Jump to content

Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill


NigelMoore

Featured Posts

5 minutes ago, erivers said:

Thanks Nigel for making clear that the power to remove vessels whose mooring constitutes a trespass is in now the Primary Legislation and thus a byelaw will not be needed.  However, in the important  clarification of the definition of "without lawful authority" within the Bill, have they not just created a further potential ambiguity over the "trespass" issue?  Am I right that in civil law an action for trespass can only be taken by the owner or occupier of the land where the alleged trespass takes place?  Does that not therefore inform the general meaning of "trespass"? Without the word being further defined with the Act, i.e. to include trespass to land not owned by the Commissioners, would not the MLC be unwise to rely on a much broader and unusual definition of "trespass" to remove vessels moored to land in private riparian ownership?

Quite right! It is an area that I have been discussing with the other petitioners; it opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. I really do not know why they wanted this to be so broad, seeing, as Mr Thomas stated more than once, they couldn't care less if it was not on their property!

"NEIL CAMERON: Thank you, Sir. Mr Thomas, you were asked by Ms Smith about the powers that you are seeking to—if I may use a rather inelegant term—deal with stranded or abandoned vessels. This is clause 8(2). You were asked whether certain types of abandoned vessels or vehicles would obstruct navigation. Even if an abandoned vessel or vehicle did not obstruct navigation, would it be desirable that it was left in the water?

DAVID THOMAS: A sunken vessel? No.

NEIL CAMERON: No, an abandoned or—

DAVID THOMAS: An abandoned vessel? It would depend on the location. If it was on land that we owned, it would be a trespass issue, but if it was on private land and was a licensed vessel, I cannot see any reason why we would want to remove it."  [my bold]

Given the wording of the 18thC Act confirming the free right for pleasure boats to be kept and used on the system, the question of how trespass could arise is a vexed one. The County Court cases [e.g. EA v Trotman & ors] tend not to question the right of navigation authorities with title to the river bed to bring trespass, despite the acknowledgement that boat registration confers no such right of navigation, it is a statutory conferrment. This is an area of the proposed legislation that needs the considered input of the boater organisations with access to legal opinions. I am urging those, such as NABO, to investigate such matters fully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highly relevant to the whole ‘trespass’ question and the intent of the MLC in introducing the clause for removal of boats ‘without lawful authority’ is their response to my petition -

In the context of the rest of the clause, and the decision in the case of Marner v Middle Level Commissioners, a vessel is moored ‘without lawful authority’ if does not have authority from the landowner (whether the Commissioners or the owner of a private mooring), or it is not incidental to navigation.

With regard to public moorings, a vessel would be left or moored without lawful authority where it failed to meet the terms and conditions of the mooring.

The situation differs from that in the Thames, which is a natural river with much less modification than the Middle Level waterways. Further, article 16 of the EA’s Order deals with the removal of unregistered vessels, whereas clause 8(3) of the Bill is intended to deal with vessels that have been left or moored in the waterways without lawful authority, so it is not an issue of whether the vessel has authority to navigate but to be left or moored.

Because the relevant landowner in the Middle Level will be able to prove trespass and the public authority will be able to prove whether or not the vessel is in breach of the relevant terms and conditions, the Commissioners therefore consider that the wording of clause 8(3) is appropriate for its circumstances.”  [my bold]

It is a curious response. The last paragraph seems to place trespass issues solely within the private landowner purview, though that does not accord with the first paragraph [and probably they intended to have a ‘belt & braces’ avenue for the MLC to be able both to prove trespass AND to enforce T&C’s]. Also, they were insistent that the provision did NOT relate to lack of registration, yet the additional definition DOES include that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Indeed. Chris actually got up and passed a note to the effect that club members were not consulted, to one of the panel, but was firmly rapped on the knuckles over it and the note disregarded. One can understand the frustration; I strongly suspect that the same applied to most of the responding organisations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

Highly relevant to the whole ‘trespass’ question and the intent of the MLC in introducing the clause for removal of boats ‘without lawful authority’ is their response to my petition -

In the context of the rest of the clause, and the decision in the case of Marner v Middle Level Commissioners, a vessel is moored ‘without lawful authority’ if does not have authority from the landowner (whether the Commissioners or the owner of a private mooring), or it is not incidental to navigation.

With regard to public moorings, a vessel would be left or moored without lawful authority where it failed to meet the terms and conditions of the mooring.

