Lords Sitting of 11 May 1954

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (HOLLAND HOUSE) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a.

AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can state what proportion (approximately) of the farmers in Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Belgium, France, New Zealand and Great Britain respectively belong to agricultural co-operative societies and what (approximately) has been the percentage increase in their respective memberships during the last ten years.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, as the Answer is rather long and contains a number of statistics I will, with your Lordships' permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can give us now at any rate the figures in regard to Great Britain, apart from the other countries, and whether I am right in believing, that in most other civilised countries anything from 80 to 100 per cent. is the proportion of farmers belonging to farmers' co-operative societies?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the figures for Great Britain show that in 1946 the total membership was 159,000 and in March, 1953, 252,000—an increase of approximately 50 per cent. The figure this year represents a proportion of about
452
60 per cent. of all farmers. My noble friend is quite right in saying that in other countries the proportion ranges from about 80 to 100 per cent.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, arising out of that reply I should like to ask this supplementary question, which I informed the noble Lord I intended to ask: Will the setting up of the proposed Fatstock Marketing Corporation adversely affect the number and usefulness of the farmers' co-operative societies in this country?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Fatstock Marketing Corporation is a corporation promoted by the National Farmers' Union. So far as I am aware, it is only another outlet for the farmer to sell his livestock, and I cannot see any reason why it should adversely affect co-operation; the two should be complementary.
Following is the full answer referred to by Lord Carrington:
1. There are no official statistics, but the following is the best indication that can be given from information supplied by agricultural co-operative organisations. Any figures do not allow for duplication where farmers may belong to more than one society; nor is there any uniformity in the definition of a farmer, for example, as to size of holding. The figures given for Great Britain relate to membership of societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, and do not therefore include registrations under agricultural marketing schemes.
2. Great Britain
In 1946, total membership was 159,000 and in March, 1953, 252,000. Without allowing for duplication, this represented 40–45 per cent. of all farmers in 1946, and 60 per cent. of all farmers in 1953. In any case the increase in total membership over the period is approximately 50 per cent.
3. New Zealand
Nearly 100 per cent. of dairy farms in New Zealand are members of co-operative societies, an increase of 20–25 per cent. since 1947. It is understood that there is little other co-operative activity in agriculture, except a small amount of trading in meat.
4. Denmark and Sweden
At present, 90 per cent. of farmers are members of societies of one kind or another. This level of membership had been reached before 1946.
5. Netherlands
Practically all farmers are members of co-operative banks, and the number has changed little since the war. The membership of other co-operatives can only be roughly gauged by

453
the percentage of national trading in a given commodity that they are responsible for. Dairy co-operatives deal with 80 per cent. of all milk delivered. Fruit and vegetable auctions deal with 80 per cent. of the fruit and nearly 100 per cent. of the vegetables sold. Sugar beet societies deal with 60 per cent. of sugar beet produced. There has been little variation since the war.
6. France
In 1952, French societies had 1½ million members, approximately 50 per cent. of all farmers. French societies have been expanding since the war, especially societies providing services of various kinds.
7. Belgium
No figures are available for Belgium.

NATIONAL GALLERY EXHIBITION SPACE
2.41 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state how many rooms at the National Gallery are to be reopened this year, in 1955, and in 1956 respectively; and if they will specify the year when, according to present plans, all the exhibition space which existed in 1939 is likely to be available once again.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, of the 36 rooms open to the public in 1939, ten are still closed. It is hoped that two of these, fully air-conditioned, will be reopened by the end of this year; and that a further six, three of them air-conditioned, will be reopened by the end of 1955 or early in 1956. Of the remaining two rooms, one was destroyed by enemy action, and must be completely rebuilt, and the other is being used as a restoration studio until a conservation wing can be built at the rear of the Gallery. These would be very expensive schemes, and I cannot say when they will be carried out. The total cost of remodelling the eight galleries is approximately £90,000, exclusive of the cost of the air-conditioning plant already installed, and that of rebuilding the ninth
454
gallery and of constructing a conservation wing is roughly estimated at a further £170,000.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, which gives rise, I think, to a further question. As no room has been opened at the National Gallery for three years, would it be possible for Her Majesty's Government to consider including Room XXI in this year's air-conditioning scheme, so that the three non-air-conditioned rooms which are ready now but which lie beyond Room XXI, could be made accessible at the same time, thus reopening six rooms this year instead of two?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I gather that what the noble Lord wishes to know is whether Room XXI can be completed this year in order to give access to Rooms XXII, XXIII and XXIV. As I understand it, these rooms were given very temporary treatment last year to allow them to be opened for the Coronation summer, but their permanent redecoration forms part of a programme for 1955, which in fact is due to start in October this year. I understand that it is not possible to advance this programme. However, it may—indeed, I hope it will—be possible to open some of the rooms before the scheme is completed, and priority will be given to Room XXI.
LORD STRABOLGI: I thank the noble Earl for his further reply. I am very grateful.

LAW REFORM (LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, &c.) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
POOL BETTING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
2.44 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA) rose to move, That the House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Report of the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the last time that these Standing Orders came before you, your Lordships decided to refer the Orders to the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House for further consideration, and it is the Report of the Procedure Committee that I now have the honour to present to the House. The main changes made by the Procedure Committee are summarised in their Report. The first one is the extension of Starred Questions to all Sitting Days, instead of their being restricted to Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The number to be asked each day has not been specified, as it was thought better to leave that to be altered from time to time by the House. At present, as your Lordships will remember, by Resolution of the House passed in 1946, the number is limited to three. The second change is that the Standing Order under which a notice may not remain on the Order Paper for more than a month without a fixed date being given has now been rescinded, as being no longer necessary. Then there is also an extension of the power of the House to order an adjourned debate to be taken as first Business, so that, in future, it will be possible for a stage of a particular Bill to be taken as first Business on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The other alteration is in the Standing Order which prescribes that Peers shall bow to the Cloth of Estate. The Order now applies to Members entering the House, instead of when they cross the Floor of the House. This Amendment brings it closer to the original Standing Order on the subject. I do not think there is anything else to which I should draw your Lordships' attention, and I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Report of the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
2.45 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords I do not know what is the most convenient course to take, but some of us may want to
456
have, as it were, a little Second Reading debate before we come to the Committee stage. Would it be convenient to have that debate now?
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: So far as I am concerned, that would be quite convenient.
EARL JOWITT: I should first of all like to express, on behalf of noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, our extreme gratitude to the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House for the work they have done. I think it is a most admirable piece of work. I like the way they have done it. They have not destroyed for the sake of destroying. They have kept some of the old favourites which have very little effect nowadays. For instance, Standing Orders No. 28, dealing with asperity of speech, and No. 29, "For avoiding of all mistakes, unkindnesses or other differences which may grow to quarrels" are preserved intact. I have heard a noble Lord who is present to-day move that the rule about "sharp or taxing speeches" be read in the Chamber. I am glad that that old monument still remains.
I have had a little doubt in my mind about No. 40. The only rule we have got about the interval of time between, a Second Reading, Committee stage Report and Third Reading is contained in Standing Order No. 40, and it provides merely that no two stages of a Bill are to be taken on the same day. We must always be careful not to get our rules too rigid. The reason we work so well, I think, is because our rules are so completely flexible. It is a common thing for the Government to move that a Standing Order be suspended in order that a Bill may be taken through more than one stage (we are, I understand, going to do that this week in regard to an Indemnity Bill), when everyone desires to get through all stages of a Bill the same day. To do that we have to move the suspension of that particular Standing Order.
I feel that we have to be a little careful about this matter. I had at one time considered moving an Amendment providing that there should be an interval of time—say a week or something of that sort—between Committee stage and Report stage, because I think that generally there ought to be some interval, in order that we can consider where we have got

