497 Proposed Hospital [ 23 MARCH 1965] in M otherwe/1 49.g on this particular Committee should be generailly known? THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Tuesday, 23rd March, 1965 Lords, the -Pr-ime Minister is solely respon­ sible for the advice which he chooses .to· The House met at half past two of g,ive to the Soverei,gn, and the Government the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the does not ,propose to depart from the pre­ Woolsack. cedent of its predecessors in declining to give ,information as to how he arrives at Prayers-Read by the Lord Bishop his opinion. of Liverpool

THE LATE SIR WINSTON PROPOSED HOSPITAL IN CHURCHILL: TRIBUTE FROM MOTHERWELL SENATE OF OREGON LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg THE LORD CHANOELLOR (LoRD leave to ask the Question which stands in GARDINER): My LO)'ds, I have to inform my name on the Order Paper. the House that I have received from the [The Question was as follows: President of rhe Senate of Oregon a Resolution adopted by the Senate on To ask Her Majesty's Government January 29, 1965, in tribute to the memory whether they are aware of the wide­ of the late Sir Winstou Churchill. I am spread anxiety among individuals and placing this Resolution in the Library, and local authorities in the Upper Ward of I propose, with yonr Lordships' permis­ Lanarkshire at the proposal to estab­ sion, to ex,press on your behalf the thanks lish a new general hospital in Mother­ of the House for the generous terms of well to take over the functions of the the Resolution. existing hospital at Law, involving a marked increase in the already great distances which patients and visitors THE MAECENAS COMMITTEE AND have to travel from a large area with­ HONOURS out adequate compensating advan­ tages; and, further, whether they are 2.37 ,p.m. satisfied that the proposed site, with its THE : My Lords, I already limited area, can provide suffi­ beg leave to ask the Question which stands cient parking space for duty, staff and in my name on the Order Pa·per. visitors' vehicles in terms of present [The Question was as follows: day and estimated future require­ To ask Her Majesty's Government ments.] .the membership and ,functions of the Committee commonly known as the THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY Maecenas Committee.] UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, after considerable discussion with Lords, ,it has never been the practice to local interests, the previous Administra­ answer questions about the information tion approved the Regional Hospital which a Prime Minister takes into account Board's proposal that the new district in giv.ing -the Sovereign any advjce he general hospital at Motherwell should chooses to -give on the qnestion of honours. serve the Motherwell-Hamilton area and that, in addition to long-stay beds, TuE EARL OF ARRAN; My Lords, a number of acute beds in the major while thanking the noble and :learnedLord specialties should be retained at Law for his information, I ,would ask, is it not Hospital to serve the upper ward. My a fact that this Committee consists of, right honourable friend the Secretary of among others, intellectuals and represen­ State approves the course proposed. The tat,ives of the arts, and would Her 39-acre site at Motherwell is considered Majesty's Government not agree that since fully adequate for the intended purpose. such folk are not always eutirely objec­ tive in .their judgments of one another it LORD FERRIER: My Lords, while is desirable that the names of those sittfag thanking the noble Lord for his reply, Vol. 264 I Kalahari Desert 499 Bushmen of the [LORDS] 500 [Lord Fernier.] may I ask whether he is satisfied that the BUSHMEN OF THE KALAHARI authorities fully grasp the fact that, since DESERT that plan was decided, and indeed since 2.40 p.m. this Question was put down, new develop­ LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I beg ment plans for building in Lanarkshire leave to ask the Question wb�oh stands have been published which will alter the in my name ou the Order Paper. whole population pattern of the area so as to alter the premises upon which the [The Question was as follows : original plan was based? To ask Her Majesty's Government HUGHES whether ,they have considered t:he LORD : My Lords, I take it report of Mr. George Silberbauer on that the noble Lord is referring to the the future of tihe Bushmen of tihe proposed development at Carluke. In Kalabari, Desert and whose' responsi­ that case the effect of the development bility it will, be to implement its would be to increase slightly the number recommendations.] of beds required at Law. It will not affect in any way the fact that the con­ LORD SORENSEN: My L6rds, wiith venient centre for the densely populated permission, may I reply on beqa,l.f of my Hamilton-Motherwell area is Mother­ noble friend Lord Taylor, who is un­ well. able to be present to-day. Tfiis report, which was published in Bedmanaland LORD FERRIER: My Lords, while earlier this month, has not yet been for­ tb.anking the noble Lord, may I say that warded to Her Majesty's Government. the plans also include extension to build Responsibility for implemen�ing such up ,the population in Lanark, thereby recommendations ais may be accepted will increasing the number of people in the be that of the Government of �eohuana­ landward area of Lanarkshire, increasing land, to whom the report was submi.tted. the numbers who will have to travel larger distances than ever in order to LORD ALPORT: My Lords, in view visit patients at of the potential importance of this report receive attention or to of view of anthwpology, Motherwell? from the po�nt may I ask the Minister wihether i.t is to LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think bt made available to the publfrc here in it is inevitable in the system of hospitals •the United Kingdom ; and, secondly, as we have them Ibat some people must whether ,the Minister will undertake that travel a certain distance to the most suit­ -the recommendations are acted upon able hospital. 