House of Commons - Crossrail - First Special Report

Select Committee on Crossrail First Special Report

2 The Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill

7. Select Committees on hybrid bills do not operate under the same parliamentary rules as departmental select committees. They are quasi-judicial and operate more like a court. Committees, such as ours, do not have an extensive remit and serve only to consider the issues raised by Petitioners, where the Petitioner has locus standi[12]. In addition we were given five Instructions by the House of Commons that served further to define what issues we would be able to consider. One of the main causes of frustration for the Committee was that some Petitioners wished to raise issues which we were not empowered to consider.

8. We take this opportunity to summarise briefly the rules and procedure followed in Committee so that the House and members of the public can readily understand the limited framework in which the Committee was able to operate.

Agreed by the House of Commons

9. A hybrid bill has a second reading in the House of Commons before it is referred to a Select Committee. Once the House agrees that the Bill should be read a second time, it is deemed to have approved it in principle. A Select Committee on a hybrid bill may not therefore reject the bill. Petitioners are subsequently limited in the arguments they promote in committee; they may seek to amend the Bill and may not argue that the Committee should reject it.

A petition against a hybrid bill

10. A petition is a summary of objections to particular aspects of the Bill. It is a request to the House of Commons for the Petitioner to be allowed to argue their case before the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill.

Who petitioned?

11. The Crossrail Bill and the Environmental Statement were published on 22 February 2005.[13] The timetable for receiving petitions in the House of Commons was laid down in an Order of the House on 19 July 2005.[14] Any individual, group of individuals, or organisation 'directly and specially affected' by the provisions of the Crossrail Bill was able to petition against it.[15] Needless to say, there were a few cases where Petitioners tested the definition of 'directly and specially' to the limit. Some 358 petitions against the Bill were deposited (an additional 99 petitions were deposited against the four sets of Additional Provisions).[16]

12. Many Petitioners believed that the Crossrail Bill would have a direct or deleterious effect on their well-being, their property or their business. The Committee heard from many, but not all, of the Petitioners during its hearings. Some Petitioners chose not to appear and some withdrew their petitions after negotiating a satisfactory undertaking with the Promoter of the Bill. All hearings took place in public and were transcribed and web-cast.

Rights of Parties

13. Both Promoter and Petitioners have the right to appear before the Committee to make their cases. The practice of the House allows Petitioners to be heard either in person, or by their agent or counsel. The Promoter of the Bill, the Secretary of State for Transport, was represented by his parliamentary agents, the firm of solicitors Winckworth Sherwood, and by legal Counsel. All petitions not withdrawn or successfully challenged on locus standi grounds, were referred to the Committee.

Order of Proceedings

14. In a select committee on a hybrid bill, the onus is on the Petitioner, or their Agent[17], to prove that they are unreasonably affected by the Bill. It is usual in these circumstances to allow the Petitioner both the first and last words on each case. However, we recognised that this practice often disadvantaged Petitioners, many of whom had not appeared before a parliamentary committee before, by requiring them to explain complicated technical matters. Therefore the Committee insisted that Counsel for the Promoter made a brief factual statement at the beginning of each case explaining what the issues of contention were between the two parties.

15. Thus, Counsel for the Promoter briefly opened each case and then the Petitioner had their opportunity to set out their concerns and objections. The Petitioner was able to call witnesses in support of their case. The witnesses could be cross-examined by the Counsel for the Promoter, and re-examined by the Petitioner.

16. Once the Petitioner's case had been made, the Counsel for the Promoter would open his case. Again, witnesses could be called, examined, cross-examined and re-examined. The Petitioner had a right of reply.

Rules observed in Committee

17. In presenting their evidence to the Committee, Petitioners were restricted in a number of ways:

a) Petitioners could only be heard on matters included in their petitions, and were not able to make additional arguments before the Committee.

b) Petitioners could only seek to represent themselves and those who had signed the petition. Any attempt to raise the concerns of neighbours or others who had not petitioned the Committee was not allowed. This was because the Committee could not reasonably determine why others had chosen not to petition. To allow Petitioners to argue on behalf of others would fall foul of the rules relating to locus standi.[18]

c) Witnesses, Counsel and Petitioners were all obliged to conduct themselves before the Committee in a way which did not constitute a contempt of the House of Commons. Generally, that meant that all parties were obliged to be respectful.

d) Repetitious and irrelevant evidence, deliberate delay, and refusal to answer questions were all treated as possible contempts of the House and were deprecated in Committee.

Making amendments to the Bill (Additional Provisions)

18. After hearing all the evidence on a case the Committee would decide whether or not it should amend the Bill. There were usually two types of amendment the Committee could consider making to the Bill. These were amendments that would:

a) naturally tend to limit the powers, or

b) extend the obligations of the Government and extend the powers contained in the Bill.

19. The latter type of amendment is known as an Additional Provision. Since such an amendment could potentially have an impact on people not previously affected by the Bill, Additional Provisions need to be advertised and authorised by the House in the same way as the original provisions of the Bill.

20. On occasions where we agreed such amendments were necessary, these decisions were announced in Committee. This was to allow the Government to bring forward the necessary Additional Provisions to the Bill and also to give the public the opportunity to object to these provisions if they were affected by them.

21. Although Additional Provisions to the Crossrail Bill were put forward by the Secretary of State, they were not formally accepted as amendments to the Bill until the Committee had fully considered all the cases presented against them. All amendments we judged to be appropriate were made formally to the Bill when we reported the Bill to the House.

12 The Promoter of the Bill may decide that, in their view, a Petitioner does not have a right, or locus standi, to petition against a Bill. Usually such a decision is taken because the Petitioner does not seem to be locally or specifically affected by the Bill, although other reasons may exist. If the locus standi of a Petitioner is objected to, it is decided upon by the Committee on whom the decisions of the Court of Referees are binding. (See Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice,Twenty-third edition, Chapter 39, Lexis Nexis Butterworths.) Back

13 Crossrail Bill [Bill1and1-EN(2005-06)] Back

14 The Private Bill Office remained open throughout the Summer recess to allow Petitioners three months to prepare and deposit their petitions. Back

15 The House of Commons produced 5000 leaflets explaining to those affected how they could petition Parliament. The Promoter of the Bill kindly agreed to send a leaflet to every person who received notice from the Promoter that they were affected. Back

16 Private usiness Notice Paper Session 2005-06, pages:37-50, 127-131, 135 and Session 2006-07 pages: 11, 15-19, 125-129. Contents of the petitions can be viewed at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/pabills/200607/crossrail.htm Back