9 Rights of audience (locus standi)
Significance of 'locus standi'
145. Petitioners against hybrid bills need to show
that one or more of the bill's provisions directly and specially
affect them, because the purpose of the petitioning process is
precisely to protect those who may suffer especially adversely.
Petitioners not meeting that requirement may be ruled wholly or
partly lacking in 'locus standi'—that is, lacking any case
to be heard by the Committee.
Locus standi challenges and decisions
146. The Promoter sought to challenge the locus standi
of 24 petitioners, including that of the two principal campaigning
bodies against the Bill, HS2 Action Alliance and Stop HS2. We
recognise that more could have been challenged. We heard these
challenges in July 2014, at the start of our proceedings.[42]
Several of these petitioners were in practice arguing for wholly
different transport policies. Such matters are not for us, and
the petitioners failed to demonstrate any direct and special effect
of the Bill on them. We found them not to have locus standi. Similarly,
we found that petitioners with a general interest in the affected
areas, such as because they habitually walk (though do not live)
there, or travel through those areas, did not have locus standi.
Several petitions were entirely about Phase Two, which is not
within our remit. They did not have locus standi. We decided against
there being locus standi in 22 of the 24 cases.
147. We acknowledge that the petitioners whom we
found not to have locus believed that they had genuine points
to raise, but the arguments they were presenting were clearly
not for us, and we do not believe that the two and a half days
spent on those issues was a good use of time. We believe there
is a good case for an expedited procedure for dealing with such
petitions in future, such as through a written procedure.
148. Our successor committee might have observations
on how to improve the procedures of hybrid bill committees. In
the meantime, so far as potential future petitions against additional
provision are concerned, we strongly encourage petitioners to
review the contents of their petition to ensure that they can
demonstrate a direct and special effect and, if they cannot, to
pursue other avenues of argument.
149. The Promoter's argument against HS2 Action Alliance
and Stop HS2 having locus standi was that although many of their
members might be affected by the railway, neither body would itself
experience a direct and special effect. The Promoter submitted
that the role of the two organisations should therefore be representative,
rather than as petitioners in their own right. There was merit
in that argument, and we did not easily reach a decision on the
locus of the two bodies. However, many individual petitioners
had argued that they would feel better represented overall if
HS2 Action Alliance and Stop HS2 were allowed into the process.
We felt that that point of view should be respected. We decided
that HS2 Action Alliance and Stop HS2 should have locus standi
on route-wide issues. This decision does not bind future committees.
Petitioners within 500m of the proposed Phase
Two route
150. Clause 51 and 52 provide powers of entry to
survey land within 500m of the proposed route of any high-speed
railway line, including the proposed route of Phase Two. Whilst
Phase Two itself is not within our remit, those clauses, although
they concern future projects, are within the Bill and therefore
within that remit.
151. In early March 2015, we heard a number of petitioners
located along the route of Phase Two who believed that they might
be affected by such powers. We heard them on clauses 51 and 52,
and on compensation (as mentioned in Chapter 6). We did not wish
to hear them on other matters where we believed that petitioners
against Phase One could make the case equally strongly and effectively.
152. Petitioners argued that clauses 51 and 52 should
be confined to Phase One matters and that they provided insufficient
protection. We did not accept this. However, we recommend that
the Secretary of State's power to increase the distance within
which surveys may be undertaken be subject to the affirmative
resolution procedure by both Houses of Parliament, instead of
the negative resolution procedure which the Bill currently proposes.
153. Our remit prevented us from helping these petitioners
with their specific concerns about Phase Two. No doubt those taking
an interest in our proceedings will consider the points that petitioners
were able to put on record. As we have said, hearing from Phase
Two petitioners made clear the need for a decision on the Phase
Two route and a working Need to Sell scheme for Phase Two soon
thereafter.
42 A further challenge, to a petition against an additional
provision, was heard later. Back
| 