457
to at Committee stage and look around. I think that is particularly so with regard to Private Members' Bills—and, incidentally, we have had an indication of three new ones to-day. We are taking the Report stage of a Private Member's Bill later to-day. That Bill finished its Committee stage only last Thursday—the last Sitting Day of the week. It is down to go through the Report stage to-day, and Third Reading on Thursday. I make no complaint with regard to that particular Bill, but I think that, as a general rule, it is undesirable that Bills should be rushed in that way. After considering the matter, however, I came to the conclusion that on the whole it was undesirable to move, as I originally thought of doing, that there should be a fixed interval of a week between Committee stage and Report stage. If that were fixed, it might point to the view that a week was sufficient, and we all know that in some cases an interval of a week between Committee stage and Report is wholly insufficient. Therefore, I think we had better leave it flexible. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House will probably agree with me that, whilst laying down no sort of principle which has to be abrogated by moving the suspension of a Standing Order for the time being, it is very desirable, particularly in the case of Private Members' Bills, that we should ensure that adequate time is allowed for the various stages, in order that we can do our job properly. I repeat that I am not making any complaint with regard to the Bill which is down for its Report stage to-day.
For the rest, I have gone through the Standing Orders carefully, and I wonder why No. 74 has been retained. No. 74 is the Order—it is a very old one, dating from 1699—which says that:
"It is a breach of the Privilege of the House for any person whatsoever to print or publish anything relating to the proceedings of the House, without the leave of the House."
This is my one criticism: the Committee have not only preserved the Order but have made it more stringent. They have now made it an offence not only to publish in print but to publish at all. Strictly, this would mean that if one of us wrote a letter describing what took place in this House he would technically be guilty of a reach of Privilege. As I say, this is a very old rule: it dates back to the times of Stockdale and Hansard. There were discussions then whether anything ought to
458
be published at all. Nowadays, of course, we all agree that publicity is the very breath of life to us, and the fuller the publicity is, the better.
I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, who has done such excellent work, why this Order has been retained. I should have thought that this was one of those old rules which, on the face of it, were better omitted as being quite out of date and inappropriate to modern conditions. I should not like it even to be thought that it is a breach of Privilege of the House for any person whatsoever to print or publish anything relating to the proceedings of the House without the leave of the House. Of course, the House never grants leave, and I should have thought the rule would be better out altogether. I raise the point so that the noble Earl may tell me why it has been preserved—and, as I say, not only preserved but preserved in a more drastic form. It has never before, not even in 1699, been a breach of Privilege to publish anything even though not in print. That is a very small matter compared with the mass of work that has been done on these Orders. I think these Orders represent substantial improvements, and I end, as I began, by expressing my indebtedness to the Committee for their excellent work in providing the House with such a new set of Orders, useful and practical, which do not upset the antiquarian interest of the old Orders.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I have had the advantage of attending meetings of the Select Committee and I do not rise in order to raise any specific points, but only to express what I am sure is the feeling of the whole House, our sense of obligation to the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, for the initiative that he has taken in securing a thorough revision, after an interval of many years, of the ancient and modern Standing Orders of the House, with the result that we have before us recommendations which embody a number of not sensational but useful and valuable reforms in our procedure.
2.52 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I had not intended to say anything this afternoon, as I really said all that I had to say on this subject on the last occasion when

459
these Standing Orders were under discussion. I should, however, like to join once more with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in tendering the warmest thanks of those on this side of the House to the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, and his colleagues for the remarkable skill and devotion which they have expended on their review of the Standing Orders. As a member of the Procedure Committee, I can testify to the completeness of their work, because they left very little for us to do. We made one or two comparatively limited suggestions, but that was the only work which they left for us to perform. In particular, I would agree with what was said by the noble and learned Earl about the restraint which they have shown in their review. There is always a tendency for a body appointed for this type of purpose to be too thorough, to sweep away everything they think not absolutely essential, and, by doing so, to destroy entirely the atmosphere of what is an immensely charming and important historical document, apart from its present use. They avoided that difficulty altogether. Of course, anything that was completely dead wood they have cut out, but everything else they have left in, and we are grateful to them for it.
There is only one Standing Order on which I shall say a word, and I do that only because it was mentioned by the noble and learned Earl—I refer to Standing Order No. 40, which relates to the interval between the stages of Bills in this House. I agree entirely with what the noble and learned Earl said. We have discussed this subject often before, and agree that adequate time must be given to enable proper consideration to be afforded for legislation passing through the House. But I would agree equally with the noble and learned Earl's final conclusion, that we cannot have a fixed period. We cannot say that there must be a minimum or a maximum period, because in one case that period would be too short and in another case the period would be too long. What we have to do is to interpret the Standing Order sensibly, as the needs of the House require. I think, on the whole, that we do that pretty well.
460
The noble and learned Earl referred to a Private Member's Bill at present before the House—I think he would have preferred it to have a day or two longer. But even in that case I do not think it would be seriously contended that the Bill has not been given full consideration. Originally, one day was put down for Committee stage, but, because of the great interest shown by noble Lords in the Bill, another day was afforded by the Government for its discussion. Indeed, one member of the Opposition, speaking on another Bill, said he hoped that as much time would be given to the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill as had been afforded to the Protection of Birds Bill. Therefore, although it may be argued that a day or so extra before Report stage might in some cases be an advantage, I think no one who looks objectively at that Bill would be able to say that it did not have full examination and discussion. That is all I should like to say this afternoon. The Standing Orders of the House are of the utmost importance to us all. We must have Standing Orders, and in this House, at any rate, they must not be too rigid. I think that over the ages this result has been achieved, and the review which has just taken place has not in any way impaired their character.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, before the noble Marquess sits down, I should like him to say a word on Standing Order No. 74. I understand (I do not know whether it is correct) that a Standing Order similar to this, which used to be in the Standing Orders of another place, has now disappeared; they have struck it out altogether. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he thinks that Standing Order No. 74 would not be better out, because the last thing we contemplate is that it should be a breach of Privilege to publish our proceedings.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I understand that the reason why this Standing Order was retained by the Committee which considered this subject was that it was thought the House might require protection in the case of reports which were flagrantly scandalous or unfair. I do not think that would mean that in every case a report of proceedings in this House printed in the Press

461
would be regarded as a breach of privilege. Indeed, clearly it is not. But I think there is something to be said for having a Standing Order which would give protection against abuses of the kind I have described. I understand that in another place there are Standing Orders which have the same effect, and that is the purpose for which this is intended in this House. I think there is no danger of its being too rigidly interpreted.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Marquess will observe that this Standing Order makes it a breach of privilege to publish anything, not only scandalous material. In another place I understand that such a matter is brought up as an ordinary matter of Privilege and not as a breach of any Standing Order. I may be mistaken, but I cannot see in the Standing Orders of another place any reference to this question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think it is hardly for me to take so prominent a part in this discussion; it ought to be left to the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees. We could consider this matter further. That would mean having a Report stage on this subject, which we could have—there is no difficulty about that—if the noble and learned Earl thinks it is important enough to proceed further in this matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was himself a member of the Committee which examined this question; therefore, I was a little surprised when he delivered such a trenchant criticism of it. But if the noble and learned Earl would like to have a Report stage, I am sure we should all be very ready to devote a few minutes another day to considering this individual point.
EARL JOWITT: I think we had better look at this matter carefully. I know that we interpret everything sensibly here, and that we should never think of objecting to a reasonable report; but, on the face of it, I feel it is undesirable to have an Order which says that it is a breach of Privilege to publish anything that takes place in this House, when we all know that, so long as the report is a proper report, it is no such thing. I should like the House to have an opportunity of considering whether or not the right thing to do is to take out No. 74 altogether.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite happy that we should consider this matter further. Whether the right course is to take out the Order altogether or to redraft it I do not know; but that is a matter for consideration. I suggest that the best plan would be for the noble and learned Earl, the noble Viscount who leads the Liberal Party and me to consider this point further. We could then have a Report stage which would be of a limited character and deal with this particular subject.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: When the matter is being considered further, would it be possible to inquire whether it would be feasible to make it a breach of Privilege not to report the proceedings of the House?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): If there were no Standing Order applying at all to Privilege, there would be something to be said for omitting Order No. 74. But here there are several Orders dealing with Privilege. It might be said that if we mentioned three or four things in our Standing Orders that were privileged, then no report however scandalous or improper we considered it, could be treated as a matter of Privilege, because there was no Standing Order about it.
On Question, Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD O'HAGAN in the Chair]
Standing Order No. 1 [Arrangements when Her Majesty is present]:
3.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA THE EARL OF DROGHEDA moved, in the proposed new Standing Order No. 1, in the opening paragraph to omit the word "all." The noble Earl said: The proposed new Standing Order No. 1 at present begins as follows:
"When Her Majesty comes publicly to the House, all the Lords shall be attired in their robes or in such other dress as may be approved by Her Majesty, and shall sit in their due places."
It has been pointed out that if that Order were obeyed, and all the Lords of Parliament came, there would be a considerable amount of chaos. The object of this Amendment is to take out the word "all," so that the Order will read, "the Lords shall be attired," and so on. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Standing Order 1, line 2, leave out ("all").—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
EARL JOWITT: I remember once hearing of an order in this form: "All dogs shall enter this park on leads." If all dogs had compulsorily to go in, it would not be much of a park. I agree with the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD O'HAGAN): I think it is right to give your Lordships an opportunity of saying anything you wish to say on Standing Orders between No. 1 and No. 35. If there are no comments, I will pass to Standing Order No. 35.
Standing Order No. 35 [Business of which notice is not necessary]:
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA THE EARL OF DROGHEDA moved, in the proposed new Standing Order No. 35, in paragraph (5) to substitute "Starred Questions" for "Private Business." The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is that matters such as Private Notice Questions may be taken after, and not before, Starred Questions. There are two reasons for this. They are, first, that often there is a larger attendance in the House after Starred Questions and, therefore, Private Notice Questions and matters of that kind, which may be important, are heard by more people; and secondly, that Starred Questions often bring to the House representatives of Government Departments, and it is desirable that they should be released from attendance in the House as early as possible. For those two reasons, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Standing Order 35 (5), line 3, leave out ("Private Business") and insert ("Starred Questions").—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: There are no other Amendments proposed. In view of the discussion that has already taken place, is it your Lordships' pleasure that I should report the Standing Orders, with Amendments, to the House?
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: If this is the appropriate place, I should like to say a word or two on the question raised by my noble and learned friend
464
Lord Jowitt on Standing Order No. 74. I have just been looking up Erskine May, and it is there said, on page 118, that
"The principle on which both Houses act in connection with the publication of false and perverted reports of debates is sufficiently acknowledged. So long as the debates are correctly and faithfully reported, the orders which prohibit their publication are not enforced; but when they are reported malâ fide, the publishers of newspapers are liable to punishment."
Does that not appear to be the position here: that we have Standing Order No. 74, and that that Order is not normally enforced so long as the reports are accurate, and not scandalous, and so on? The retention of that Standing Order would enable this House, prima facie, in any appropriate case, to treat it as a breach of Privilege if a debate was not faithfully reported. There are instances, apparently, where misconduct in connection with the publication of debates has been treated as a breach of Privilege. There was actually a case of publishing a false account of proceedings in the House of Lords—I refer to Woodfall's case in 1765. I submit that it is probably desirable to retain this particular Standing Order as it was retained by the Committee, in order to enable the House, in a proper case, without difficulty to treat some false or scandalous report as being a breach of Privilege. Therefore I hope that it will be retained.
LORD REA: The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, mentioned the words "without leave of the House," and added that the House never gives leave. I would suggest that there is tacit leave of the House, unless something improper is reported, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, intended to convey. This Standing Order, which has been in force for 250 years, has worked quite well on that principle, the only difference being that at the end of the 18th century the B.B.C. was not functioning quite so efficiently as it is to-day, and, therefore, the alteration of the wording apparently takes that point into account.
EARL JOWITT: Would it not meet the position to say that it shall be a breach of privilege to publish "any false or misleading account." The present Order says that it is a breach of Privilege to publish any account at all, but then, completely disregarding the Standing Order, we never take notice of it. We

