent, we could not afford by ourselves;

4. SAAG have made many comments and have input ideas to HS2AA that have been taken forward, on our behalf.

5. HS2AA staff are highly professional in all that they do and it is a pleasure to work with them as partners in this campaign.

With regards

Andrew Jamieson

Chair Southam Area Action Group

Email: [email protected] LOWFIELD, LONG ITCHINGTON ROAD, OFFCHURCH, LEAMINGTON SPA CV33 9AY 01926.425752

30 June 2014

Dear Hilary Wharf

Letter of support for HS2AA concerning the challenge to their Locus standi

Who we are

Offchurch Action Group, in Warwickshire, was created in 2010 and represents over 200 individuals with the great majority being sufficiently near to the HS2 line that they are "directly and specially" affected.

Representation

This letter is to say that HS2AA represents Offchurch Action Group in matters of route-wide concern that impact on our members who are directly and specially affected by HS2. Particular matters of route-wide concern for which HS2AA represent our Group's collective interests are compensation, a wide range of environmental issues (including conforming with policy and legislation) such as waste, noise, biodiversity, carbon. HS2AA represent Offchurch Action Group through Making submissions to public consultations and Committees concerning HS2 - on which our Group have input and commented the most recent four in 2013/14 being the Draft Environmental Statement, the compensation proposals, Phase 2, and the Environmental Statement. Writing and publishing papers on a wide range of topics eg the legal opinion on HS2 Ltd's noise proposals; analysis of information relevant to compensation schemes and proposals Giving us advice and taking up issues of concern with HS2 Ltd on our behalf eg on interpretation of rules of compensation schemes; numerous procedural matters; and highlighting errors and omissions in documentation produced by HS2 Ltd such as the Environmental Statement Liaising with other bodies with shared interests eg on environmental matters, eg The Woodland Trust, CPRE, Wildlife Trust, Countryside Alliance, Green Party, 51m Campaigning and lobbying for improved compensation and mitigation eg with MPs, other interest groups, in media including presenting to the MPs Compensation and Mitigation group Taking legal action where HS2 Ltd/DfT fail to meet legal requirements eg through the courts on compensation, safeguarding the route, and on the Jan 2012 decision on HS2; and to the Aarhus Compliance Committee. Representing our interests at various select committees - including most recently the Environmental Audit Committee and the Hybrid Bill Select Committee Employing and working with experts and legal advisors to support the promotion and protection of our interests eg on noise, waste, carbon and biodiversity

Our support

The Offchurch Action Group has contributed financial support to HS2AA in order to assist them in representing our interests. We do not have sufficient resources or expertise to obtain our own expert reports or to prepare research papers and consultation responses dealing with complex topics such as noise, carbon and biodiversity and we rely on HS2AA to provide this to our members.

We affiliated to HS2AA at the outset in 2010 and has remained a member group of HS2AA ever since, and regards HS2AA as representing us and our members.

Our own petition was written assuming that the HS2AA petition will proceed and that they will take up the route-wide issues on our behalf. If the Select Committee were to decide to refuse HSAA's locus standii and HS2AA's petition was not heard , Offchurch Action Group reserves the right to amend our petition in view of this decision so that we may raise some of the route wide issues currently being petitioned on by HS2AA.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Best wishes

Professor Mike Geddes Chair - Offchurch Action Group Hints and Area Action Group Against HS2

To Whom it May Concern

Hints is located in South Staffordshire on the HS2 Phase 1 route (CF21). The Action Group was formed in 2010 a few weeks after the announcement of the HS2 proposal in March 2010. From the outset, and this is framed within our Constitution, HS2AA has represented us in our determination to stop HS2 and if not to ensure that the scheme meets its legal obligations as far as the protection of the environment is concerned and to ensure a fair compensation scheme for our community which is badly affected by the blight caused by the proposed HS2. We are a community of about 300 people all of whom are sufficiently near to the line to be "directly and specially affected " by the proposals. We have neither the expertise nor the resources to challenge effectively matters relating to the environment, engineering issues and compensation. In all these matters we have relied heavily on the representation, guidance and research provided by HS2AA. At all stages, whether it be consultations, Select Committee appearances, petitioning, liaison with environmental groups etc we have sought help and advice from HS2AA through our affiliation with them. We have supported HS2AA financially throughout the 4 years since the inception of our Action Group and are relying on them to petition on route wide issues If locus standi is refused for HS2AA we reserve the right to amend our petition to include route wide issues which we have omitted on the basis that HS2AA was petitioning on such issues on our behalf.

Ann Outen - Chair

Fran Owen

Paul Blackmore

Joy Dean

Cedar Tree Cottage

School Lane

Hints

Tamworth

B78 3DN

30 June 2014 Ashton Hayes Farm, Tuppenhurst Lane, H a ndsacre, Rugeley, Staffs. WS15 4HN kinqbromleystophse(gmail.com

Date: 2nd July 2014 Petition No 785

Dear Sirs,

We as the Kings Bromley Action Group in Kings Bromley, Staffordshire are writing to you to say how amazed we are that you have decided to challenge the petition submitted by HS2AA.

We as Kings Bromley Action Group represent the many specially and directly affected people who are members of our Group, and our Group is affiliated to HS2AA.

We regard HS2AA as representing our members and community's interests on many route-wide matters e.g. on noise, vibration, compensation and many environmental issues, in many different forums

We wish to say that HS2AA have been invaluable to the community and its residents with their advice.

We believe that HS2AA as a national organisation submitting a petition, on route wide issues, such as noise, vibration and environmental impact have assisted us, as these can be properly addressed in more detail from experts who we as a small Action Group acting on behalf of individuals in the Kings Bromley and surrounding area could not employ.