The situation differs from that in the Thames, which is a natural river with much less modification than the Middle Level waterways. Further, article 16 of the EA’s Order deals with the removal of unregistered vessels, whereas clause 8(3) of the Bill is intended to deal with vessels that have been left or moored in the waterways without lawful authority, so it is not an issue of whether the vessel has authority to navigate but to be left or moored.

Because the relevant landowner in the Middle Level will be able to prove trespass and the public authority will be able to prove whether or not the vessel is in breach of the relevant terms and conditions, the Commissioners therefore consider that the wording of clause 8(3) is appropriate for its circumstances.”  [my bold]

It is a curious response. The last paragraph seems to place trespass issues solely within the private landowner purview, though that does not accord with the first paragraph [and probably they intended to have a ‘belt & braces’ avenue for the MLC to be able both to prove trespass AND to enforce T&C’s]. Also, they were insistent that the provision did NOT relate to lack of registration, yet the additional definition DOES include that.

Presumably, MLC own some of the bankside land (such as for pumping stations etc). They would have an interest in trespass at those locations, if not elsewhere. They would have reasonable concern if a boater tied up in order to access the private land.

I also assume that in the case of a boat moored long term or abandoned and tied to a bank not in the ownership of MLC then they (MLC) cannot use trespass but can (if the Act passes) use the lawful authority but, in the same way that CaRT do when, for whatever reason - and I know that you object to some of those causes - a licence has been withdrawn cancelled or not issued deem that to be 'without lawful authority'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Presumably, MLC own some of the bankside land (such as for pumping stations etc). They would have an interest in trespass at those locations, if not elsewhere. They would have reasonable concern if a boater tied up in order to access the private land.

I also assume that in the case of a boat moored long term or abandoned and tied to a bank not in the ownership of MLC then they (MLC) cannot use trespass but can (if the Act passes) use the lawful authority but, in the same way that CaRT do when, for whatever reason - and I know that you object to some of those causes - a licence has been withdrawn cancelled or not issued deem that to be 'without lawful authority'.

Yes. Although conflicting claims are made. The MLC at times claim they cannot know exactly what is theirs, and it is all largely unregistered; on the other hand they claim, when it suits [as in MLC v Marner], that they own the bed and the banks of the artificial channels, based on the enabling Acts [it was effectively the deciding fact in the Marner case].

I would have to look at those enabling Acts in order to form a firm opinion – but if that was the case, and the PRN [as I recall it from early legislation] extended to rights to keep private pleasure boats on those channels, then that would of necessity include a right to moor to the banks [for how long is perhaps a separate question].

Your second paragraph is correct; the fact that the MLC sought to disguise the extent to which ‘without lawful authority’ would apply [being kind, given that they had expressly denied that it would extend to unregistered boats], is a concern, because it calls into question their probity over representations on all of the Bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

Yes. Although conflicting claims are made. The MLC at times claim they cannot know exactly what is theirs, and it is all largely unregistered; on the other hand they claim, when it suits [as in MLC v Marner], that they own the bed and the banks of the artificial channels, based on the enabling Acts [it was effectively the deciding fact in the Marner case].

I would have to look at those enabling Acts in order to form a firm opinion – but if that was the case, and the PRN [as I recall it from early legislation] extended to rights to keep private pleasure boats on those channels, then that would of necessity include a right to moor to the banks [for how long is perhaps a separate question].

Your second paragraph is correct; the fact that the MLC sought to disguise the extent to which ‘without lawful authority’ would apply [being kind, given that they had expressly denied that it would extend to unregistered boats], is a concern, because it calls into question their probity over representations on all of the Bill.

I thought you could only be a riparian owner if you owned land or property immediately adjacent to the waterway. Presumably it is possible to own the channel bed in its own right, especially if artificial. 

 

I cannot see any of the 19C Middle Level acts on the internet - do you know if they are available?

Edited by Mike Todd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

I thought you could only be a riparian owner if you owned land or property immediately adjacent to the waterway. Presumably it is possible to own the channel bed in its own right, especially if artificial. 

 

I cannot see any of the 19C Middle Level acts on the internet - do you know if they are available?

To be a riparian owner your land has to lie alongside the water itself, not just the 'waterway' [i.e. if a bank separates your land from the water itself, you are not riparian - the Marner situation.] Yes, it is possible to own the bed only, though that does not give you the usufruct, which belongs only to the bank. Your rights of trespass as a solely fundus owner are limited to contact with the bed beyond the PRN rights of temporary mooring.