465
might keep the new Order in reserve, in case somebody misbehaves. Would it not be better to have a Standing Order more limited, and, if anybody misbehaved, by publishing an inaccurate or improper or scandalous report, there would be the machinery to deal with it. That is one of the matters that we will consider between now and the next stage. It might be better to deal with it in that way. There is no standing Order about it, be it observed, in another place.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: I do not think anything more is left to be said to-day. This Standing Order No. 74 will be considered and brought before the House again.
House resumed.

CORONERS BILL
3.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, when this Bill was passing through another place and was under the charge of my honourable friend the Member for Kidderminster, it received support from all quarters of that place and also from Her Majesty's Government. I hope it will have the same treatment from your Lordships here this afternoon. Briefly, the background of the Bill is this. As your Lordships know well, members of the medical profession may be directed or requested by coroners to make post-mortem examinations, and members of the general public may be summoned to give evidence in coroners' courts. Your Lordships will, I think, agree that these persons—the doctors and the members of the public—who go to coroners' courts should be paid a fair fee for their services. Indeed, you may go further and think that there is, from the witnesses' point of view, no difference between the evidence they give in coroners' courts and the evidence they give in criminal courts; therefore, the fees for medical men and for other witnesses should be the same in one class of court as in another. Unfortunately, unless we pass this Bill, that cannot be so.
The Home Secretary not long ago fixed the allowances of medical and lay witnesses in the Witnesses Allowance Regulations, 1948. Under those Regulations a medical witness may receive up to £5 a
466
day. Furthermore, under the Criminal Cases Act, 1908, the Home Secretary can make regulations varying the scales when he thinks fit. That is the position in regard to witnesses in the criminal courts. The fees for the medical witnesses in coroners' courts, however, are laid down in the Coroners Act, 1926, and allow only a maximum of three guineas for medical evidence, as against five guineas in the other courts which I have mentioned. In regard to the lay witnesses, their fees are prescribed by schedules made by local authorities under two Coroners Acts—one the Act of 1887 and the other the Act of 1926. These schedules vary a great deal as between one local authority and another, and I think your Lordships will agree that the time has come to standardise both the regulations and the fees for witnesses. Therefore, this Bill repeals that part of the 1926 Act which deals with witnesses' fees, and gives power to the Home Secretary to prescribe fees by rule. I have no doubt that if the Bill becomes law, the Home Secretary will make use of the power to clear up the position. I know that we in this House are chary of delegated legislation, and we are all the more chary of it, perhaps, when we are in Opposition. I hope, however, that in this case noble Lords will agree with me that the right course is to delegate the matter to the Home Secretary and allow him to make the regulations and set out the schedules; and instead of inserting the words "five guineas" in the new Bill, we should take the words "three guineas" out of the old one.
There is another point covered by the Bill. Sometimes a coroner has to order a special examination of a dead body or of its contents. These examinations vary widely in character and in importance, and, therefore, so does the standing of the medical man who has to do the job. The cases dealt with may vary from a simple case of drowning, where it is perfectly clear that the man met his death by drowning, to some complicated poisoning case which may in due course lead to a charge for murder and which requires the highest class of analysis to be made. The fees for these special examinations are authorised by an Act made as long ago as 1887, under which the scales are made by local authorities and can be altered by them where neces-

467
sary. This arrangement does not work too badly, and it is thought by those who know that those scales can well be left alone. That is why in Clause 1 (1) of this Bill there is a proviso to that effect. There is little more I need say about the Bill. As your Lordships will see, it does not apply either to Scotland or Northern Ireland. The proposals have, I am told, been thoroughly discussed with the local authority associations and the Coroners' Society, and I am given to understand that they have received the general support of those bodies (which is quite understandable) and also (which is even more understandable) the support of the medical profession. I hope that this Bill will likewise have the support of your Lordships in all quarters of the House, and also of Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Viscount Bridgeman.)
3.17 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I must at once confess to your Lordships that, in speaking on this Bill, I speak as a person with some interest in its provisions. I have not appeared at a coroner's court for quite a long time, but when one did a certain amount of work for those courts one was conscious that the fee paid was not as much as one received in the High Court. The coroners were extremely kind. When a doctor had given his evidence, he was told he could leave as soon as he wished. That was often convenient, but sometimes the doctor wanted to know what was going on. Probably the coroners realised that medical witnesses were not being paid very much and could make more outside. Whether that be so or not, I have great pleasure, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, in supporting the Bill.
3.18 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I rise to give the blessing of my noble friends on these Benches to this small, though quite valuable, Bill. I have had a long association with coroners' courts in various capacities. They are amongst the most ancient of courts—probably the High Court of Parliament is the only older court in this country. The coroner's court in some form is said to date back to the reign of King Alfred.
468
For a long time in this matter of witnesses' fees the coroner's court has been somewhat of a Cinderella. The fees for medical men in particular and certain other witnesses have been quite inadequate. I am authorised by the Coroners' Society to say that they welcome this Bill. It would seem essential to have in all courts, and not least in a coroner's court, contented witnesses who are willing to come and testify to the truth in regard to the cause of death of any individual. Payments to witnesses have been somewhat of a scandal, certainly since the war, if not since 1926, when they were last altered. They have been too small. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has mentioned that those fees are paid under either the Coroners Act, 1887, or the amending Act of 1926; and although the fees of medical men when giving evidence in criminal causes were improved in 1948, their fees for giving evidence in coroners' courts were not improved. This Bill will remedy that position and enable fees to be dealt with with more flexibility.
I gather that under the Bill the Secretary of State will make a statutory instrument, which can, of course, be altered from to time in accordance with circumstances, and which will in the majority of cases establish a uniform scale of fees. The local authorities who hitherto have been responsible for the paying of witnesses' fees will, I gather, not be responsible for paying such additional fees as may be attributable to this Bill. By means of the equalisation grant the local authorities will have the difference made up to them. In any event this is a useful Bill. It will enable witnesses to receive adequate payment for the time they frequently have to spend in courts; it will enable a flexible position to be brought about in regard to witnesses' fees so that alterations can be readily made in the future; and it will ensure that witnesses will give even more willing and helpful service in coroners' courts than has hitherto been the case. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill.
3.22 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, there is little I can or need add to what has already been said.