We as the Kings Bromley Action Group, from donations from the community, have donated monies to HS2AA to help pursue our collective interests e.g. expert reports, that as an individual or small Group you could not afford.

We therefore ask that you reconsider your challenge of Locus Standi, and allow HS2AA to be heard on behalf of all the people they represent, that includes the members of our Group.

Yours Faithfully,

Kings Bromley STOP HS2 Action Group

Barry Stoney - Chair John Sadler Guy alisop Julia Allsopp Wayne Bull Joy fielding I Le.head Cottages Nntwich Road SL ntho me Cheshire CW1D OU

HS2 Action AUine Limited The Red House 10 Market 8qucr3 Old Aniersliarn HP7 ODQ

Athi: Andrew Budman - Director

To, Whom, My ncrn

Yours Hy l On behIf of Mid Cheshire , Against -I2

Christopher Trffitt HUnTreUrer THE OLD VICARAGE TONGE LANE BREEDON ON THE HILL DERBY DE73 8AJ

Phone: 01332 862154

Email: [email protected]

2 July 2014

Ms Hilary Wharf HS2 Action Alliance Limited The Red House 10 Market Square Old Amersham HP7 ODQ

Dear Hilary

I am writing on behalf of the Tonge & Breedon HS2 Action Group as I understand that HS2AA's locus standi is being challenged in an attempt to prevent it petitioning the Hybrid Bill Select Committee.

The Tonge & Breedon HS2 Action Group was formed last year in response to the announcement of the Phase 2 Preferred Route which cuts across the corner of Tonge and passes close to Breedon. The severe environmental impact of this route was recognised by the Temple-ERM Sustainability maps (commissioned by H52) which show that the whole of Tonge and half of Breedon will experience "a noticeable noise increase" and that the length of track discussed in the Tonge and Breedon section is a "Preliminary Candidate Area for Mitigation". According to this report, residents in the area will be "directly and specially affected" by the HS2 Preferred Route.

I would like to put on record that we have found HS2AA immensely helpful to our Group in responding coherently to this challenge. Particular matters of route-wide concern for which HS2AA represents our iroup' s collective interests are noise and compensation.

Tonge & Breedon HS2 Action Group organised several fund-raising events in the two villages during the last year and has contributed funds to HS2AA in order to assist HS2AA in representing our Group's interests and those of our members.

At the inaugural meeting of the Tonge & Breedon HS2 Action Group we resolved to join the HS2AA and our Group has remained a member group of HS2AA ever since. We regard HS2AA as representing our Group and its members.

Yours sincerely,

_2 1

J I M Morrison Chairman, Tonge & Breedon HS2 Action Group Killamarsh & Renishaw HS2 Action Group

C/O Address

Peter Howarth

Chairman

48 Walford Road

Ki ha marsh

Sheffield

S21 1HX

02/07/14

To HS2AA

Please find the following information from the Killamarsh & Renishaw HS2 Action Group; we are a registered group who are drastically & directly affected by the proposed HS2 project due entirely to the proposed route which blights both residents and industry within our region. We feel the work HS2AA have done and are doing helps us enormously and long may you continue. Please note it is greatly appreciated that HS2AA represent us, the Killamarsh & Renishaw HS2 Action Group in matters of route-wide concern e.g. on compensation and other environmental issues that could impact those who are directly affected and others that are indirectly affected by blight. Our group was formed 1 year ago and we have made great strides in improving the way we operate and the way we lobby Parliament. I have close affiliation with our MP. Killamarsh & Renishaw HS2 Action Group is affiliated to HS2AA and will remain in the group.

Yours Sincerely

Peter Howarth

Chairman

Killamarsh & renishaw HS2 Action Group Church Fenton Says No to H52

To Whom it May Concern

I am writing to confirm unequivocally that the interests of the members of our group, Church Fenton Says No to HS2, as residents of a community directly affected by HS2, are represented by the organisation H52 Action Alliance (HS2AA), to whom we are affiliated.

Over 120 members of our group have homes which lie within 300m of the proposed route.

HS2AA provides representation and advocacy for the members of our Action Group, Church Fenton Says No to HS2, and this community in relation to the impacts of HS2. The appearance of HS2AA before the select committee is of crucial importance to our members.

We believe that HS2AA is able to put forward environmental and technical details that would be hard for groups such as ours to present in sufficient detail, and this is one of the reasons why we have raised funds to provide financial support to HS2 Action Alliance. Although we have petitioned in our own right, as a group and individually, and our locus has not been challenged, we consider that the evidence given by H52 Action Alliance on route-wide issues will be vitally important to the committee, and not to allow this knowledgeable and representative group access to the hearing would go against the principle of a full and thorough consideration of the issues.

Yours sincerely, Jo and Andrew Mason

Co-ordinator/Chair Church Fenton Says No to HS2 The Poplars, Common Lane, Church Fenton, Ta dcaster, LS24 9QR

3 July 2014 From: Andrew Jamieson [maifto:[email protected] ] Sent: 30 June 2014 15:15 To: [email protected]

Dear Hilary,

I enclose my personal statement.

I am specially and directly affected by HS2 because of my proximity to the line living within 700 metres from the proposed route of HS2, which is clearly shown in the latest HS2 maps to be affected by the line.

Also as outlined in my personal petition as a resident of Southam, the impact of the construction of HS2 on Southam will seriously damage businesses both my ownand others. My locus has not been challenged.

HS2AA have represented my interests on many route-wide matters eg on compensation and many environmental issues, in many different forums.

I have personally donated monies to HS2AA to help pursue our collective interests eg expert reports, that as an individual you could not afford;

I regard HS2AA as representing my interests.

