There are a number of reasons why this route may appeal to ministers as an alternative to the development consent process under the Planning Act. First, an act of parliament is immune from legal challenge: under the Bill of Rights, proceedings in parliament cannot be impeached or questioned in the courts. Judicial review of infrastructure schemes causes significant uncertainty and delay and so, if it can be avoided, that is definitely a very positive outcome for the scheme promoters.
Secondly, the hybrid bill process offers flexibility in developing proposals. The government can change its mind on aspects of the detail and bring forward revised proposals as the bill proceeds through its stages in parliament, a facility that is less readily available under other processes.
The hybrid bill procedure also allows for the question of whether or not the scheme is a good idea in principle to be established early in the process, with subsequent debate on this issue closed off. In technical terms, this is because the ‘principle of the Bill’ is settled at the outset of the process, on second reading when the bill first enters parliament. A government with a comfortable majority can overcome parliamentary opposition to drive through that second reading. Thereafter, while the detail of the bill can be considered in specific hearings before select committees, that detail can only be considered in the light of the fact that the principle has been endorsed, with no ability at that stage to complain that the scheme is just “not a good idea”.
Hybrid bill procedure
Hybrid bills are bills before parliament like any other, proceeding through the same overall process, but with some additions. They are considered and debated in one House of Parliament (e.g. the House of Commons) at second reading; then considered by a select committee; then the report of the select committee is considered by the House before a further vote at third reading. The bill is then passed to the other House (in this case, the House of Lords) where the process is repeated. Subject to some reconciliation between the two Houses on any amendments made by the second House, the bill then receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act.
However, as hybrid bills authorise a specific infrastructure development, there are two main changes to the procedure to reflect the need for the decision-making to assess the impacts of the development on the environment through the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process, and that certain parties are more affected by the provisions of the bill than other elements of the public at large.
First, when the bill is introduced by the government, it is accompanied by a mass of documentation including an environmental statement and a book of reference setting out a list of parties with interests in land that may be affected. Notice of the bill is published in newspapers. A public consultation follows on the EIA, and an assessor is appointed to review and comment on the responses to the consultation.
The assessor’s report is intended to inform MPs when they come to consider the principle of the bill at second reading. The consultation process means that there is a considerable gap between a bill’s introduction and second reading – for example, it was five months in the case of HS2 Phase One.
Secondly, following second reading there is a ‘petitioning period’ – essentially, a period in which objections can be made to the provisions, although not the principle, of the bill. Relatively recent changes to parliamentary standing orders mean that a minimum period of 25 days must be allowed for this.
For a petition to be considered, the petitioner must have ‘standing’ – they must be “directly and specially affected” by the bill. Those who own or possess land interests or rights that the bill proposes to acquire or use automatically have standing, but other circumstances can also give rise to standing. For example, local authorities within whose area works are to be authorised under the bill will have standing, and it is likely that train or freight operating companies would also have standing where access to lines or depots may be affected. A petitioner without sufficient standing may be challenged by the promoter, with challenges heard at the beginning of the select committee process.
Parliament has consulted on further possible changes to hybrid bill procedure. This consultation is related to a second phase of reform of hybrid bill procedure intended to be implemented before the HS2 Phase 2b (Western Leg) Bill reaches parliament.
The select committee
Petitions will be considered by a select committee, composed of a number of ‘disinterested’ MPs or peers – usually five or six. MPs must have no constituency interest in the subject matter of the bill.
A petitioner used to have a right to be heard by the select committee but this was removed in recent reforms. Although most petitioners will be heard, some may have to rely on their petition alone. This is intended to cover ‘pro forma’ petitioners who have argued exactly the same case – these petitioners can now be grouped and heard as one.