'I1bat is a small price to before Beohuanaland becomes indepen­ pay for making available to them the dent? best possible medical treatment in con­ LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, as to venient centres, and my right honour­ the first part of the noble Lord's Ques­ able friend is satisfied that �he arrange­ tion, most certainly the reporit, when it ment, considered at great length by bis is received here and properly considered, predecessor and approved by him, is one will be made available ,to M�mbers of from which he wonld find difficulty in this Hause. Witll regard to the laHer departing. part of the question, I personally am unaware of whait the actual ,procedure will be, but I presume the res·po�bility in any case wiill be -tJhait ,of BecJmanaland itself and its Government, no doubt with every ·encoumgement from our Govern­ ment in ·this country. LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I am sorry to press t!his and I know the Minister cannot answer in the absence of Lord Taylor. But would he take this ,point to Lord Taylor, because I believe it to be of great dmporuance in th� interests of this vulnerable minority in the Bechuanaland Protectorate? 501 London Government (Public [ 23 MARCH 1965] General Acts) Order 1965 502 LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I fully some appropriate journal, amplifying the appreciate wha,t rthe noble Lord thas said.· points that he has made? I ,am personally very interested in �his matter. I will certainly undertake to LORD SHACKLETON : My Lord1;, I convey to my noble friend Lord Taylor am much in sympathy with the noble whM :the noble Lord bas said. Lord's views. There was an article in the Scotsman on March 11, and there are available a number of documents, of which some have been published in the DEEP DIVING TECHNIQUES IN United States. The same point had ROYAL NAVY occurred to me as to the noble Lord, 2.42 p.m. that it would be a good idea if such a LoRD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: lecture or opportunity could be pro­ My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Ques­ vided ; and the possibility even of a tion which stands in my name on the visit to the establishment is being con­ Order Paper. sidered. But I take note of the noble Lord's observations, because this is one [The Question was as follows : of the most exciting and dramatic of To ask Her Majesty's Government fields, and it may be possible for a man whether they will now make a state­ to go down to much greater depths. ment on the progress of oxy-helium deep diving techniques by the Royal LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: Navy.] My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that further reply, and for the THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR sympathetic interest he is taking in this THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD most important subject. SHACKLETON): My Lords, the decision was taken in 1962 to embark on a pro­ gramme of research into deep diving be. THE PALACE OF cause it had become increasingly apparent WESTMINSTER that there was a requirement for Navy divers to be able to operate in deep water LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a for such tasks as the recovery of crashed suitable moment after 3.30 my noble aircraft and missiles, and, possibly, sub­ friend the Leader of the House will be marine escape and salvage. Since that making a Statement on the Palace of time, trials using an oxy-helium atmos­ Westminster. phere have been going on almost con­ tinuously, both in a compression chamber ashore and at sea, in which naval divers LONDON GOVERNMENT (PUBLIC have acted as subjects. So far there have GENERAL ACTS) ORDER 1965 been three main sea trial periods, the results of which have been encouraging, 2.46 p.m. Dives to a depth of 500 feet with a period THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRE­ of ten minutes at that depth have been TARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND successfully carried out by ten different NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD men. It is planned to conduct further sea MITCHISON): My Lords, I beg to move trials later this year, aimed at increasing that this draft Order, which was laid depths and lengthening bottom times. before the House on March 10, be approved. This is an Order about which LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: the Special Orders Committee have enter­ My Lords, I thank the noble. Lord for tained some doubt on a point with which that most interesting and informative I will deal later. In other respects, Answer. In view of the great interest in however, the Committee consider that the progress of deep-diving techniques, the Order involves no important question not only for the purposes which he has of policy or principle, and therefore I described, by divers in the Royal Navy, will summarise its provisions shortly. but for many other reasons of a wide­ The Order gives to the new authorities spread nature, could he arrange either in Greater London certain minor powers for a lecture