Best Regards

Andrew Jamieson Orchard House 45 Banbury Road Southam CV47 1HJ t: 01926 812475 m: 0776 8501663 alt email: [email protected] skype: aridrewinaj amieson Cedar Tree Cottage

School Lane

Hints

Tamworth

B78 3 DN

30 June 2014

Dear Hilary

We are writing to assure you that as far as we are concerned that HS2AA has fully represented us as individuals "directly and specifically affected "by HS2 and for this reason we have supported HS2AA financially for several years . We currently pay a standing order on a monthly basis to support your work..

We do not ,personally, have the expertise or financial resources to challenge HS2 Ltd and the Government on matters such as environmental issues, compensation, policy and legislation matters etc . This is particularly apposite regarding route wide issues.

We have welcomed advice and support with Consultations etc the most recent of which have been the Draft ES, Compensation, Environmental Statement and Petitioning.

As individuals we are now seriously blighted by HS2 and have been for the last 4 years . Our house has attracted no interest at all in 5 months of being marketed in a so called rising market.

We were relying on HS2AA to address route wide concerns in their petition and have had the confidence that they would be able to address such matters competently in view of the expertise they have built up on such matters.

If locus standi is refused ,despite the fact that HS2AA represents us as people directly and specifically affected, will individuals be able to reframe their petitions to include route wide concerns?

This would seem to be the only way to approach this if Parliament wishes to deal with the petitioning process fairly.

Yours sincerely

Ann and David Outen The Old Lamb Hybrid Bill Select Committee Potter Row House of Commons Great Missenden London SW1A OAA Bucks HP16 9LT

1st July 2014

Whomever it May Concern,

As a resident of South Heath, Buckinghamshire, I am writing to express my concern regarding the challenge to the HS2ActionAlliance locus standi.

My home is located just 275m from the proposed HS2 line so am therefore specially and directly affected by the HS2 proposals. You can therefore appreciate that I was enthusiastic to subscribe to HS2ActionAlliance and become a registered individual supporter as I was confident that they had the financial resources and expertise to represent my views on compensation and environmental issues at a national level.

I should also add that, to this end, myself and my husband have made regular donations to HS2AA to enable them to continue with representation to HS2Ltd and Government and to enlist expert research and reports on our behalf which we, as individuals, would have been unable to afford.

In petitioning, my family and I relied on HS2AA to represent our personal views on H52's impact in our own area, and more importantly, nationwide. Had I had any suspicion that their locus might be challenged I would have made argued much more strongly for nationwide mitigation in my own individual petition.

I hope you appreciate that I now feel dismayed and extremely disappointed by this locus challenge and hope that the decision can be reversed. HS2ActionAlliance represents the views of thousands of affected homeowners along the route, all of whom were dependent upon it to represent them at a national level. I sincerely hope that you will choose to listen to these views.

Yours sincerely

Beverley Manton Fairfield House, Bar Hill, Madeley, CW3 9QE

Hilary Wharf, HS2 Action Alliance Limited The Red House[] 10 Market Square Old AmershamLi HP7 ODQ July 1st, 2014

Dear Hilary,

I want to thank HS2AA for representing us so successfully in every way regarding HS2. Your vast knowledge has proved invaluable to us as an Action Group and to me personally.

Whilst we have compiled our own petitions to the Parliamentary Select Committee, without the guidance that HS2AA gave us in drafting our petition, firstly we would not have known how to address or compose a petition and secondly there are items in it that we would have missed, as you have so much in depth knowledge. We are very much relying on HS2AA to represent us all who are affected by HS2 before the Select Committee when you present your petition and this is why we are members of your organisation.

Personally we are affected by Phase 2 proposals in that we received a letter from the Department for Transport on July 17th 2013 stating that 'your land and any buildings upon it are on the line of the revised proposed route, and therefore classfied as at risk of being required for the construction of the line in due course'. Subsequent to this our house became unsaleable - I have written confirmation from three estate agents that they would not put the house on the market as there is no point. We are relying on HS2AA to support us in our attempt to obtain adequate and early compensation so that we may proceed with what we had hoped would be a happy retirement but has now turned into a nightmare.

Many thanks Yours sincerely

Catherine Lea Secretary Madeley Stop HS2 Action Committee 1 Leahead Cottages Nantwich Road Stanthorne Cheshire cw10 0u

2 July 2014

H52 Action Affiance Limited The Red House 10 Market Square Old Amersham HP700Q

To whom It ffiiV!!

SjPetition No. 1363

The proposed route for High Speed 2 Phase 2 North of Crewe specifically and directly affects me, as the proposed line will run at grade through open fields approximately 150 metres behind my property. I am also a registered individual supporter of HS2Ak

I have petitioned in connection with the Phase I Hybrid Bill and my individual locus has not been challenged. My own petition was written principally in the light of the HS2AA petition.

I consider that HS2AA represents my interests, and those of other residents of this area in similar circumstances, on route-wide issues; eg. compensation, noise and many other environmental matters in many different forums.

I was shocked to learn that HS2 Limited has challenged the locus standi of HS2AA before the High Speed Rail Bill Select Committee and I sincerely hope that this challenge is overturned

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Triffitt HS2 Action Alliance Limited Mr Christopher Roy Wilson The Red House "Hollingwood" 10, Market Square Cranage Villas Old Amersham Manchester Road HP7 ODO Plumley, Knutsford Cheshire WA16 OUB Attn. Andrew Bodman - Director

1st July 2014

To Whom It May Concern

Dear Sirs,

Subject: Petition No. 1591

I am an individual supporter of HS2 Action Alliance and am dismayed to learn that HS2 Ltd. has challenged the locus standi of this organisation on the grounds that they do not represent anyone affected by the HS2 project.