469
From this Box I should first like to thank my noble friend, Lord Bridgeman, for introducing this measure. It is, I think, a measure which is long overdue and a reform which is greatly needed. He has explained the Bill admirably to your Lordships and, as your Lordships will have heard, it has been supported from all sides of the House. One point which may be of interest to noble Lords is that my right honourable friend will consult the local authority associations, the London County Council, the British Medical Association and the Coroners' Society on the scales of fees and allowances to be prescribed; I think it is right and proper that he should do that. Apart from that, there is nothing more that I can say except that the Government wholeheartedly support this Bill and that they will give to my noble friend any assistance that he may need at any time in getting it passed through Parliament. We hope that it will be on the Statute Book very soon indeed.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL
3.24 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Atomic Energy Authority Bill be read a second time. As your Lordships will remember, the last time we discussed atomic energy in this House was nearly five months ago, on a Motion which stood in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth. In the course of that debate I explained, to the best of my ability, the Government's proposals in the White Paper. I dealt, in particular, with the following three questions: First, why did the Government decide to set up a corporation at all? In reply to that question I explained that the atomic energy project had ceased to be merely a vehicle for producing the atomic bomb and was on the way to becoming one of the country's major industries, in terms of capital investment if not in numbers of employed. This, in the view of the Government, made it unsuitable for normal departmental administration and called for an organisation on industrial lines like that
470
adopted by the previous Government for coal, electricity and gas. I then turned to the second question: Why should the transfer be made now? Here I explained to the House that preoccupation with the preparations for the Monte Bello test had made it unwise to make the change immediately the Government assumed office, but that the rapidly growing importance of the peaceful uses of atomic energy made further delay, at least in our view, undesirable.
Finally, I dealt with the question: Why has the Lord President been chosen as the Minister responsible for this great new extension of national activity? In reply to that question I explained that the Minister of Supply had no doubt been the natural Minister to assume responsibility when the project was first restarted after the war, for during that period the military use of atomic energy was, as we all know, paramount; but that now that a power reactor programme was already under way a very definite conflict of priorities had begun to emerge—
"a competition between military and civil reactors and between the claims on the limited supply of fissile material for military or civil purposes."
The Waverley Committee had already recognised in their Report that this conflict made it inappropriate for either the Minister of Supply or any other Minister primarily concerned with defence, or, indeed, for the Ministry of Fuel and Power, to have departmental responsibility for the whole of atomic energy. This responsibility ought henceforth to be placed on
"one of the existing Ministers of high Cabinet rank who has no departmental responsibilities which would encroach upon the field of atomic energy."
I explained to the House that the Lord President had been chosen both because he had no Department and because he was the senior Minister generally responsible for the Government's contacts with scientific and technological activities.
My Lords, I have tried very briefly to define the arguments which I used in that debate. Since then, the Transfer of Functions (Atomic Energy and Radioactive Substances) Order, 1953, has come into effect. Ministerial responsibility has been transferred from the Minister of Supply to the Lord President and a new Department of Atomic Energy has come

471
into being. But, as I think I explained to your Lordships on the last occasion, it never was the Government's intention merely to create a separate Department of State staffed by civil servants to be permanently responsible for atomic energy. The Department which has been carved out of the Ministry of Supply under the Transfer of Functions Order has been essentially a transitory one. It is merely a stage on the way to the creation of a new type of organisation proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley and his colleagues in their Report. It makes the atomic energy project a self-contained entity ready for transfer to that new organisation. This process is already, indeed, nearly complete. Machinery already exists within the Department to deal with those administrative common services, such as contracts, housing, hostels, canteens, and some of the inspectorate services, as well as some of the normal finance and administrative machinery which was, up to last year, provided by branches of the Ministry of Supply not exclusively concerned with atomic energy. The nucleus of this process has been a transfer of staff from the Ministry of Supply. The administrative problems of disentanglement from the Ministry of Supply—if I may use such an expression—having now been solved, we as a Government are ready to take the next step, which is to separate the now self-contained organisation from the Civil Service altogether. That is the purpose of this Bill which I have the honour to introduce in this House this afternoon.
Before looking at the Bill in detail I should like to remind the House that it takes as its starting point the existing body of atomic energy legislation; that is, the Atomic Energy Act, 1946, the Radioactive Substances Act, 1948, and the Transfer of Functions Order, 1953. The purpose of the Bill is, in fact, not to provide a new statutory code for atomic energy but only to do what is necessary to amend and adapt existing legislation in order to set up an Atomic Energy Authority and invest that Authority with the appropriate duties, powers and liabilities for the work which it has to do. The Bill, therefore, starts, as I have said, from the present situation under which the Lord President is engaged in carrying on the atomic energy project by virtue of powers which
472
have been conferred upon him by existing legislation. On the appointed day upon which the Authority takes over from the Lord President, those are all the powers that the Authority will need. Those powers are, therefore, transferred to the Authority by Clause 2 of the Bill.
The powers so transferred are those which will enable the Authority to produce and dispose of atomic energy and radioactive substances under the Acts of 1946 and 1948. Other powers conferred by the Atomic Energy Act, 1946, will not be transferred, but will remain with the Lord President. These, of course, are powers which involve control over, and encroachment on, the life of the public—powers of compulsory acquisition of minerals, plant and rights under contract; control of information, patents, radioactive substances, and so on. They are, as I am sure noble Lords will agree, essentially ministerial in character and could not properly be vested, or so I should have thought, in a non-Governmental authority. These powers, which are conferred by Sections 4 to 12 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1946, will remain unaltered in the hands of the Lord President, with only such minor amendments as are necessary to enable him to give the Authority the benefit of the powers, where he considers it expedient. These minor adaptations of the Act of 1946 are contained, as your Lordships will find, in the first Part of the Third Schedule.
Now I will come to the actual provisions of the Bill itself. The provisions of this Bill, so far as the creation and constitution of the Authority are concerned, are very like those of the other post-war Acts which have created statutory corporations, and it includes a number of common form provisions which will be found equally in the Coal Act, 1946, the Electricity Act, 1947, and the Iron and Steel Acts, 1949 and 1953. For instance, Clause 1, which deals with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority; Clause 5 (1), which deals with the powers as to the purchase of land, the carrying out of works and so on; Clause 7, which deals with machinery for settling terms and conditions of employment of staff, and the First and Second Schedules all contain much which is, I expect, by now familiar to all those noble Lords who have studied these subjects.

473
Clause 1 follows fairly closely the proposals of the Waverley Committee as to the membership of the Authority. It provides for a Chairman and not less than seven nor more than ten other members to be appointed by the Lord President. Three of these other members will be persons
"who have had wide experience of, and shown capacity in dealing with, problems associated with atomic energy."
One is to have had experience of administration and finance, and one, following the pattern of earlier Acts, is to have had experience of, and shown capacity in, the organisation of workers. This last provision, as your Lordships will know, was inserted in another place. The number of workers to be employed by this particular Authority is, of course, considerably smaller than the number of those employed by most of the other nationalised industries. It is in capital investment, rather than in direct use of manpower, that atomic energy makes its main demands at present on our national resources. But the Government fully accept the view that this new member to whom I have referred may well have a valuable part to play in the affairs of the Authority, and we believe that his special experience will lend wisdom to their counsels. We are very happy that such an Amendment has been introduced.
Clause 2 sets out the functions of the Authority. As already explained, it does so by reference to existing legislation. The definition of the Authority's powers under Clause 2 (2) is copied, with minor variations, from Section 2 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1946. The principal differences are (I think I ought to explain this to your Lordships) these. First, in order that there may be no doubt at all, it is made clear that all the Authority's powers can be exercised outside as well as within the United Kingdom. The Authority, in our view, must have power to carry out anywhere in the world any of their functions under paragraphs (a) to (d) in connection with, for example, schemes for intra-Commonwealth development of atomic energy for power, the Eisenhower Plan, or the strategic dispersal of atomic plants. The Authority must also have power to make arrangements for the conduct of research of the kind contemplated in the first part of paragraph (e) with persons abroad as well as in this country.
474
Clause 2 gives it that power. It also gives power to the Authority, with the approval of the Lord President of the Council and the Treasury, to make grants or loans to persons outside the United Kingdom, as has already been done in a number of cases in connection with uranium supplies. The powers under paragraph (f) to distribute information and to provide education and training in atomic energy should clearly also not be subject, I should have thought, to any territorial limitation.
Secondly—and here I come to the second variation—neither the power to make arrangements with universities and other institutions, given by Clause 2 (2) (e), nor that given by Clause 2 (2) (f), to distribute information and educate and train persons, appear in terms in the Act of 1946. They are an addition to that earlier Act. The first was then thought unnecessary because it was covered by the general contract powers of the Ministry of Supply. But now that a separate Authority is being set up, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that express provision has become desirable. Moreover, information, education and training are, of course, now coming more and more to the fore with the need to bring industry into the peaceful developments of atomic energy. They are activities which may cost public money and should therefore clearly be covered by a specific power.
I come now to the very important first proviso to Clause 2 (2) which regulates the relationship between the Authority and the Ministry of Supply. On this, I am sure the House will wish me to go into a little more detail. The first three lines, as your Lordships will see, prohibit the Authority from undertaking any weapon development or production except in accordance with arrangements made with the Ministry of Supply but the last four lines allow the Authority, of its own initiative, to undertake any experimental work which may lead to improved types of explosive nuclear assemblies, a term which includes the assembly of fissile material with the associated circuits and conventional explosive—that is, the atomic warhead. The Authority is limited, therefore, when working independently of arrangements made with the Minister of Supply, to experimental work on atomic warheads.