The Middle Level Acts start from the 17thC; I am afraid they are not online, and I intend to ask for a copy. The NBTA were sent [on request] a copy of the same book the QC was referring to, but the MLC never divulged copies as part of the disclosure process - they only provided copies of numerous other authorities they wished to emulate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

The Middle Level Acts start from the 17thC; I am afraid they are not online, and I intend to ask for a copy. The NBTA were sent [on request] a copy of the same book the QC was referring to, but the MLC never divulged copies as part of the disclosure process - they only provided copies of numerous other authorities they wished to emulate!

1

Nigel, you should now have a copy! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, erivers said:

Nigel, you should now have a copy! ;)

Many thanks! Incomplete, but suffices for now, and I will try to get certain missing pages from elsewhere - there is much that has been misrepresented.

Having, courtesy of erivers, obtained a copy of the 1753 Act I had recalled speed-reading the morning of the first day of hearing, I am confirmed in my understanding that the free use of the system by pleasure boats specifically embraced the right to ‘keep’ boats therein.

According to the Nene Navigation Act 1753 s.13 –

Provided always, and be it enacted, that this Act shall not extend to restrain any person from keeping a pleasure boat for the purpose of rowing or sailing upon the said rivers, creek, or drains, as he or she shall think fit; nor shall any toll or duty be demanded upon account of such pleasure boat, so as no goods or merchandise be carried therein.”

As a vessel can only be ‘kept’ within that system by way of securely mooring when not in use, it is impossible to see how a moored vessel can be considered moored without consent of the MLC – whose Act specifically or implicitly permits this. Given that the 1630 Act - empowering the Earl of Bedford to undertake the first great unified drainage scheme – specifically granted him, in compensation for his investment, 95,000 acres within the Bedford Level “and the new Rivers, Cuts, and Drains to be made by the said Earl and his Assigns, and the Banks of the same, and the Foreland in the inside of the said Banks, not to exceed Sixty Feet in Breadth;” – no keeping/mooring of boats anywhere within the new constructions of that system could be possible without attaching to the Earl’s land, hence the 1753 Act necessarily grants consent for such attachment, hence no trespass can possibly arise.

First thoughts only, of course, but difficult to see how any other interpretation could hold up. It was a shame that, as so often, the Marners were unrepresented and unrehearsed in the relevant legislation, but still, the later Appeal Court judgment in my own case tends to render the Marner finding irrelevant [at least, as interpreted by the MLC].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the implementation of a licence, it will be a start of a process that will entail an issue system, fees and regulations. The revenue accrued may lead to improved facilities for boaters. If this is the case, will the negatives be offset by the positives, or is the current revenue from drainage enough to make such improvements?

Free navigations have been an established right on several British Waterways. These benefits have their good and bad sides, though. The cost of improvement being a major factor. Whether this is a genuine concern for Middle Level remains to be seen. For the Severn, for example, north of Stourport, the nominally free navigation may well benefit from a cash investment to allow craft to travel further north.

Do the Middle Level Commissioners intend improvement or is simply a means of raising cash for additional profit ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Heartland said:

With the implementation of a licence, it will be a start of a process that will entail an issue system, fees and regulations. The revenue accrued may lead to improved facilities for boaters. If this is the case, will the negatives be offset by the positives, or is the current revenue from drainage enough to make such improvements?

Free navigations have been an established right on several British Waterways. These benefits have their good and bad sides, though. The cost of improvement being a major factor. Whether this is a genuine concern for Middle Level remains to be seen. For the Severn, for example, north of Stourport, the nominally free navigation may well benefit from a cash investment to allow craft to travel further north.

Do the Middle Level Commissioners intend improvement or is simply a means of raising cash for additional profit ?

 

The current revenue from drainage is sufficient to maintain and improve navigation, it is just that the Commissioners – comprised solely of major landowners profiting financially from the drainage – feel that it is ‘only right’ that boaters enjoying the results of purely navigational works [to the extent the MLC are statutorily obligated], should be made to contribute.

The Bill as now amended, provides that such contributions from boaters via the registration scheme will never be greater than that proposed at any time to be spent on the navigation maintenance or improvements – so no, it cannot be said to be a means of raising cash for additional profit [although arguably, being contribution towards the costs the landowners already have to pay, those parties will inevitably profit from the scheme because their own contributions towards the purely navigational elements will be much reduced.

The MLC claim that the revenue from boaters will never meet the obligatory expenditure, let alone the cost of the proposed additional facilities which they claim is their intention to provide once the cash flow starts.