As a resident of George Osborne's Tatton constituency, living 250 metres from the proposed route of HS2, I am directly affected by the proposed HS2 project. I am, as an individual, reliant on HS2 Action Alliance for guidance and most importantly representation. Without organizations such as HS2 Action Alliance my voice will not be heard.

I have donated to HS2 Action Alliance in order to ensure their representation, at a national level, of disenfranchised individuals such as myself affected by the route-wide issues of blight, environmental damage, visual impact, noise and well-being.

I trust that HS2 Action Alliance will be allowed to represent myself and other individuals and organisations in the petitioning process.

Yours faithfully,

C R Wilson 59, Tudor Way, Hillingdon, Middx. UB1O 9AA 30/06/2014

Phone: 01895 824171

To whom it may concern:

I am a registered individual supporter of HS2AA and have been since it started.

I am individually, specially and directly affected by HS2 because I live in Hillingdon and regularly use the Colne Valley Park, roads and footpaths which will be adversely affected by the project.

I regard HS2AA as representing my interests on many route-wide matters e.g. on compensation and many environmental issues, in many different forums.

I have personally donated monies to HS2AA to help pursue our collective interests e.g. expert reports, that as an individual and member of local campaign groups we could not afford.

We regard HS2AA as representing our interests with their petition.

Over the recent years we have been given opportunities to make comments and input ideas to HS2AA that have been taken forward, on our behalf, and received support and advice from them.

HS2AA play a critical role for victims of HS2 who have no government national body to get advice or support from but are instead only contacted by the proposer & promoter of the scheme. HS2AA have supported unconditionally, for no payment, a range of residents, including myself, on all sorts of issues. They have provided resources and advice and represented our experiences at the highest levels in the Houses of Parliament, in the media and in the Royal Courts of Justice.

I truly hope they are able to continue to do so at this critical petitioning phase.

Yours sincerely

Jeff Creak, Patricia Creak, Nicholas Creak, Christopher Creak, Sylvia Creak The Hybrid Bill Select Committee House of commons London SW1 2 July 2014

Dear Sir or Madam

HS2AA Locus Challenge This letter is from Dr. Dan Mitchell, The Croft, Bascote Heath, Nr Southam, Warwickshire CV47 2DW tel no 01926 814484.

My Wife and I have owned The Croft, Bascote Heath Nr Southam for 35 years and are directly and specially affected by HS2 being only 300 metres from the line. Our property including our business premises cannot now be sold as its value has been reduced by 50% due to Hs2.

I have registered 3 Petitions in my own name and have not been challenged on Locus Standi, confirming that HS2 Ltd recognises that we are personally specially and directly affected.

I am a registered individual supporter of HS2AA and have been since its inception in 2010, and I am also Vice Chairman of our local Southam Area Action Group (SAAG) which was established 4 years ago to represent the 11,000 people in our area blighted by HS2.

I was deeply concerned to read that HS2AA has been challenged on Locus Standi with regards to their Petition and wish to point out that this decision is completely wrong in the points below.

1. I am a registered individual supporter of HS2AA, and regard HS2AA as representing me on a number of important issues, eg compensation, to which the Hybrid Bill relates

2. I have made many comments and have inputed ideas to HS2AA that have been taken forward, on my behalf

3. Both my wife and I have personally donated monies to HS2AA to help them pursue our interests eg for expert reports, that as an individual we could not afford.

4. My own 3 petitions were written in the light of the HS2AA petition, and the fact we regard HS2AA as representing our interests and hence we are relying upon their petition being heard. If it is not I would need to reconsider my petitions

5. As Vice chair and a member of SAAG which is affiliated to HS2AA, I regard HS2AA as representing our collective interests on many route-wide matters eg on compensation and on many environmental issues (eg noise), in many different forums.

6. HS2AA have worked tirelessly for us and to not grant them locus standi would be a miscarriage of justice.

With regards Dan

Dr. Dan Mitchell C.Eng.,Hon.F.lAgr.E., F.R.S. 30 Brudenell Drive Stoke Mandeville Aylesbury Bucks HP22 5UR

1 July, 2014

Hybrid Bill Select Committee House of Commons London SW1

To whom it may concern

Dear sir/madam,

Locus standi of HS2 Action Alliance (HS2AA) in petitioning of the Hybrid Bill

As a registered individual supporter of HS2AA, I have petitioned personally against aspects of the Hybrid Bill and my locus standi has not been challenged.

I have no knowledge of the technical or environmental aspects of the proposed scheme. Accordingly, since the inception of the scheme, I have looked to HS2AA to provide me with an insight into the issues surrounding the proposal and its effects on the lives of those both aware and unaware of the scale of the project.

It follows logically that I, therefore, regard HS2AA as representing my interests on the many route wide matters about which I feel unqualified to speak out in many different forums to which I am unqualified to be invited.

To help pursue the collective interests of those affected by the proposed scheme, I have donated monies to HS2AA funds to enable them to act in a way that I as an individual could not possibly afford in, for example, commissioning expert reports and legal services.

I used information from HS2AA to help construct my personal petition which deals largely with what may be termed route wide issues since issues affecting my own locality have been covered in the petition submitted by my local action group.

I regard HS2AA as representing my interests to the extent that on two occasions when she has been a speaker at conferences I attended, I have sought out Hilary Wharf to thank her personally for the efforts that she and her colleagues were making and are continuing to make on behalf of not only me but those many thousands of us without the individual clout to be heard when our voices are raised against the proposed scheme. I therefore believe that the challenge to the locus standi of HS2AA should not be upheld and that the petition submitted by this organisation on behalf of many, many others should be heard.