to be given by a suitable under Public General Acts. By Article 3 person, on an appropriate occasion, or the licensing of dealers in game is trans­ for a technical paper to be provided in ferred to the London borough councils. Vol. 264 12 503 London Government (Public [LORDS] General Acts) Order 1965 504 [Lord Mitcrnson.] the meaning assign°ed to it by Section By Article 4 the enforcement of provi­ 30(1) ; and Section 30(1), so far as sions about the grading and marketing relevant, reads as follows: I of agricultural produce is transferred in "The G:eater London Council, when acting Jnn�r London to the boroughs. By as aforesaid as the local educatiop authority Article 5 the powers to provide playing for the said area shaJI, except for the purposes of any document of title, be known as the fields, swimming baths and the like ' inner London Education Authorit:,r' ... " which are available to certain local authorities, are given to the Greater I find no obscurity in this language, and London Council. It is in connection with I suggest that these words quite clearly this Article that the doubts of the Special define the Inner London Education Orders Committee have arisen. Article 6 Authority as the Greater London Coun­ deals with powers under the Road Traffic cil, known by another name when ful­ filling certain functions. That being so, Act, and _ _t\rticle 7 :Vith appointments to two trammg committees mentioned in I cannot think that the fact that, by the Article. Article 8 gives a general those functions and under that rame, the power to spend up to a penny rate in Inner London Education Autlj_ority has the interests of the inhabitants of the somewhat different personrlel need trouble us unduly. Greater London Council area. This power was given generally to local These legal persons are n9t merely authorities under the Local Government their members. This House, for instance, �Financial Provisions) Act, 1963, and it when sitting as a Judicial body has a 1s sometimes called the "free penny". smaller membership than when sitting as part of the Legislature ; and there are I turn to the doubt of the Special Order.s Committee. They point put instances fo local govemmeht where that under the subsection of the London additional members are added to a body Government Act which is taken to when it is carrying out certain functions. authorise this Order, an Order in Coun­ One such used to be the addition of cil may apply the general law, with parish councillors to the rural district necessary modifications, to the Greater council for the purpose of rating in a London Council, but that there is no rural area. The rural distriqt council, express power so to apply the general with . the parish councillorf added, law in relation to the Inner London remamed the rural district council. My Education Authority. Also, they point Lords, I beg to move. out that it is to the Inner London Educa­ Moved, That the Draft London tion Authority that -the Physical Train­ Government (Public General Acts) Order ing and Recreation Act, 1937, is applied 1965, laid before the House on 10th by Article 5, which they refer to as March, be approved.-(Lord Mitchison.) "Paragraph 5 ", so as to enable them to provide the playing fields and swim­ 2.50 p.m. ming baths I have mentioned. Accord­ LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, in the ingly, say the Special Orders Commit­ first place we should be grateful to the tee, the Order is ultra vires, unless the Special Orders Committee for ma.._l(.ing Inner London Education Authority is such a full and detailed Report on this the Greater London Council. rather abstruse problem. I b�lieve that it is the first time they have ever set With respect, the Special Orders Corn­ out in detail their reasons for reporting mitt�e h_ave 'be�n in some danger of that they have some doubts as to whether lapsmg mto Anan heresy and of mis­ a matter is intra vires or ultra vires. At taking an identity of substance for a the same time, I am grateful to the noble mere similarity. They have not, how­ Lord, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, ever, done so because they have pro­ for introducing this Order, fdr explain­ nounced no opinion on the point. But ing it briefly, and for dealing with this I think it right, with the greatest respect difficult problem. Of course, we are not to the Committee, to tell your Lord­ anxious to hold up the Order, for it ships that I entertain no real doubt on implements many things which were the matter. necessary to be done under e powers Section 89 of the London Government of the London Government fect, 1963. Act, 1963, tell us that the rphrase "the That Act, of course, was pas ed by the previous Government, and it is in every Inner London Education Authority " has I 505 London Government(Public [ 23 MARCH 1965] General Acts) Order 1965 506 way an excellent, well-conceived and But we are now dealing with the Physica:l admirable Act, and one which will be Training and Recreation Act, not with of very great benefit to Greater London the Education Acts ; and there is no men­ in the future. tion in Section 4, ,m which this insertion In respect of this particular problem, of the Inner London Education Authority however, I do not think that we can is put, of education authorities. There is brush it aside quite so easily as the noble mention of county councils and local Lord, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, authorities, but not of education has done. In the first place, it is a author-ities. matter of the dignity of Parliament that Later on, Section 30(1) of the London we must be