Schedule 2.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.) (Hansard, 11 February 1965)

§ Mr. John Morris
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At this late hour I do not wish to detain the House for long. We had a most interesting Committee stage, and we all benefited from the valuable discussions. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who took part in the debate. Even if it was not possible on all occasions to accept the many suggestions which were made, certain beneficial changes have been made in the Bill, even though they may not always have met fully the requests made from time to time.
One matter of major concern involved the words "physical hurt" in the Bill. We have discussed this today, and I think that the House generally accepted the Amendments in this respect which we put down on Report. Another matter of concern was the question of unborn children. My hon. Friend has explained that this evening. We had, too, what I regarded as a most important point—the extension of the time within which a claim could be made when nuclear material was lost or abandoned. I think that we fully met the requests made in the debate on that point.
A point which I was not prepared to concede in Committee related to what might be regarded as rationalisation in that it was suggested that one Minister, probably the Minister of Power, should be the appropriate authority in relation to claims and for the purposes of the registration of persons following incidents. This question has been looked at again in consultation with the Departments concerned, and for the reasons given in Standing Committee the Government's view remains unchanged. It must be emphasised that the circumstances in which these provisions would operate are unlikely to arise, even if we were unlucky more than once in a generation. There is therefore no justification for setting up special machinery in any one Department, and it is better to leave it with the Department, which will have the necessary information, the power 694 to obtain information and the direct responsibility.
There were discussions on the issue of the liability of the operators of nuclear ships. I regret that I am unable greatly to add to what has been said on this subject. Special difficulties arise in connection with nuclear ships which do not arise with land-based nuclear installations and the transport of nuclear material. For example, all existing nuclear ships are State owned—they are nearly all warships. This gives rise to special problems in international law, and these are being examined.
I am sure that the House would like an indication of the expected progress and the various steps required to establish the international system under the three Conventions. We hope that the enactment of this Bill will stimulate other countries to move rapidly towards a situation in which they can ratify one or more of the Conventions. The Bill now enables the change in our law to be made in steps on dates considered appropriate by the Government. It is envisaged that as soon as possible the main provisions of the Bill will be brought into force so that we shall be in a position to deposit our instruments of ratification.
There are, however, a number of consultations which will have to be completed before we can complete the exercise. I have in mind, in particular, the consultations with the Commonwealth and Colonial Governments and certain countries with which we have special agreements on reciprocal enforcement of judgments. Our aim will be to establish the régime as quickly as possible and to ensure that the changes in the United Kingdom law, our ratification of the Conventions and the coming into force of the Conventions all take place within a short period of time.
The United Kingdom played a leading part in these Conventions. The very fact that this House has been able to pass legislation as quickly as it has been practicable should stimulate other countries to ratify the Conventions and set up a system similar to that envisaged in this Bill.

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
I wish briefly to echo the congratulations which have been expressed to those who have been concerned not only with the preparation of 695 the Bill but with the great deal of work which went on with the treaties which preceded it. This will have been apparent to anyone who had the misfortune to sit through the Committee stage when I devoted a great deal of time in drawing attention to these treaties. I am very much aware of how much time and effort must have gone into their preparation.
One must take note that there are two series of treaties—the Vienna treaty and the Paris treaty—under different auspices, and although harmonising treaties now exist, one hopes that eventually the international system will coalesce round the United Nations treaty, which is all-embracing, rather than round the O.E.C.D. treaty, which covers only the member countries of that organisation. I echo the point made in Committee about the dislike of the provision limiting foreign judgments, but I understand why it has been done.
Finally, I should, perhaps, inform the House that I made a rather lighthearted but somewhat disparaging remark about the insurance market, a remark which I wholeheartedly withdraw. Incidentally, I had a jolly good dinner on the strength of it, provided by the Lloyds Underwriters' Association, which wanted to assure me that my remark was quite undeserved; and I unhesitatingly withdraw it. With that, I welcome the Bill.

§ Mr. Ridley
My hon. Friends and I consider that we have a very good Bill, which has been made a little better in Committee, and I wish to add my tributes to those which have already been paid. In particular I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) who, in a maiden Committee, so to speak, impressed us greatly. I congratulate him on his tireless struggle against hurt, which ended so successfully this afternoon. I also wish to thank all my hon. Friends who urged important points on the Government.
We had a quiet and orderly series of debates in Committee, with one exception; when the hon. Member for Totten-ham (Mr. Akinson)—who, although not in his place, will, I am sure, excuse me to making this point in his absence—had a slightly non-relevant argument on 696 a somewhat non-relevant point. I think that our fears about the possible attendances of the Minister of Technology were all too nearly confirmed in the event. Apart from that, we had some thoroughly constructive and edifying debates.
I am glad that the Government have not in the Bill departed from the private insurance principle. I was interested to note that in the debate on the 1959 Bill the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Home Secretary said: Rather than have that cumbersome legislation, would it not be simpler to assess what is the appropriate contribution, premium or whatever it may be, which should be paid to some Government institution by persons who wish to obtain licences for the use of atomic material, and required that the licensee shall, under the conditions of the licence, make that contribution to the Treasury, and that the Treasury, or some other Governmental institution, should be responsible to pay £5 million or over to cover the loss, whatever it may be? —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 878.] That would amount to nationalisation of the nuclear insurance market, and I am glad that the Government, now responsible for this Bill, have neglected their own advice in Opposition.
The nuclear insurance business has amounted, I am told, to some £1,500 million since the beginning of nuclear installations for our own private industry, and a very large amount of those earnings have been in foreign exchange. So we should pay a tribute to the insurance companies for the very large amount of business they have picked up in the nuclear field. And if that does not get me asked to dinner, as my hon. Friend has been, it will be most unfair.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the difficulties of bringing the Bill into force. We certainly do not want to be the only relevant country. I am sure that he is seized of the complications of this matter, and I like what he said in opening this Third Reading debate. I would encourage the Government to stimulate other countries to pass similar legislation and to ratify the Convention. Above all, I would encourage them to be very careful that we ourselves ratify at the optimum moment, because I believe that what we have most of all to consider in regard to this Bill is the improvement of our chances of nuclear exports. The amount of business that could open to this country in the future is enormous, and 697 I am quite certain that the whole House will agree that we should bear this in mind as one of the main considerations in administering the Bill.
We believe that this Measure will give security to those living or working in of near nuclear installations, and that it represents a most important and advanced piece of international co-operation. We on this side welcome it, and hope that the Government will be able to make very good use of it.