Of course, there seems nothing to stop them providing such facilities as moorings and related services on a business basis even now [the byelaw making powers already enjoyed could allow them to do so], so the belated quid pro quo argument is even more attenuated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

According to the Nene Navigation Act 1753 s.13 –

Provided always, and be it enacted, that this Act shall not extend to restrain any person from keeping a pleasure boat for the purpose of rowing or sailing upon the said rivers, creek, or drains, as he or she shall think fit; nor shall any toll or duty be demanded upon account of such pleasure boat, so as no goods or merchandise be carried therein.”

Does that mean that the protection does not extend to powered craft (which presumably could not have been envisaged in 1753)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Does that mean that the protection does not extend to powered craft (which presumably could not have been envisaged in 1753)?

The MLC accept that it does not exclude powered craft - though 19thC byelaw making powers could have enabled them to prohibit steam-powered vessels or other such means of propulsion as had not been customarily employed. They never did make any such byelaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Latest update is that the Report will be presented in the Commons tomorrow [Tuesday 6th], and at least one MP has confirmed that they will shout ‘object’, in order that further debate take place, with further amendments being drafted for consideration – which in my opinion are sorely needed, if the Bill is to progress at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clause 4, concerning arrangements with other authorities certainly needs some reconsideration.

4 Arrangements with other authorities

(1) The Commissioners may enter into arrangements with any other authority which is authorised to require registration of vessels navigating any waterway under the jurisdiction of that authority for the purpose of coordinating―

(a) the exercise of the functions conferred under this Act and under any navigation byelaws regarding the registration of vessels or the collection of charges; and

(b) the exercise by that authority of any functions conferred on them regarding the registration of vessels or the collection of charges in respect of vessels of the same or a similar class or description.

Given that the committee was given the following undertaking by the proposers:

 “We note the undertaking provided by the proposers that the power under this clause to exercise enforcement powers under the arrangements entered into with another authority will only be used in relation to the registration requirements that have effect in the Middle Level.”

What place or purpose does sub clause (1) (b) have in the amended Bill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, erivers said:

What place or purpose does sub clause (1) (b) have in the amended Bill?

I have to admit that it puzzles me too. I suspect the original intent was for the various authorities to co-ordinate enforcement actions, so where the undertaking leaves the clause now, is perplexing. The undertaking implies an acknowledgement that without it, the clause could have been used that way - what other way it could be used, though, is unclear [as is much of the Bill].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IWA have produced their own report on the progress of the MLC’s Bill. 

https://www.waterways.org.uk/news_campaigns/bulletins/iwa_bulletin_20180201#Middle

IWA Eastern Region Chairman, Chris Howes, who moors on the Middle Level, appeared as a Witness in support of the Bill, and there were 5 objectors - known as ‘Petitioners’. Three of these Petitioners were private individuals, and the others appeared for March Cruising Club and the NBTA (National Bargee Travellers Association). It was notable that the 3 private petitioners and the Cruising Club representative, while stating that they objected in principle to the Bill, seemed more concerned to ensure that should the Bill become Law, it wouldn’t threaten boaters’ existing rights but instead potentially offer benefits.

The Petitioners were heard, and 15 amendments agreed, and added by Counsel to the Committee
.” 

Chris Howes commented “We’re all happy that compromises have been agreed, and that an amended version of the Bill will proceed. IWA looks forward to the Middle Level benefitting from the same protections and opportunities that other waterways enjoy across the rest of the country”.”

One is left wondering why, if the IWA are now happy that amendments were made to ensure that boaters’ existing rights were not threatened but instead were offered benefits, they had not thought to suggest such amendments themselves, instead of uncritically supporting the Bill as it stood. As there is much work yet to do to obtain a reasonable Bill, one might hope that they became more pro-actively involved in work to improve it throughout the ensuing stages of the Parliamentary process.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

others appeared for March Cruising Club and the NBTA (National Bargee Travellers Association). It was notable that the 3 private petitioners and the Cruising Club representative, while stating that they objected in principle to the Bill, seemed more concerned to ensure that should the Bill become Law, it wouldn’t threaten boaters’ existing rights but instead potentially offer benefits.

 


 

Cruising Club representative was Bargee Traveller who had been given a free Cruising Club membership by the Cruising Club Harbourmaster. Many of the club members were not happy about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Short and sweet, certainly. I gather that the debate will take place on the 20th?