Yours faithfully,

David J Starr Petition reference H0C101490 2 The Barn, Agden Bridge Farm Spring Lane, Lym m Cheshire WA13 9iT

30 June 2014 c/o HS2 Action Alliance The Red House 10 Market Square Old Amersham HP7 ODO

To whom it may concern,

I write in response to the challenge which has been made against the petition submitted by HS2 Action Alliance. We are resident in the Agden, Broomedge and Lymm East area of Cheshire, and regularly correspond with up to 100 residents on matters relating to HS2 since the Initial Preferred Route was 28th announced on January 2013.

It is inconceivable that HS2 Action Alliance does not represent anyone affected by HS2. With specific reference to the Committee Stage of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill, HS2 Action Alliance has been instrumental in providing to us information for the petitioning process without which we would have been ill equipped to petition. I considered their petition supplemental to our own as it covered in- depth issues that we did not have the time or knowledge to consider.

HS2 Action Alliance has provided invaluable factual knowledge on a complete range of issues in connection with HS2 which has been unforthcoming or totally lacking from HS2 Ltd. These issues range from route wide to local matters, from economic and ecological matters, through to procedural and parliamentary matters, which HS2 Ltd has not informed affected parties about. Without HS2 Action Alliance representation we would in many cases have been too late or too ill-informed to act in time to make our own representation.

HS2 have represented us in their legal challenges, provided real information and represented many affected by HS2, on a budget of donations, including lump sum contributions from my family. This is in stark contrast to HS2 Ltd.'s lavish PR budget (at taxpayers' expense) providing highly pro-HS2 biased information, and playing down the negative aspects of HS2, of which there are many (such as blight).

It is of extreme concern to us, a family of five, and extremely negatively affected by HS2, that HS2 Ltd are cynically attempting to block factual information from reaching the Committee by attempting to disallow HS2AA the right to petition.

I ask you to allow HS2 Action Alliance to represent their numerous supporters with their expertise.

Yours faithfully Mr Gareth Buckley & Mrs Stefanie Buckley 30th June 2014 To whom it may concern.

Letter of suøoort for HS2AA concerning the challenge to the organisation's Locus standi.

I am individually, specially and directly affected by HS2 and am a supporter of HS2 Action Alliance. I live, with my family, close to the proposed route of HS2 in the village of Wendover. Most of the village, including my street, is already blighted by the project. I am part of a group petition for my whole street and our locus has not been challenged.

HS2AA represents my interests on many route-wide matters e.g. on compensation and many environmental issues, in many different forums. I have personally donated monies to HS2AA to help pursue our collective interests e.g. expert reports, that as an individual and member of local campaign groups we could not afford. I consider the HS2AA petition to represent the interests of Wendover and other similarly affected communities along the route.

Over the recent years we have been given opportunities to make comments and input ideas to HS2AA that have been taken forward, on our behalf, and received support and advice from them.

HS2AA plays a critical role for victims of HS2 who have no government national body to get advice or support from. Affected communities are instead only contacted by the proposer & promoter of the scheme.

For no payment, HS2AA has unconditionally supported a range of residents, including my family on all sorts of issues. HS2AA has provided resources and advice and represented our experiences at the highest levels in the Houses of Parliament, in the media and in the Royal Courts of Justice and I believe it is essential for HS2AA to continue to do so at this critical petitioning phase.

Yours sincerely,

Gordon Findlay 47 Dobbins Lane, Wendover HP22 6DH 3 July 2014

7 Hodgetts Lane Burton Green Kenilworth CV8 1PH

To whom it may concern

Dear Sir! Madam

My wife Sue and I have been individual supporters of H52 Action Alliance (HS2AA) since the beginning of the campaign in 2010.

We are directly affected by HS2: the proposed line runs through our small garden and our house is in the safeguarded zone, less than 10 metres from the line of working marking the edge of the route.

HS2AA is the original and prime body supporting those affected by HS2, and is the body from which other bodies such as AGAHST and Stop HS2 were birthed. From the outset, HS2AA has provided detailed and professional research on compensation options, a comprehensive and independently peer-reviewed analysis of the business case, and detailed alternatives that meet all forecast capacity requirements and provide broader benefits and a BCR around 10 times higher than HS2 at a fraction of the cost. More recently, in consultation with residents affected, they have engaged in judicial reviews on issues of concern to us, and have been involved in other legal areas.

I have provided practical and financial support to them, provided ideas they have taken forward, and regularly consulted their web site for advice and information. I raised my own petition which was written in the light of the HS2AA petition. I regard HS2AA as representing our interests on route - wide matters on compensation and many environmental issues, in many different forums.

As someone who is not against infrastructure develops per se, and who supports initiatives in the national interest, I highly value HS2AA's professionalism and their measured and evidence-based approach. We urge in the strongest possible terms that Parliament fully engages with them as bona fide representatives of individuals that have, for over four years, been severely impacted by HS2.

Yours faithfully Tonge Farm Breedon Lane Tonge Derbyshire DE73 8BA

Hilary Wharf Director HS2AA HS2 Action Alliance The Red House 10 Market Square Old Amersham Buckinghamshire HP7 ODQ

3 July 2014

Dear Hilary Wharf,

Re: HS2AA Locus Standi Challencw

We are writing to you as "registered individual supporters" having been away at the time of petitioning.

We are directly affected by HS2 living approximately 400 metres from the proposed route in Tonge.

John Hings is a member of the Tonge and Breedon Action Group and as such has a reasonable knowledge of what Is proposed by HS2 Ltd concerning both Phase 1 and Phase 2.

We consider that HS2AA represents our interests on many route wide matters, in particular those concerning compensation and many environmental issues.