475
The way the machinery will work is this. Service requirements for the development and production of atomic weapons will be stated by the Service Departments to the Ministry of Supply, in the normal way, and the Ministry of Supply will be responsible to them for meeting such requirements. The Ministry of Supply will be, if I may use such a term, the sole Service approval authority for the weapons as a whole and for their component parts. The Ministry of Supply will then place contracts with the Authority for atomic warheads to meet specific Service requirements, and also for such other components of atomic weapons as may be agreed between the Ministry and the Authority. I know that that is a complicated piece of machinery, but I thought it very important on the question of division of responsibility that I should make it as clear as I could to the House.
Before leaving Clause 2 perhaps I may also say a word about the relationship between the powers which the Bill gives to the Authority and those already possessed by the electricity authorities. The Atomic Energy Authority is given power by this clause to produce and dispose of "articles" required for the use of atomic energy, and under Section 18 (2) of the Atomic Energy Act, 1946, the reference to "articles" includes a reference to electricity. This, read together with Section 23 of the Electricity Lighting Act, 1909 (as amended by the Electricity Act, 1947) means that the Authority could, so long as it did not make electricity generation its primary business, produce electricity as a by-product of its undertaking and do any necessary work to supply electricity to the public. This power to supply electricity as a by-product would be similar to that possessed by some other major undertakings. But I should make it clear that the Government certainly do not intend that the Authority should use this power so to generate electricity except as a byproduct of the manufacture of fissile material, or as a product of experimental power stations; nor do we intend that the Authority should in any case supply electricity to the public. It is not, in any way, meant to compete with the electricity boards. The precise arrangements to be made between the Authority and
476
the electricity authorities must inevitably, as I am sure your Lordships will understand, take time to work out. But I can say now that the broad policy will be that the Authority will not construct transmission or distribution lines outside its own premises, and that it will offer to the electricity boards any electricity which it generates and which may be surplus to its own internal requirements.
My Lords, I come now to Clause 3. Clause 3 deals with the powers and duties of the Lord President in relation to the Authority. The general duty, under Section 1 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1946, to promote and control the development of atomic energy, will continue to rest with the Lord President, and it will be his particular duty to ensure that the proper degrees of importance are attached by the Authority "to the various applications of atomic energy"—scientific, technical, medical, biological or military. The placing of this duty upon the Lord President underlines the Government's intention that overall policy in this respect shall remain in the control of the Government.
The clause goes on to give the Lord President power to control the Authority by giving it "such directions as he may think fit"—he has full power to do that. The House will notice that this provision differs, to some extent, in its wording from that of similar clauses which have been used to define the powers of respective Ministers in relation to other nationalised Corporations for which they are generally responsible. Those other clauses have conferred on the Minister the power to give the Corporation in question
"directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by them of their functions in relation to matters appearing to the Minister to affect the national interest."
We have come to the conclusion that that formula is not entirely appropriate to the present case. In view of the political, international and security aspects of atomic energy, and the complete financial dependence of the Authority on public funds, the relations between the Government and the Authority will evidently have to be closer than is the case with Corporations whose activities are mainly non-contentious, domestic, non-secret, and financially self-supporting. The Lord President will, therefore, require more

477
unrestricted power than is given in other Acts to issue "general" directions. I hope that I have made that point clear.
On the other hand, it would of course entirely defeat the whole object of the Bill, which is to create an organisation with freedom to run its day-to-day affairs, if the Lord President were to be made answerable for every detail of the Authority's activities and to be, if I may use such an expression, constantly butting in on them. That would be entirely wrong. Clause 3 (3) therefore provides that the Lord President's directions may be "of a general or particular character" but that he (here I quote some words which I think are extremely important)
"shall not regard it as his duty to intervene in detail in the conduct by the Authority of their affairs unless, in his opinion, overriding national interests so require."
I hope that your Lordships will note those words. The effect of Clause 3 as a whole is thus to give the Lord President complete freedom to intervene; but it includes a proviso, in the sub-paragraph to which I have just referred, that he shall not regard it as his duty to intervene unless in his judgment his intervention is imperative in the national interest. That is the way we seek to strike the proper balance. The general purport of the clause is that, subject to broad general control of policy, and under a financial ceiling, the Authority is to be free to conduct its day-to-day affairs on sound business lines, without ministerial or official interference. The only exception to this rule will be when some consideration of national interest is strong enough to override it.
That brings me to Clause 4, which deals with the provision of finance to the Authority. Clause 4 recognises the complete dependence of the Authority on public funds, with the corollary of ultimate ministerial responsibility for, and Parliamentary control of, the Authority's expenditure. For some time to come the Authority will, of course, earn only a negligible revenue. It is essentially, as I think I explained in my earlier speech, a research and development project. Its revenue may increase as time goes on, but it seems inevitable, from the pioneering nature of the Authority's duties, that it will, at any rate so far ahead as we are likely to be able to look, require a large annual grant from public funds. If
478
some unforeseeable development changed that situation, and the Authority were to develop sources of revenue sufficient to make them self-supporting, then, of course, the provisions of Clause 4 would be inappropriate; but a development so wide as that would imply such a revolutionary change in the Authority's affairs as to call for fresh legislation. That would, of course, be a matter for Parliament to consider when the time came.
My Lords, the heavy dependence of the Authority on public funds is again recognised in the income tax provision in Clause 6 (2). As your Lordships will see, the Authority will not be required to pay income tax on its lands and premises under Schedules A and B or on certain other income. After all, that is mere common sense, for the only result of making a charge of that kind upon it would be that a great deal of time and effort would be spent on determining the amount of tax to be paid by the Authority to the Inland Revenue, which sum would then immediately be reclaimed by the Authority from the Exchequer. No one could benefit from that but the largely increased staff which the Inland Revenue would no doubt have to take on. The exemption does not, however, extend to tax on trading profits under Schedule D. In practice, as has been explained, the Authority are unlikely to have such profits, but if they have there is no reason why they should not be liable to tax, like everybody else.
Clause 5 is concerned with provisions about compulsory purchase and about the application of building by-laws. These are, generally speaking, in standard form, and therefore I think I need not trouble the House with them. Clause 5 (4), however, is new. The widespread use of atomic energy is bringing with it a new problem—I refer to the disposal of radioactive effluent, whether in the form of gas discharged from chimney stacks, of liquid passed from tanks, or of contaminated solid material. Whereas up to a few years ago the only sources of radioactivity were naturally radioactive elements like radium, to-day radiation in atomic reactors is producing a new industrial waste which is highly dangerous and contains radioactivity greater by several orders of magnitude than anything that has been known before. The atomic energy project has