quite sure that Orders going Government Act says : out from Parliament are valid and can­ ". . . the Greater London Council, when not be questioned. Secondly, we want to acting as aforesaid as the local education be sure that from the common sense authority for the said Area ... " point of view, the point of view of the and so on. But it seems to me that laym�n. these things cannot be held in under the Physical Training and Recrea­ doubt. Thirdly, we want to be sure that, tion Act the Greater London Council is when tested in the courts, the Order will not acting as the local education stand. authority: it is acting as a county council When it comes to the provision of or other local authority. Then, lower swimming baths, there is a good deal of down in Section 30, we find that the room for disagreement, as I know from constitution of the special committee of my experience in the Ministry of Housing the Inner London Education Authority and Loca� Government. In the Inner consists of councillors not only of the London Education A:uthor�ty area many Greater London Council but of one London boroughs will be involved, and if representative from each inner London a swimming bath is going to be built in borough council, who do not belong to one area a precept wm be made on the the Greater London Council at all, and whole area and the cost shared out be­ one Common Council representative, tween the various London bd'roughs. That who is not a member of the Greater gives reasons for objection by one London Council. Therefore, it is diffi­ borough ; and even individuals can cult to argue under both these heads object, on planning grounds and when that the Inner London Education they know they are going to be charged Authority is in this instance the same with rates for the ,provision of such baths. " personality " as the Greater London If there are to ,be objections, this sort Council. of Order is likely to be tested fo ,the courts, When it comes to the mention, in and if at the very first hurdle the Order Section 30(3), of precepting upon the is declared by the court to be invalid, it local authorities for the building of these will mean .that we have wasted every­ swimming baths, that is clearly the duty body',s time. I am sure your Lordships of the Greater London Council and can­ would not wish to allow ,that to happen. not be done by the Inner London Section 83 of the London Government Education Authority. They can merely Act, under which these powers are taken, give their advice. There is a good deal says that Her Majesty may make the of room for doubt, and the noble Lord appropriate modification " at any time ... would do well perhap s to take this back before or after 1st April, 1965 ". So my and look at it again very carefully to first point :is that there is no real urgency make sure that we are not making a or hurry aJbout this, and that we should mistake in passing this Order. do much tbetter to ta,ke our time and get it right. 3.8 p.m. LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I do not Now let me turn to Section 30, to which intend to go into the matter in the detail the noble Lord drew attention. He argued in which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that the reference to the " Inner London has done ; but, as a member of the Education Authority" meant the Greater Special Orders Committee, I accept the London Council ; but he will see that that section deals, in the first place, with mild criticism of my noble friend in "any reference in the Education Acts 1944 to regard to what we did and the doubts 1962 o in an other Act to the local education we expressed. I would only say that � �, authonty ... what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has Vol. 264 I3 507 Lo11do11 Government(Public [LORDS] General Acts) Order 1965 508 [Lord Royle.] the merits of the London Government said rather contradicts his idea that this Act. But whatever the merits or demerits is a perfect Act. It seems to me not of the London Government Act, that can­ only that this is just one of the faults not have the slightest bearing on the in the Act, but that the Act in itself was question whether or not this Order is a mistake from the very beginning. The ultra vires. That is the one matter with London County Council seemed to be which the House is concerned. I confess functioning quite well and there was that I only saw the Report of the Special never any reason for the Party repre­ Orders Committee since coming to the sented opposite to interfere with that House this afternoon, and I d0 not pro­ situation, except for political purposes. fess to have examined it with great care. HASTINGS: I listened to the speech of the noble LORD Has the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, who like me is a Lord asked the Greater London Council lawyer but not the most emiu�nt in the whether they are of th� same opinion? House, and I wonder whether on this LORD ROYLE: Like the noble Lord, very important question-because I I form my own opinions on these imagine that the Special Orders Com-. matters, and I am quite convinced that mittee was also advised by lawyers­ that was the purpose of the Act. I would we might have an expression of view only say this to my noble friend wh en from the Woolsack. he talks about co-opted members. The Inner London Education Authority have VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I their co-opted members ; the difficulty hope we shall get a further expression seems to arise from the fact that they of view. Like my noble friend I did are responsible to nobody. The analogy not see this Order