LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL (Hansard, 5 December 1966)

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that, having been informed of the purport of the Local Government Bill, Her Majesty has consented to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of this Bill.

§ LORD KENNET
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

§ LORD MOYLE
My Lords, relying on the traditional sympathy of the House on a maiden effort, I am tempted to offer a few valedictory observations at the Third Reading of this Bill, and to wish it well through its final stages. I do so because, whatever controversial views are expressed about its general provisions, I am sure that the excellent provisions that are to govern street lighting in the future will command general support. They will bring to an end the existing unsatisfactory system, making way for the development of an official, uniform and, I hope in due course, a continuous system of street lighting that will match modern needs. Many of us have campaigned over the years for these changes, and this Bill brings us our reward.
I cannot imagine a better purpose for a maiden effort than to shed sweetness and light on the Parliamentary scene. Humorous as it may sound, it is true to say that under the existing system the Ministry of Transport are not a lighting authority; nor indeed are a county council. But a district council and a parish council are. In short, this Bill will end the unsatisfactory situation in which these authorities have the powers of street lighting but not the means, and the authorities which have the means have not the power to carry out street lighting. For those reasons, I have great pleasure in commending this Bill.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate, because I have used enough words on the Bill at an earlier stage, but I cannot resist the temptation to rise and offer my humble congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Moyle, for his apt, well directed, delightful and brief contribution. I agree with what he said about the merit of a certain part of this Bill. Indeed, in general, it is, I am sure, a useful Bill, though, as I said on Second Reading, in various directions it does not go far enough. All I want to add now is that, having frequently listened to the noble Lordin another place I shall be one of those who will always listen with respect and enjoyment to his future contributions here.

§ LORD KENNET
My Lords, I had not intended to speak either, but I do so for the very same reason. I am sure that the whole House will agree how nice 900 it is when a speech on Third Reading on a Bill sheds nothing but sweetness and light—even if it is sweetness and street light—and I join with my noble opponent, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in hoping that the House will often hear the noble Lord, Lord Moyle, speak in future on this and on other topics.
We have already spent nine and a half hours on this Bill, and there is nothing, I think, to go over again. I believe it is a useful Bill. It is almost as good as when it came to this House, and in some respects it is even better than it was.