County of Merseyside Bill

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 13 March 1979.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Oscar Murton Mr Oscar Murton , Poole 12:00, 13 March 1979

With the House's permission, I should like to make a statement on the possible consequences of the House agreeing to any of the motions committing certain clauses of the Bill about to be debated to a Committee of the whole House.

I should make clear that my remarks are made only in my capacity as Chairman of Ways and Means, charged with the duty of supervising the passage of Private Bills through the House. I have no views on the merits of the clauses in question or, indeed, on the merits of the Bill or of any Private Bill; nor do I want in any way to cast doubt on the right and indeed the duty of hon. Members, where they think proper, to intervene in Private Business in protection of the public interest. The purpose of my addressing the House is merely to make clear what may be the consequences of its agreeing to motions committing clauses of Private Bills to a Committee of the whole House.

The treatment of Private Bills by Parliament has always taken account of the fact that, in the words of Erskine May, page 859: a Bill for the particular benefit of certain persons may be injurious to others, and to discriminate between the conflicting interests of different parties involves the exercise of judicial inquiry and determination. The House has, therefore, always allowed the promoters of Private Bills to argue their case either, in the distant past, before the whole House at the Bar or, more usually and for greater convenience, before a Select Committee, and has given the same right to be heard to petitioners against a Bill or against particular clauses in a Bill. At the same time, the procedure of the House enables hon. Members, representing the public interest, to intervene and set aside arguments for or against private interests. Hon. Members can carry out this duty by rejecting a Bill on Second Reading, by giving instruction to the Committee on a Bill to amend it in specified ways, or by making amendments on Report.

By agreeing to the committal motions at present on the Order Paper, the House would be altering this balance in two ways, both of which I think are undesirable. In the first place it would entail providing a further stage at which the public interest alone is considered. This I believe to be unnecessary because, as I have said, hon. Members already have opportunities to impose their views on parties, by instructions, by new clauses or by amendments on Report.

In the second place, it would deny promoters and petitioners a right to be heard; unless at the same time the House reverted to what I would regard as the cumbersome and anachronistic procedure of allowing parties to be heard at the Bar of the House.

If the House were to decide to take these clauses on the Floor, there would be no real gain to hon. Members and the House would risk damaging the essential principles of Private Bill procedure which are designed to protect that proper exercise of"judicial inquiry and determination ".

I should like to emphasise that I have addressed my remarks to the House solely out of a sense of duty as Chairman to appraise hon. Members of the difficulties which might arise.