until a pretty late hour of a local authority having co-opted and I do not claim to have made any members on its education committee is careful investigatiou of it. Bht I have not mine, but where co-opted members no doubt that the Special Orqers Com­ exist on education committees in local mittee, to whom I think the whble House authorities they are subject, in the end, should be grateful for this first instance to the approval and deci1>ions of the of what I think is the new 'procedure full council. It seems to me that the which they are adopting, took great care Inner London Education Authority are before saying that there wasj a doubt not subject to the approval of anybod , about it. I listened with great care to y the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and he and this is how the doubts arose in the went a long way to remove the doubts minds of the Special Orders Committee. that I felt, but they were completely Is this not a fault which could be revived, I may say, by the efforts made rectified by making any particular sec­ by the noble Lord, Lord Rayl�. to sup­ tion of the Greater London Council port him. After hearing Lord Royle I subject to its ultimate will and decision? thought there were even mote doubts Is this not a case where amendments than the Special Orders Committee had might be sought to improve the Act in said. I hope that we may have the this way? If that were done, I feel advantage of the views of the noble and that the problem which we are now learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on posing would not arise. Could my noble this matter, because I am sun: that the friend look at it in that way? last thing this House, or either House, LORD MAcANDREW: My Lords, wants to do is to pass an Order which first of all I should like to congratulate is doubtfully good and which, even if it the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, on his is doubtfully good, may lead to some birthday. But as regards what he said litigation. about the Special Orders Committee, LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, the may I say that under the Standing Order last thing I wanted to do-and I am we went only as far as we were asked sorry if I gave any impression that I was to go. We were not asked to express an doing it--was to suggest that l am not opinion; only to express doubt in cases sincerely grateful to the Speciltl Orders of doubt. Committee for what, I gather, is their first LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I venture in this particular swimming listened with great interest to the speech pool. I did not take their I criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, on lightly. One noble Lord invited me to 509 London Government(Public [ 23 MARCH 1965] General Acts) Order 1965 510 go back and have a look at this point. could, and we think should, be done. I have had a look at it, oddly enough. I do not know what more I can do. I have read through an enormous brief I entirely agree with the noble and -far longer than anything which I learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, when thought right to inflict on your Lordships he says that it is our duty to be clear -and I am afraid I felt no doubt what­ about things when we pass an Order. I ever, either about the conclusion or about thought he put our duty a trifle high. the reasons I gave for it. They are quite I have known instances in which Orders short. have been upset by the court, and nobody There is one question posed by the shot either the noble and learned Lord Special Orders Committee, and one ques­ the Lord Chancellor or Mr. Speaker in tion only, and that is whether these two another place because they had not got bodies are identical, or whether one it right. But clearly we must do our best, should treat the I.LE.A., as I believe it and if there is any doubt we ought to is called, as a committee or something consider whether the wording can be put else in some way or another different­ in some other form. I find the Order like in substance but not the same. I quite clear, quite unambiguous, and I think that the passage I read out is per­ should like to add my thanks to the fectly clear. What it says is that the Special Orders Committee for what they Greater London Council, when acting for did and for putting the question so certain purposes, shall be known as the clearly. They simply said: If these two I.LE.A. If, conversely, the I.LE.A. is bodies are the same the Order is all not the Greater London Council acting right ; if they are not, it is not. I am for certain purposes, should I be exceed­ prepared on that to take their opinion. ing all the Rules of Order in the House That seems to me to be the question. if I asked: what the devil is it?-because I quite agree that there are a number it appears in Section 30(1) for the first of Statutes involved. One can get one's time. feet nice aud muddy by wandering about among them. But I think there is a plain We are referred by the definition sec­ and simple path delineated for us by tion not merely to that section but to the exertions of the Special Orders Com­ that particular subsection, and I can mittee, and one which we might reason­ assure your Lordships that I read out, in ably follow. It is, of course, perfectly what seems to me tolerably plain English true that it is not the business of the for an Act of Parliament, the relevant Special Orders Committee to express an part of the section. That being so, I opinion one way or another. I hope they must say that I feel bound to give your did not mind being told that they had Lordships