479
always devoted special attention to this new problem. The greatest care has been taken not to allow discharges which could give rise to any contamination of air or water exceeding the levels laid down by the Medical Research Council. There has also been constant consultation with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and also with public bodies such as the Thames Conservancy and the Metropolitan Water Board.
If Parliament approves this Bill, and the Authority comes into existence, it will not, except where specially provided—as in Clause 6 (5)—enjoy Crown powers. It will, therefore, become subject to the general law as to the disposal of industrial effluent. This law, which is spread over a number of Statutes, has been framed, in the light of experience, to deal with many forms of chemical and noxious wastes. But it was not, of course, framed with radioactive waste in mind—that, if I may say so, is a new horror—and the public and local authorities which administer the various Acts are in no way equipped to deal with the detection and sampling of waste of this type. The only authorities who do possess the necessary trained staff and equipment to watch the public interest, in what I think your Lordships will all agree is a vital matter, are, in fact, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries; and as they have this necessary staff and equipment it is provided, in Clause 5 (4), that no waste shall be discharged by the Authority, except in accordance with the authorisations given by those Ministries, and the jurisdiction of other authorities is set aside. In certain cases, however, where it is proper, the Ministries are required to consult the river boards and local authorities and others whose interests are affected. These provisions, I would emphasise, are concerned exclusively with radioactivity in waste. So far as all ordinary forms of industrial waste are concerned, the powers of the usual authorities remain intact. Moreover, these special provisions are to last, unless extended, only for a period of seven years. For we hope—I say "we hope"—that by the end of that time radioactive waste will itself have become so familiar that simpler methods will have
480
been devised for its detection, and local authorities will have been able to equip themselves with suitable staff to do this particular job.
Finally, I come to Clause 6, which is entitled, "Miscellaneous provisions, as to the Authority." That is, of course, an omnibus phrase which might, I think, give the impression that none of the provisions in the clause is of any great moment. That would be a very wrong impression; for the clause contains one very novel and interesting feature. It incorporates a number of provisions under which the Authority is treated as if it was the Crown. The first of these is to be found in Clause 6 (1). In this case, it is the Authority's land which treated for rating purposes as if it were Crown property. This means that the Authority will pay a contribution, in lieu of rates, on similar lines to those contributions which are made in respect of Government property. That provision is included, if I may explain it, because, for security reasons, rating valuations will have to be carried out by the Treasury Valuer and not by local valuation officers. Another provision in Clause 6 (3) provides that any place belonging to or used by the Authority shall be deemed to be a place "belonging to or used for the purposes of Her Majesty." This makes it possible to apply to the Authority the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts with regard to prohibited places. Special provisions follow about entry on to those parts of the Authority's premises which are declared prohibited places under these Acts, and by the Third Schedule all members and employees of the Authority are brought within the scope of the Official Secrets Acts.
The Third Schedule also contains a number of other provisions, as your Lordships will see, to the effect that for the purpose of particular Acts the Authority shall be treated as if it were the Crown or a Government Department. This treatment of an organisation which has been specifically declared to be not in the nature of a Government Department is, of course, most unusual. It may even be said to be unprecedented. But I believe that it is quite inevitable. In this matter, if we are to keep up with our most powerful competitors—and some of them are extremely powerful—we have got to give the United Kingdom

481
atomic project the best chance we can; and it follows that, in some respects, the Authority will have to have the best of both worlds—that is to say, it will have to have both the freedom which is normally possessed by industrial corporations and also certain powers and privileges which are normally reserved to the Crown. Nearly all these Crown powers are connected in one way or another with the need for security in the carrying on of the project, and the special provisions in Clause 6 and in the Third Schedule, to which I have just referred, are designed to secure that the same security protection which has hitherto guarded the project shall continue to guard it in the future.
My Lords, I am afraid that I have kept the House for some considerable time, but may I, in conclusion, say this? This Bill is, as your Lordships will have seen, in mere amount of print a short one; and, what is more, as I have explained, it breaks very little new ground. As I told your Lordships at the beginning of my speech, in substance it has very much in common with the preceding legislation of 1946 and 1948; and, in form, it has been mainly modelled on the type of structure which was developed by the Government of noble Lords opposite for statutory corporations. But that does not mean that it is not an important Bill. It is, indeed, in the Government's view, a very important Bill. We believe that the setting up of the Atomic Energy Authority will prove to be an essential milestone in the development of the United Kingdom atomic energy project, on which so much depends for us all. We believe that the flexible organisation which we are creating under this Bill will not only be able to keep pace with all developments in the field of atomic energy, and, above all, in those peaceful uses which are now coming so much to the fore, but will also be able to cope with the equally important task of passing on the knowledge of atomic techniques to British industry.
As your Lordships know, we are not alone in the steps we are taking. I believe that every other country which is active in the field of atomic energy has decided against attempting to use the machinery of a Government Department for the purpose of the development of this new source of power. I am not sure about Russia, but it would be true of
482
other nations. All have moved in the same direction as we are moving now. These countries are striving, as your Lordships know, so far as their resources allow, to develop as rapidly as they can this new source of power. We have a great record in this country in the field of atomic energy. Our association with those basic discoveries from which more recent developments have flowed, our pioneer work, with Canada and the United States, during the war years—these are things of which I think we are all extremely proud. And our need for new sources of power in this little island, with its teeming population, is certainly second to that of no other country in the world. We cannot afford to lag behind. This Bill, I hope and believe, provides the framework for a rapid and fruitful advance, and it is in that spirit that I commend it with confidence to the House. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
4.0 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for his extremely lucid explanation of this Bill, which he rightly describes as one of very great importance. I should also like to thank him and the Government for meeting many of the wishes of my friends which were put forward in another place on the Committee stage of the Bill, and for embodying in the Bill a number of suggestions which were then made, particularly that which provided for a person of experience in labour and trade union affairs to be a member of the board. Since the production of the White Paper which followed the Report of Lord Waverley's Committee, and the debate which we had subsequently in this House in December, we have had time to give this matter a good deal of thought. Although there is no question of any important political principle involved in this proposal, I am sorry to say that, after reflection, I cannot support it. I regret that I still think that this proposal is ill-timed. Because of the magnitude and importance of the work involved, and because these proposals, which are far-reaching are, in my view, brought forward at the wrong time, they are gravely unwise. I shall try to show why we cannot escape from these conclusions.

483
I think it important to make the following point. I have seen statements which tended to convey the impression that this form of organisation was recommended by the most distinguished Committee over which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, presided. I think that is not the case. The decision to make this grave change at this time was announced by the Prime Minister, on his own responsibility and without any recommendation of a Committee, on April 28, 1953; and it was not until subsequently that Lord Waverley's Committee was appointed with terms of reference which expressly excluded the consideration of this basic policy question. The Committee were directed
"To devise a plan for transferring responsibility for atomic energy from the Ministry of Supply to a non-Departmental organisation."
Their opinion of the wisdom of the plan was not sought, and was excluded by the terms of reference. Therefore, this Committee, consisting of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, Sir Wallace Akers and Sir John Woods—and I could wish no better Committee for the purpose—were a Committee for effecting a policy already determined by the Government.
The reason why this transfer is ill-timed I shall seek to show. In my view, the Government have not yet made out a case for making this transfer now. I believe that it will hinder and hamper for some time to come, and at a most vital stage, the growth and rapid development of the economic civil uses of atomic energy. What is more—I make this point very seriously, and I am glad to see the noble and gallant Earl the Minister of Defence here—it will gravely jeopardise the production of the most effective and modern atomic weapons; and this is supremely important at the present moment. At this time it is vital that we should keep the lead in the rapid development of revolutionary new weapons. Unless we keep the lead, we may fail to enforce the keeping of the peace for long enough to work out proposals which will secure agreement of the great Powers to cease from war-like acts and preparations. This is the greatest and most urgent task which falls upon the Government to-day. I beg that the Government will utilise the meeting of the Disarmament Committee in London, which is about to begin, to
484
bring home to the nations involved the whole question of atomic weapons and the results of their use in warfare and spare nothing to secure agreement to end war. There is no other hope for the survival of mankind; a future war is bound sooner or later to involve these weapons and the destruction of life on the earth.
War must not be allowed to start. But it seems to me that the transfer of this vast and complex organisation into an entirely new form is extremely unwise. I was not at all convinced or comforted by the explanation which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, gave of the functions and position of the Ministry of Supply under this Bill. If noble Lords will look at the top of page 4 and read again the clause which defines the relation of the Ministry of Supply, with their responsibilities for equipping the Service Departments with weapons, and this new organisation not yet created, they will see that they are extremely uncertain and confusing, and inevitably will cause delay and confusion at the worst possible time. The clause says:
"The Authority shall not,"—
it begins with a complete negative—
"save in accordance with arrangements made with the Ministry of Supply, develop or produce any weapon or part of a weapon …"
That is all it says about the part of the Authority in the provision of atomic weapons: that they shall not do anything unless arrangements have been made with the Ministry of Supply. There has been built up through the years inside the Ministry of Supply a practically autonomous organisation. It is a brilliant piece of work, and we are greatly indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Portal of Hungerford, for the part he played in it with others. There it is—a working, living organism, which has done its work amazingly well.
Some time ago, I listened to a speech which the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, made in your Lordships' House on this matter. I was extremely surprised at what he said, coming from one whom we know has great knowledge and authority in this field. He sounded a note which was completely out of harmony with the facts as we know them. He said that unless reorganisation was undertaken without delay, this undertaking "will disintegrate and decay." He