We trust this letter will assist you in overcoming the challenge to it's locus standi to enable you to represent us as individuals at the HS2 Hybrid Bill Select Committee.

Kind regards

Yours sincerely

John & Patsy Hings From: John Donovan [maUto:john donovanLnterticQrn] Sent: 30 June 2014 15:47 To: 'Hilary Wharf

Dear Sir / Madam

Letter of support for HS2AA concerning the challe nge to their Locus standi I am a registered individual supporter of HS2AA and have been since 2011.

My wife and I are specially and directly affected by HS2 because of our proximity to the line. We live in very close proximity to the proposed route of HS2. I have petitioned as an individual and my locus has not been challenged.

I regard HS2AA as representing our interests on many route-wide matters e.g. on compensation and many environmental issues, in many different forums.

I have personally donated monies to HS2AA to help pursue our collective interests e.g. expert reports, that as an individual and member of local campaign groups we could not afford.

My own petition was written in the light of the HS2AA's petition and I regard HS2AA as representing my interests with their petition and in general.

Over the recent years we have been given opportunities to make comments and input ideas to HS2AA that have been taken forward, on our behalf, and received support and advice from them.

HS2AA play a critical role for victims of HS2 who have no government national body to get advice or support from but are instead only contacted by the proposer & promoter of the scheme. HS2AA have supported unconditionally, for no payment, to a range of residents, including myself on all sorts of issues. They have provided resources and advice and represented our experiences at the highest levels in the Houses of Parliament, in the media and in the Royal Courts of Justice.

I truly hope they are able to continue to do so at this critical petitioning phase.

Yours sincerely

John Donovan 122 Hoylake Crescent I cken ham Middlesex UB1O 8JG I F 0, -

1st July 2014 High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill Select Committee House of Commons London SW1A IAA

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Challenge to Hs2 Action Alliance petition - locus standi

Hs2 Action Alliance is, as the name implies, an alliance of affiliated individuals, partnerships, local authorities, companies, action groups etc, who have come together to challenge certain aspects of the current Hs2 proposal. The parties to this alliance are all to a greater or lesser extent connected to or will suffer harm or loss from Hs2. Many of the petitioners belonging to the alliance, myself included, have petitioned on the proposals and have had their locus standi accepted. My property is within circa 600m of the elevated track bed and viaducts and is thus significantly blighted visually and by noise and vibration.

Hs2 Action Alliance has, on behalf of us all, made representations at all levels of Government, the Dft and Hs2 Ltd for over four years. They have prepared compensation submissions acting as the de facto nominated representatives of all members and affiliates of the alliance. We have all supported, worked with and as part of the alliance, on the premise that we are more likely to be heard as a coherent, well informed and united voice, rather than as individuals in presenting challenges to the scheme.

My first act as the former but founding Chairman of the Southam Area Action Group was to affiliate our group to the Hs2 Action Alliance. Our situation was common, our objective was common and our victimhood was common. We have all worked together on many aspects of the project and have all contributed to funding.

For them to be challenged on their locus standi is to deny the facts as they stand. Res ipsa loquitur should perhaps be the maxim adopted in this instance. Hs2 Action Alliance IS, de facto and by any other name, the definitive group of us all connected to and suffering harm or loss from Hs2. The stance of us all is jointly and severally with them.

Yours faithfully John Lee Keri Brennan 17 Roundways Ruislip HA4 6EA

Dear Sir I Madam

Letter of support for HS2AA concerning the challenge to their Locus standi

I am a registered individual supporter of HS2AA and have been since 2011.

I am individually, specially and directly affected by HS2 because of my proximity to the line. I live within around 30 metres from the proposed route of HS2 and I have petitioned with my husband, and my locus has not been challenged.

I regard HS2AA as representing my interests on many route-wide matters e.g. on compensation and many environmental issues, in many different forums.

I have personally donated monies to HS2AA to help pursue our collective interests e.g. expert reports, that as an individual and member of local campaign groups we could not afford.

Our own petition was written in the light of the HS2AA's petition and we regard HS2AA as representing our interests with their petition and in general.

Over the recent years we have been given opportunities to make comments and input ideas to HS2AA that have been taken forward, on our behalf, and received support and advice from them.

HS2AA play a critical role for victims of HS2 who have no government national body to get advice or support from but are instead only contacted by the proposer & promoter of the scheme. HS2AA have supported unconditionally, for no payment, to a range of residents, including myself on all sorts of issues. They have provided resources and advice and represented our experiences at the highest levels in the Houses of Parliament, in the media and in the Royal Courts of Justice.

I truly hope they are able to continue to do so at this critical petitioning phase.

Yours sincerely

Keri Brennan CJLWarr Whiteways Bridge Lane Ladbroke Southam CV47 2DE Warwickshire Tel: 01926 815004 [email protected] 2 July 2014

Hilary Wharf, Director, HS2 Action Alliance

Dear Hilary Wharf,

This letter is to inform you, and anyone whom it may concern, that I wish HS2 Action Alliance (HS2AA) to represent me, and the Ladbroke Action Group, of which I am a committee member, in matters of route-wide concern of HS2.

I am directly and specially affected by HS2, which will pass approximately 500m from my home. We shall be affected by the trains, by a new overbridge, by the stopping and diversion of public rights of way, by the processes of construction and the probable diversion of traffic through the village for which the roads are inadequate.

I have made financial and voluntary contributions to the local action group which, in turn, provides financial support to HS2AA.

Ladbroke Action Group and Parish Council have entered petitions (which I assisted in (;. drafting) concerning the Hybrid Bill but I have always anticipated that these would be supplemented by the more weighty submissions by HS2AA; it is a large part of the reason for the existence of HS2AA for us.