my own opinion-it is the been in danger of lapsing into Arian opinion of those who advise me and is my heresy. Arius is long since dead and own, too-that there really is no doubt there is no harm in that kind of thing about this. These two bodies are iden­ nowadays. So I would urge the House, tical in my opinion. They are not always with great respect, to do what I identical, because the Greater London believe is the sensible thing and to pass Council has other functions to perform the Order, relying on what I think is which have nothing whatever to do with the perfectly clear language of the the I.LE.A. But when it is concerned Statute. with these particular matters it is known as the I.LE.A. I am aware of the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. Perhaps I can This is not a case for taking back an answer it most shortly by saying to him Order and thinking about it again. If, that I have adopted on this matter, as the in fact, these are two separate bodies, question that reaHy concerns us, the ques­ then the deficiency is in the language of tion that concerned the Special Orders the Statute in which your Lordships Committee themselves. I will not take opposite took such pride, and it is not up t:he time of the House in trying to give in the form of the Order. It is not a reasons for it, but I think one might follow matter that can be put right by recti­ them. They have obviously taken great fying an Order. You just cannot do care about it. They have given us two what it is desired to do, and what I think, alternatives : one, they are the same ; two, with respect, the Act obviously intended they are not the same-in the first case Vol. 264 I4 511 Licensing (Scotland) [LORDS] Bill [H.L.] 512 [Lord Mitchison.] Moved, That the Bill be now read 30,_ valid ; in the second case inva>lid. Then -(Lord Stonham.) you look at the Act and you find-I hope On Question, Bill read 3�, anti passed. it is not disrespectful to say-unusually plain Eng1ish for a complicated Statute. Why not follow it? INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, before SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.] the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him Read 3" (according 1:o Orqer), and why it would not clarify the whole situa­ passed, and sent to the Comm0ns. tion if, quite simply, instead of putting " Inner London Education Authority " we put "Greater London Counoil "? They SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.] have these ,powers, they are charged with them, and -surely there would not be any Read 3"' (according to Order), and complication at all. passed, and sent to the Commons. LORD MITCHISON: No, my Lords. That is not quite ·so, with respect to the EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL noble Lord. This body is-differently con­ stituted for different purposes., That is Read 3a. (according to Order), and quite ,right. I gave another ,instance, quite passed. a minor one, and it is now out o.f date, a,bout .the rural district council which had parish reipresentatives added to it for pur­ LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL poses of rural rating. I have another one [H.L.] here. I hope I did not sound too 3.13 p.ID. I abrupt; but I have a high regard for Order of the Day for ,the Secohd Read­ the time of the House, and we have quite ing read. a lot of Business before •US to-day. On Question, Motion agreed to. THE : My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. To borrow a phra•se used recently by a noble Lady LAW COMMISSIONS BILL on the Benches opposite, this is a little Brought from the Commons ; read 1 ', Bill. But, however little it mar be, this and to be ,printed. in no way detracts from its ments, which I hope to prove are obvious. One of them is -to do away with a purposeless NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS monopoly that benefits no one ; and it (AMENDMENT) BILL would allow all would-be licensees to apply in the usual manner to the local 3.11 p.m. licensing courts. Order -of rthe Day for the Third Read­ There are two counties in Scotland, ing read. Ross ,and Cromarty and Dumfries-shire, THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My which still have certain areas where the Lords, I have iit in command from Her sale of exciseable liquor ollherwise than Majesty the Queen to ,acquaint the House by the Secretary of State for Scotland is �hat Her Majesty, having been informed prohibited. Your Lordships inay well of tlie purport of the Nuclear Installa­ ask why this should be so. Of course, tions (Amendment) Bill, has consented it should not be so ; but it is a hangover to place her interest, so far as it is con­ from 1916, when the Defencb of the cerned on behalf of ,the Crown, at the Realm Act sought to control the sale and disposal of Parliament for the purposes consumption of alcoholic drink. In those of The Bill. far-off days, the Cromarty Firth was the base for a large part of the Grand Fleet, THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY while the Burgh of Invergord@n was a UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, dockyard employing hundreds/ of dock HOME OFFICE (LoRo STONHAM): My workers imported from Liverpoq,l. This Lord,s, I beg to move rt.hat this Bill be now was the reason for an Act which em­ read ,a third time. braced the Cromarty Firtih areal ,together 513 Licensing (Scotlana) [ 23 MARCH 1965] Bill [H.L.) 514 with t;he county town of Dingwall. In (a firm supporter of the Party to which Dumfries-shire, too, itihe reason for this noble Lords opposite belong) desperately situation was