485
said that in July, 1951. He painted a picture of a tottering and decaying organisation which had failed in their tasks and must immediately be replaced by something sound, commercial and reasonable. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the Government have shown in the excellent publication which has recently been issued, the first story of Britain's atomic achievement. A summary of essential paragraphs in this work, which I commend to noble Lords, if they have not already studied it, is to be found on the back page and, with your Lordships' permission, I will read it, so that the vast achievements in atomic energy which have been carried out under the Ministry of Supply should be understood and acknowledged before we hastily plunge into this new and untried form of organisation. It says:
"The narrative tells how in less than five years a new industry worth some scores of millions of pounds was built; every factory came into operation within a month of the estimated date; the cost of every plant was within a small percentage of the estimated sum, and the first bulk output of plutonium was produced on the date specified. It is an achievement which will stand comparison with any other in the history of British industry."
They are the words of the Government's own publication; and the narrative here set out makes that an understatement of what is contained in this volume.
This work is still going forward on a gigantic scale. It is still partly experimental. The great fast reactor which is to be constructed in the north of Scotland, and which is an essential part of any commercial use of atomic fuel, has not yet been built. The pilot plant of the electricity generating station fed with atomic fuel which is to be operated at Calder Hall in Cumberland is not yet working. We do not know yet what are the problems of the new type reactor, which is essential for an adequate supply of the fuel; and we do not yet know all the problems which are bound to arise in the application of this fuel to an electricity generator. So we are still in the stage of growth, experiment and development. The work is moving with enormous speed. I do not think anybody who knows the facts will deny that it is moving perhaps as fast in Britain as in any other country in the world. But this is not the time for creating a commercial organisation; that will come later. When that stage is reached, then
486
I agree that that would be the appropriate form of organisation. My case is that this is ill-timed, premature and breaking into a chain of events which we cannot afford to interrupt. That is what it does.
First, it will retard the development of what we have come to call the civil uses of atomic power; and secondly, it will jeopardise at a most vital moment the rapid experiment with and provision of atomic weapons. It separates two functions which ought never to be separated—namely, research and development and the duty of ordering production. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, in his most interesting speech—although I did not agree with his conclusions—pointed out most conclusively that that is a fatal separation. But it is separated here. The ordering authority for atomic weapons is the Ministry of Supply, but the research and development work is done by the Corporation. The Corporation are no longer an autonomous part of a great organisation, but are a separate body, like the Coal Board or the Electricity Authority. Those who have had experience of trying to make contacts with these new public corporations know that it is not easy, and that they tend to encase themselves in layers of a new kind of red tape, newly invented, with which we in Parliament will have to deal one of these days.
What are the arguments in favour of this plunge, this gamble, with these vital stakes? They seem to arise from a sort of distrust of the powers and abilities of a public Department. That I feel to have been completely answered by the achievements of the organisation as it is at the present time. It is said that a Department is unsuitable for trading activities; that it has not any commercial "know how"—to quote the phrase which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, once used. "They ought to talk the language of trade." But who are the people who are going to "talk the language of trade"? Who are these new industrial magnates who are going to infuse this thing with commercial adaptability? Their names have been announced, and they pleased me immensely. They have a great record of performance. We know what they can do—because all of them have been doing it all the time in the Ministry of Supply. They are exactly

487
the same people who have been responsible for these remarkable achievements: Sir John Cockroft, at present head of the atomic organisation under the Minister of Supply; Sir Christopher Hinton, who played a monumental part in all this development; and the great scientist, Sir William Penney. The Chairman, Sir Edwin Plowden, is a man whose abilities and charm in public organisation have been proved over and over again. But Sir Edwin Plowden does not come straight out of big business; he comes from the Treasury, where he has long been the chief Government planner; and before he went to the Treasury, I had the pleasure of working with him in the Ministry of Supply, and before that he was in the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Those are the people, the very same people, who have successfully carried on this thing. All that has been done is to hamper and impede them by making them create an entirely new form of organisation at a most critical time.
It is said that a Government Department has such financial handicaps; it is tied up by the Treasury, and has all this annual accounting to do. Then it is said that it is hampered by Civil Service scales of pay. Let us look at the Bill and see how much freedom is to be given to this new corporation. I know that in private life, as a company director, I should not like to have the clauses here set out in my Articles of Association—I do not think we should get on at all. Look at Clause 4. Under that clause any revenues of the Authority for any financial year must be paid into the Exchequer. So they will be working on an annual budget again. The Comptroller and Auditor-General plays the same part in relation to their financial arrangements as he does in the case of the Ministry of Supply. There is, in fact, in the relations of the Treasury and the Auditor-General with this new corporation, no change from his relations with the Government Department.
As to salaries, it is not true that the atomic energy organisation of the Ministry of Supply was bound down by the ordinary Civil Service scales of pay. Men, some of whose names I have mentioned, and many others, have been paid at rates of pay comparable with what they would earn in commercial undertakings. It is
488
only right and proper—and I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, said—that we should employ people in this sort of work at more commercial rates and upon more commercial contracts. That is exactly what was done in the atomic establishments of the Ministry of Supply. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, shakes his head, but he should look at the rates of pay paid to some of the people, and when this Authority gets going he will see how far these rates are exceeded. I am afraid that one of the results of this talk and the production of this Bill will be to spread a great deal of discontent among the staffs who have to be employed. In fact, the Treasury will not allow them to be paid very high salaries. Conditions will be much the same as they are now, and I think it is quite wrong to lead people to suppose that this Bill will make a big improvement in their conditions of employment, when in fact those of us who know how these things work know that, in the main, it will have no such effect.
Now it is said that the Ministry of Supply are an armaments Department, and that, in view of the developing civil uses of atomic power, it would not be right that this should be undertaken by an armaments Department—I examine these arguments, because they ought to be examined. But is the Ministry of Supply solely an armaments Department? Not at all. The provision of armaments for the Fighting Services is one of its important functions, but in order better to perform that function, and for other reasons, the Ministry of Supply are the Government's Department, dealing with the whole field of metallurgical engineering, aircraft, radio and telecommunications and many other industries. The Ministry of Supply make upwards of 10,000 commercial contracts a year, running into hundreds of millions of pounds. The Department certainly talks the language of commerce; its corridors are trod every day by the toughest commercial characters. They sit and help it on its committees and organisations. The Ministry are hand in hand with industry in this country. That close relationship, hammered out in war and cemented in the difficult days after the war; the knowledge which the men have on each side of each other; the knowledge which industry has of the working of the Ministry;

489
the day-to-day experience and rubbing shoulders together, have developed all through these years. This is of immense value in saving time, getting good relations, good products and prompt deliveries, and also all the things that can be done while sometimes you are waiting for the contract to be signed. Is this to be thrown away? It will mean starting again with a brand new organisation, with everything having to be worked out all over again.
Then there is the vast research side of the Ministry of Supply. If there is a commodity in short supply to-day, it is research scientists. One of the benefits and merits of the present organisation is that you can deploy your scientific assets to the best advantage, in accordance with the needs of the current time—and those needs are always rapidly changing. You may need suddenly to put all you have into the rapid development of guided missiles or commercial aircraft. You may suddenly need to switch that first priority into something quite new and not yet thought of. You have to improvise a staff. You have to "put the heat on" research; you must have a pool of people you can call upon and deploy according to the circumstances of the time. In the Ministry of Supply, which contains the biggest pool of scientific knowledge there is in this country, that can be done. Outside in a separate organisation, there will be immense loss through the failure to make use of this remarkable and unique pool of science, experience, understanding, and commercial "get-together" which has been built up through the years.
I will not detain your Lordships by belabouring the subject. It seems to me a great pity that we did not leave this thing a little longer until we really had got within sight of the commercial user, when we could have made a commercial organisation fit into the purposes as it then would be. However, I do most sincerely wish to add this. Although I think the decision is not a wise one it will no doubt be carried out. In those circumstances, of course, we all of us wish it well. I hope that all my fears will prove to be unfounded. I hope that this organisation will go forward to a bright future, that what the Government have done will prove to have been the best thing, and that I have been altogether mistaken. Of course, we shall never know how much better it might have been if it had been
490
done my way instead. But, we do all hope that this scheme will be a great success. Certainly it starts with great promise in the men who have been appointed to the board and those who will serve them. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this thing. It has limitless possibilities for destruction and for human happiness. If we cannot bring warfare to an end, then warfare will bring us all to an end. Perhaps we should deserve no other fate. But if we can use this thing to make men happier, instead of destroying them altogether, then it seems to me that we are at the dawn of a brave new world. With this great limitless power there need be no more barren areas, no more famine and no more mass human misery, for we shall have the endless power to cure it, if we will only use it aright.
4.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the scope of this discussion is limited by the terms of the Bill. All of us might feel tempted, on an occasion like this, to discourse at large upon atomic energy, its utility and its danger to mankind, but that would be rather for the occasion of a debate upon Defence and not upon this particular Bill. Nevertheless, the Bill in itself, as has been said by the mover, the Lord President of the Council, is one of great importance, and that has been emphatically endorsed by the noble Lord who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench. In future times the industry arising out of atomic energy may prove to be one of the key industries of the world, and future generations may look back upon this early stage, and upon discussions such as this that go on in our generation, as the beginning of a new industrial age. Atomic energy has immense possibilities for the supply of power in all countries for all purposes, industrial and agricultural, whether directly as energy, or indirectly through the production of heat and the supply of electricity. This new industry may in course of time prove to be as important as is already the air transport industry. For Britain, in particular, it may be of great economic moment, and it is right that its development should be proceeded with actively here, for the whole of what is now almost a world-wide enterprise arises out of British scientific discovery, the discovery of the structure of the atom by J. J. Thomson and Rutherford, at the