It is important for me that HS2AAs locus standi is accepted by the Hybrid Bill Select Committee.

Yours sincerely,

CJLWarr 85, The Greenway, Ickenham, Middlesex. UBio 8LX. 01895 677476 07762 720275 [email protected] Dear Sir / Madam

Letter of support for HS2AA concerning the challenge to their Locus standi

I am a registered individual supporter of HS2AA and have been since 2011.

I am individually, specially and directly affected by HS2 because of my proximity to the line. I live within around 40 metres from the proposed route of HS2 and I have petitioned and my locus has not been challenged.

I regard HS2AA as representing my interests on many route-wide matters e.g. on compensation and many environmental issues, in many different forums.

I have personally donated monies to HS2AA to help pursue our collective interests e.g. expert reports, that as an individual and member of local campaign groups we could not afford.

Our own petition was written in the light of the HS2AA's petition and we regard HS2AA as representing our interests with their petition and in general.

Over the recent years we have been given opportunities to make comments and input ideas to HS2AA that have been taken forward, on our behalf, and received support and advice from them.

HS2AA play a critical role for victims of HS2 who have no government national body to get advice or support from but are instead only, contacted by the proposer & promoter of the scheme. HS2AA have supported unconditionally, for no payment, to a range of residents, including myself on all sorts of issues. They have provided resources and advice and represented our experiences at the highest levels in the Houses of Parliament, in the media and in the Royal Courts of Justice.

I truly hope they are able to continue to do so at this critical petitioning phase.

Yours faithfully,

Margot Barnikel (Mrs) A IT WOOD COTTAGE

LADBROKE

SOUTHAM

CV47 28Y

03 July 2014

Dear Hilary,

/ would like to record how / believe HS2AA has been important in representing the concerns of me and my neighbours in Ladbroke. As a small village we have been dependent on HS2AA to effectively address the route wide issues such as noise, environmental concerns and construction impacts. As a small community we feel that HS2 do not take seriously our concerns on route wide implications and HS2AA have pushed these issues, on our behalf, in a way that we would have been unable to handle.

I am significantly impacted by the HS2 proposals and consequently I am a registered individual supporter of HS2AA, a supporter of the Ladbroke Action Group and I have petitioned in my own right and my locus has not been challenged. As a Parish Councillor I have worked actively with my fellow councillors representing our villagers' concerns and developing our Petition.

As a village community we would have been unable, alone, to fund lobbying and expert opinions to support our position. I, and my neighbours, have been pleased to donate towards the costs of developing well researched and structured arguments demonstrating the weaknesses in the current proposals.

Martin Neal

0926 812668 From: Michael Jepson Sent: 02 July 2014 17:09 To: 'Hilary Wharf' Cc: CAULFIELD, Neil Subject: HS2AA Petition Hearing on standing

To whom it may concern

HS2AA Petition Hearing on standing

I am greatly concerned that HS2 Ltd should seek to challenge the locus standi of HS2AA. I am a petitioner (No 91) who is directly and specially affected by HS2 and I am a Roll B agent for several other petitioners similarly affected . I have relied heavily on HS2AA at every level to represent the interests of myself and many others in this area in particular, including guidance on petitioning as well as information necessary to enable me and others to frame their petitions and identify the problems which will arise

Clearly I am conscious of local issues which will affect us but I have relied on HS2AA to research and then take up the issues which affect all who are specially and directly affect along the line and I rely on them to present those issues with the knowledge and degree of expert advice which balances that of HS2 Ltd and all the resources HS2 Ltd has at its disposal. To deny the right for HS2AA to petition therefore will seriously disadvantage me and many other petitioners who will be otherwise unable to make and support these points with sufficient evidence and expertise to balance that of HS2 Ltd. Furthermore, in relying in part on the HS2AA petition we have limited our main concerns to the local issues and would want to add these further issues if HS2AA is excluded or is not allowed to take these up. Petitioners are already in a difficult position seeking mitigation and correcting errors in the whole scheme of HS2 ltd and we need and rely on organisations such a HS2AA to help us make our case

I am therefore very concerned that HS2 Ltd should seek to disadvantage directly and specially affected petitioners in this way and I trust that the Select Committee will agree that HS2AA has clear status and locus standi in this matter

Yours faithfully

MICHAEL JEPSON, LLB, C.T.A. VT.E.P.

5 Martindell Cottages, Cherry Tree Lane, Lee Common, Great Missenden, Bucks, HPI6 9LA

Tel 01494 837602 'Woodleigh', 12,Lappetts Lane, South Heath, Great Missenden, Bucks. HP16 ORA 30 June 2014

House of Commons Select Committee HS2 (London -West Midlands) Bill, House of Commons Private Bill Office, House of Commons, London, SW1A OAA

To whom it may concern

Letter of support for HS2AA concerning the challenge to their Locus standi

I am writing to support HS2AA being allowed to petition as I am a registered individual supporter and I am relying on HS2AA to represent my interests on many route-wide matters eg on compensation and many environmental issues, in many different forums.

My wife and I are specially and directly affected by HS2 as we live within 400 metres from the proposed route of HS2. Consequently we have submitted a petition against the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill and our locus standi has not been challenged.

I have supported HS2AA financially since 2012 through the payment of a monthly Standing Order to help HS2AA to pursue our interests such as those from experts that we could not afford to engage.

I have attended meetings arranged by HS2AA and have found them to be well organised, hugely informative and their representatives knowledgeable, empathatic with their supporters and were receptive to ideas and comments.

We consider that HS2AA has, and continues to, represent our interests and our own petition was written in the light of the HS2AA's petition and on the assumption that the HS2AA's petition will proceed. We are very concerned that HS2 Ltd seeks to challenge the Locus standi of HS2AA.