No, only the motion to approve the third reading will be put to the House again on the 20th.  If there is another (or repeat) objection it may be referred back several times before a debate is scheduled. 

(I assume that the date was intended to be TUESDAY 20th February, not Thursday as recorded).

Edited by erivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Received by email today -

Dear all,

Further to my email below, I am writing to let you know that a debate on Report Stage for the Middle Level Bill has now been scheduled for Wed 28 February. It will be in the afternoon, starting probably around 4 pm, depending on the progress of business that day.

You should be aware that Third Reading may also take place that day, and if it passes, the Bill will go to the Lords the next day, which will trigger the start of the petitioning period in the Lords. Since petitioning in the Commons we have made some changes to the petitioning process, including the petition template – though the principles remain largely the same. We are aiming to have guidance published next week, prior to the start of petitioning.

Mark Cooper (cc’d) is the main contact for the Private Bill Office in the Lords, and will be able to advise on Lords procedure.




"COOPER, Mark" <COOPERM@parliament.uk>


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That post has been reproduced on the NABO facebook page an hour ago, with the preamble: "This relates to the bill to allow the middle level commissioners to charge for boat licences and insist on a BSS certificate. There is talk about the provision of facilities but nothing in the bill insists that they do." That is a step in the right direction; it would be good if they elaborated a bit more, so that their members had a proper appreciation of what the Bill means to boaters there. Positive additions/amendments need to be sorted as early as possible, and representative 'petitions' prepared in time to enter within the limited time slot - 10 to 14 days from the 28th, unless new rules accompany the new 'template'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have just noticed that the NBTA have published a precis of proceedings thus far, with a useful set of links, all on the one page: to the Bill as originally drafted; as amended; lists of amendments; lists of undertakings; transcripts, and webcasts.

www.bargee-traveller.org.uk/petitioners-obtain-amendments-to-middle-level-bill/www.bargee-traveller.org.uk/petitioners-obtain-amendments-to-middle-level-bill/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest from Mr Cooper is: -

It is still uncertain as to when the Middle Level Bill will arrive in the
Lords, but depending on proceedings in the Commons there is a possibility
it will be on 1 March. If that is so, the petitioning period in the Lords
will run for 10 days thereafter, finishing on 12 March
.

We have yet to receive the newly worded template, but hope to get it soon. One encouraging thing is that petitions to the Lords can now be sent electronically – so no need to print them up and present them in person at the Houses of Parliament, as we had to do last year for the Commons.

I would hope that this will prompt more of those affected to give some serious thought to this, and prepare their own recommendations. A specimen petition as per previous templates is: -

 

Please note that some parts of your petition must be worded exactly as in the sample petition below.  These parts are shown underlined and in blue and you should copy these words exactly as they are written.  If you do not, your petition may not be accepted[1].  You should not use the blue colour or the underlining in your petition, just the words themselves.

 

 

HOUSE OF LORDS

SESSION 2017-19

 

[insert short title of bill[2]]

 

Petition against the Bill - on merits - Praying to be heard by Counsel Etc.

 

To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled

 

 

The humble petition of  [insert the name of the petitioner(s) here]

 

SHEWETH as follows:

 

1.    A Bill (hereinafter referred to as "the Bill") has been introduced and is now pending in your Right Honourable House intituled "A Bill to [insert the long title of the bill[3]]."

2.    The Bill is promoted by [insert name of the Promoters[4]].  The Preamble to the Bill recites that [insert the purpose of the bill as set out at beginning of the bill].

Relevant Clauses of the Bill

3.    [Give a brief description of the main clauses (or parts)[5] of the bill which directly affect you or say that you object to the whole Bill.]

Your petitioner

4.    Your Petitioners are [description of petitioners[6]; together with a description of the petitioners' property, etc. which the bill may "directly and specially affect".]

…continued

 

Specimen petition – continued

 

Your Petitioner’s concerns

5.     [Give a brief, clear statement of how you are specially and directly affected by the bill and what it is you object to in the bill.  If possible suggest alternatives or say what you would like to be altered in the bill.]

 

YOUR PETITIONER(S) therefore humbly pray(s) to Your Honourable House that the Bill may not pass into law as it now stands† and that he* may be heard by himself*, his* Counsel or Agent against the Preamble of the Bill and if the same do pass against all the clauses and provisions in the Bill which relate to or affect his* property rights and interests and in support of other clauses and provisions for the protection and benefit of your Petitioner(s) and his* property rights and interests and that he* may have such other relief as Your Honourable House may deem meet.