Yours sincerely

Michael Johnstone School Farm School Lane Pickmere Cheshire TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I am writing to confirm that I am a supporter of HS2AA and that I trust them to represent my interests in all matters which may arise over the construction of HS2 such as compensation environmental issues and mitigation. I am directly affected by HS2 as the current proposed route destroys my farm and hence my livelihood and my home. I have supported HS2AA financially in their opposition to HS2 and will continue to do so for as long as necessary. Pat Mather Owner School Farm The Dower House Bascote Heath Southa m Warwickshire CV47 2DN Tel: 01926 810024 1st July 2014

To whom it may concern

Sir/Madam

HS2 Phase 1 - London to Birmingham

My husband and I are registered supporters of HS2AA.

We are specially and directly affected by HS2 being 150-190 metres from the proposed twin-bored tunnels under Long ltchington and Ufton Woods SSSI. Our property has been blighted since the ( announcement of the HS2 project in March 2010 and despite being marketed for almost two years between September 2010 and July 2012, attracted negligible interest and without any offers from potential purchasers willing and able to proceed.

We have petitioned as individuals and our locus has not been challenged. Our own Petition was written in the light of the HS2AA's petition and we regard HS2AA as representing our interests.

We regard HS2AA as representing our interests on many route-wide matters, especially on the controversial issue of compensation and many environmental issues in many different forums. We have valued the knowledge, expertise and sheer hard work of HS2AA without whom we would be bereft of support.

As a token of our ongoing gratitude for the continuing exceptionally hard work of those within HS2AA we have personally donated contributions to that organisation to help pursue our collective interests, e.g. expert reports, that as individuals we could not afford. We also make a monthly financial contribution to the running costs of HS2AA to assist their ongoing efforts on our behalf.

Any comments and observations which we have made direct to HS2AA have been taken forward on our behalf and continue to do so.

HS2AA has worked tirelessly to support and represent those whose interests are severely detrimentally affected by the HS2 Project. We are fervent supporters and admirers of HS2AA without whose help and expertise no progress would have been made in the battle to achieve fairness and justice in the face of the downright hostility and disrespect shown to us by HS2 Ltd/DfT/Government which is determined to pursue this project at the expense of those who have worked and saved hard all their lives and done the right thing only to be penalised for doing so. It offends natural justice.

If HS2 Ltd/DfT/Government is intent on pursuing its unmeritorious challenge of HS2AA's locus it is because they fear HS2AA's professionalism and unrivalled support for the underdog.

Yours faithfully

Dr John S Hughes and Mrs Pauline M Hughes LOWFIELD, LONG ITCHINGTON ROAD, OFFCHURCH, LEAMINGTON SPA CV33 9AY 01926.425752

30 June 2014

Dear Hilary Wharf

Locus Standii of HS2AA

I am a registered individual supporter of HS2AA. I support HS2AA because I am specially and directly affected by HS2 as I live within 300 metres of the proposed route. I have petitioned myself and my own locus has not been challenged.

I regard HS2AA as representing my interests on many route-wide matters eg on compensation and many environmental issues, in many different forums. HS2AA helps individuals like myself pursue our collective interests - for example by preparing expert reports, that as an individual I could not afford and/or do not have the expertise to undertake. I have personally worked with HA2AA on a number of occasions on issues where I do have expertise.

Were HS2AA to be deemed not to have locus standii, it would represent a significant loss in terms of the ability of the Select Committee to hear all relevant evidence.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. (

Best wishes

Professor Mike Geddes 28 Peerless Drive Harefield UB9 6JG

1st July 2014

Dear Hilary

Re Locus Challenge

Please use this letter

For the last 3 years your knowledge , actions , experience and brilliant calm persistence in challenging this vast project have sustained us... without both Stop HS2 and Action alliance we would be unable to deal with the scale of this awful threat to our homes and communities

( Harefield is directly threatened : where I live in Peerless Drive we are threatened with massive destruction environmentally., the viaduct over the SSST at Broadwater Lake in the Colne valley, HOAC, tunnel spoil and construction noise and traffic from London and from Chilterns

Your input has been brilliant: we continue to need your organsation's over view and expertise, and have used your suggestions in the petitioning process. Without your coordination of the campaigning work for policy which is essential we would be lost and unable to get the general perspective along the whole line

I have been willing to contribute financially because I trust your expertise and professional approach

For them to challenge your organisation's locus standi goes to the heart of HS2's arrogance .. they fear the quality of your advocacy, professional skills and detailed understanding of all the material.. ordinary people could not handle this without your understanding and continuing accurate, invaluable information In gratitude

Rose-Marie Adams 16 Price Road

Cubbington

Leamington Spa

CV32 7L0

1st July 2014

The Chair

HS2 Hybrid Bill Committee

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write in support of H52AA's right to petition the Hybrid Bill on H52.

(. HS2AA has been one of the umbrella organisations which has given support and advice to individuals and action groups throughout the campaign .against the HS2 project.

They have done much to help raise public awareness of the HS2 project and supported the work of local groups by carrying out research and sharing the knowledge they gained. Their expertise has been invaluable to campaigners. They have produced campaign materials, some in the form of publicity for use in the media and others which are available to all groups, thus helping to provide what individual groups could not.

I am a member of Cubbington Action Group against HS2 and have also petitioned the Hybrid Bill on my own behalf: my petition is number 986. The material produced by HS2AA was among the sources I consulted before submitting my petition. I have also consulted their material to help me reply to various Public Consultations on HS2.

I consider that HS2AA does indeed represent me and others affected by the HS2 proposals.

Yours sincerely,

Rosemary Guiot (Miss) HSZAA affiliated groups