 

AND YOUR PETITIONER(S) will ever pray, etc.

 

[each petitioner (or his Agent) MUST sign (or seal) the petition here[7] ]

 

[Print the name of the person signing below each signature and, if she or he is not a petitioner their position – “agent” “Chief Executive” etc]

 

[put the date you intend to deposit the petition in the Private Bill Office here]

 

 

Notes

The text in square brackets [ ] describes what you should put into the petition at that point.

* You may also alter the gender of the words asterisked (*) and/or make them plural as appropriate. You should not put the asterisks themselves in your finished petition.

  Leave out the text "as it now stands" if you want the whole Bill rejected.

 

 

…continued

 

Specimen petition – continued

 

You should attach a separate endorsement (back) page, facing outwards (so that it can be read if you turn your petition over), and with no text on the other side, which says:

 

HOUSE OF LORDS

SESSION 2017-19

 

[insert short title of bill[8]]

 

 

PETITION OF

 

[insert the name of the petitioner(s) here]

 

 

AGAINST, By counsel, etc.

 

 

[You must add the name, of the petitioner(s) or Agent here]

 

[You must add a contact address for the named person here]

 

 

Please note: the above address will not be released to anyone without the consent of the petitioner(s)/Agent and will not be posted on the Parliament website.  Your original signed petition together with this endorsement sheet will be kept in the Private Bill Office and subsequently kept as a record of Parliament in the Parliamentary Archives in a closed file, except where it must be made available under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.   Please see Appendix B

 

You must complete a copy of Appendix B and hand it in with your petition.

 

Please supply the following information:

                Phone number of petitioner/Agent:

                              daytime (mandatory):....................................................................................................

                              mobile:..........................................................................................................................

E-mail address:.....................................................................................................................................                

I understand:

  1. that a copy of this petition, excluding the endorsement page of my petition and  without my signature, will be placed on the Parliamentary website, a hard copy will be made available to the public and it will be available for inspection in the Parliamentary Archives; 
  2. that the original signed petition together with the endorsement sheet and this sheet will be kept in the Private Bill Office and subsequently kept as a record of Parliament in the Parliamentary Archives in a closed file, except where it must be made available under the Freedom of Information Act 2000;
  3. that the personal information supplied above and on the petition may be kept in a database by the House of Lords Private Bill Office.  This database may be used to store summaries of e-mails and/or conversations for the purpose of keeping track of procedural advice/information given to the parties or received from them, or for other internal purposes connected with the Bill.  This information will not be shared with any other party unless prior permission has been obtained from the petitioner/Agent concerned.

 

signature of petitioner/Agent:...............................................................................................................

 

name of petitioner/Agent (in block letters please):................................................................................

 

The Parliamentary Agents for the bill will be assisting with the programming schedule for the consideration of the petitions against it.  They will wish to contact you so that suitable dates can be arranged with you, and they, or the Promoters, may wish to respond to you on the points raised in your petition.  Can we make your contact details available to the Parliamentary Agent (and via them, the Promoters of the bill)?

  YES / NO  (please delete as appropriate) or specify if you only want certain details released.

 

[1] The petition must contain a prayer (that is, a formal request that Parliament should take certain action) and must end with the traditional words "And your Petitioner will ever pray, etc."

[2] short title of the Bill against which you are petitioning e.g. New Southgate Cemetery Bill [HL] – the “[HL]” indicates that the bill started in the House of Lords and is omitted from bills that started in the Commons.

[3] i.e. the paragraph immediately beneath the words “A bill” printed in larger type on page 1 of the bill.

[4] The name of the Promoters of the bill is shown on the back cover/last page of the bill above that ofthe Parliamentary Agents who are acting for them.

[5] It is helpful to cite the clause numbers of those clauses to which you object if you can.

[6] For example, "Your first Petitioner is an owner of property in. …Your second Petitioner is…", "Your Petitioners are the ... Society, an association of the residents of ... Road, established in ... to..."; "Your petitioner is A Company Limited, a nominee company, incorporated in England"….”Your petitioner is a resident of….”

[7] If the petition is not signed by the appropriate person (see the text of this Guide) it will not be accepted by the Private Bill Office

[8] short title of the Bill against which you are petitioning e.g. Faversham Oyster Company Bill [HL] – the “[HL]” indicates that the bill started in the House of Lords and is omitted from bills that started in the Commons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.