491
Cavendish Laboratory, in Cambridge. Steam was the result of the pioneering inventive work of Watt and Stephenson; electricity, of Faraday, and the whole of the electrical industry all over the world springs from him as its founder. Now we have this third great technical development, the use of atomic energy in the service of man.
I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, and his friends have thought it necessary to oppose this Bill. I am not quite sure that they come to it with a wholly unbiased mind. I think I saw a little trend of Socialist dogma here and there in the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. After all, we cannot forget that the Labour Party include in their announced purposes the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. They look forward to the gradual development of that policy, to approximation year by year, decade by decade, generation by generation, to that ideal. But to them any proposal for the denationalisation of anything that has already come into the hands of the State must really be objectionable indeed.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: The noble Viscount must forgive me. I should point out to him that the new Government mechanism is wholly Socialistic. It is entirely Governmental and is founded on the models set up by the Labour Government.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Then I do not quite see how that interruption justifies the noble Lord's speech. I will leave his first thoughts to answer his second, because the whole of his speech was an able presentation of the case against removing from the hands of a Government Department to another authority an industry so important as this.
For myself, and I speak also for my friends on the Liberal Benches, we approach these matters without bias. We are perfectly prepared to adopt nationalisation when it seems likely to prove the most efficient and satisfactory means of procedure. We supported several of the most important measures introduced by the last Labour Government for the nationalisation of particular industries, but, at the same time, to a case such as this, which is really a new case, we bring
492
an unbiased mind. It seems to me and to my friends that the Government are quite right to take the view that this is not a matter for the Government and the Civil Service to control. For a Parliamentary Minister to be at the head of the day-by-day direction, or even the immediate control, of an enterprise such as this seems to us not the right course. I see the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, in his place, but not, I regret to say, in the list of speakers and I hope that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, will goad him into speech and that we shall have the benefit of his opinions to-day, as we have had them on previous occasions.
It is quite obvious that at this stage this industry, if it is to become an industry, cannot be left merely to ordinary private enterprise. It has to be wholly financed from public funds as yet, and therefore cannot be left to private enterprise. Any form of private enterprise which was tied by the obligations necessitated by the whole of its capital being furnished by the Treasury would not be likely to succeed. I trust, however, that the new Authority will foresee and encourage devolution to private industry, so far as that is practicable, and, as the fundamental work is accomplished year by year, that a great part of this work in providing apparatus and appliances to the public and to other authorities in different countries of the world will be handed over to private industry, which is likely to do the work as effectively as the great aeroplane manufacturers have been able to do their work in recent years. If this is not to be an ordinary Government Department, and if it is not to be private enterprise, then obviously we must establish an intermediate body; and that is what this Bill now proposes to do. To us it seems that the course proposed is the right one and that we should give this Bill our cordial support.
4.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, I am very glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words in support of this Bill. I listened attentively to what the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, had to say in opposition and I frankly greatly regret that noble Lords opposite have not seen their way at this stage

493
to support the proposals in the Bill. The main objection put forward by the noble Lord to what is proposed now seemed to me to be that in his view the proposals were ill-timed. I am not sure that I should not agree with that, but in a different sense, because I would say that it would have been better had the plan for which this Bill makes provision been carried into effect much sooner.
The noble Lord was, of course, quite right when he said that the decision to entrust this immensely important task to a non-Departmental organisation was a decision of Her Majesty's Government taken prior to the appointment of the Committee of which I had the honour to be Chairman. I should like, however, to make it clear that if I had not found myself in sympathy with that basic proposition I would never have agreed to be Chairman of the Committee. Your Lordships are probably aware that for a number of years I was responsible in a Ministerial capacity for the development and application of atomic energy. As Lord President of the Council, I was invited to undertake that responsibility in 1940, and I had opportunities of watching the development of the organisation, not merely up to the time of the dissolution of the war-time Coalition Government but for some years after, because the Labour Government, when they came into office, were good enough to invite me to continue in a general way to have oversight of the organisation.
My interest in the subject of atomic energy goes back much further than 1940; it goes back, in fact, to the year 1903, when I was entrusted with research into the radioactive properties of uranium in a German university. Ever since then I have watched with special interest the astounding developments that have taken place, and, as I have said, I had, as Lord President of the Council and subsequently as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Atomic Energy, exceptional opportunities of observing the development of the organisation. I make no secret of the fact that if a decision had rested with me in 1945, I would have advocated entrusting the whole responsibility in this field to a non-Departmental organisation. My noble friend, Lord Cherwell, knows very well that that is the case. The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, paid a well
494
deserved tribute to what has been done up to now—he said "by an organisation in the Ministry of Supply." I should prefer to say "by organisations under the Ministry of Supply," because there were several organisations, very loosely held together. What they achieved is set out graphically and impressively in the document from which the noble Lord quoted.
I do not think any words can be too strong to commend the qualities displayed during the intervening years by those who were responsible in various capacities under the Minister of Supply. The noble Lord paid a deserved tribute to the work that had been done in the Ministry of Supply by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Portal of Hungerford. I suppose I was, in a sense, responsible for his being there. I know very well the great value of his contribution. I take the view that, having regard to probable future developments of which we see impressive evidence to-day, a closer integration of the various organisations handling the problems of atomic energy in various connections is very necessary. There is not only the question of armaments: there is the question which is coming more and more into prominence and in which people in this country have played, as the noble Lord said, an extremely important part—the industrial applications of atomic energy. And there are the important medical and physiological applications of atomic energy.
It seems to me, and has seemed to me ever since I first had an opportunity of studying these matters, that a closely-knit organisation covering the whole field, organised in a way which would ensure that the various directions of development would be kept in proper relation to one another and a proper balance maintained, was vastly important. I am not going to say that it would have been impossible to go on under a Departmental form of organisation. As I am sure noble Lords will recognise, I should be almost the last person who might be expected to disparage the capacity of Departmental organisations to handle all sorts of subjects. I have spent the greater part of my life in Departmental organisations. I have served in Departments carrying out the traditional functions of the great Departments of State—the Colonial Office and the Home Office; I have served in public

495
Departments called upon suddenly to handle novel problems, such as the National Health Insurance Commission and the Ministry of Shipping during the first great war, and I have seen how adaptable, how resourceful and, on the whole, how efficient a Departmental organisation can be. But there is no use hiding from ourselves the fact that the traditions and the experience of Departmental organisations have been developed in the discharge of tasks very far removed from those which have to be discharged by this new non-Departmental organisation which it is now proposed to set up.
I think we shall secure in this organisation a more complete and effective integration of the different parts of the organisation, a better balance. Of course, we are taking over into this new organisation those men of outstanding quality whom the noble Lord mentioned by name and who were, almost without exception, brought into the organisation when I personally was responsible for it. They have worked well. They have been handicapped by being under a Ministerial organisation covering a vast field. If it were thought right to continue to keep the development of atomic energy in a Departmental organisation of the normal type, I would have urged strongly that that organisation should be separated from the Ministry of Supply and that a separate Ministerial Department should be set up. The change there would have been a disadvantage, as compared with what is now proposed, in that it is of immense value to have as the responsible Minister someone of the commanding stature of the Lord President of the Council. He happens to-day to be a Member of this House. He might be a Member in another place, as indeed I was and as Mr. Herbert Morrison was; but, on the whole, I think it much better that this organisation should be detached and that, with the necessary provision for Ministerial responsibility for matters of high policy and for adequate financial control, there should be a close-knit, homogeneous organisation such as is now proposed.
I should have liked to see the number of people at headquarters who will form the board of this organisation kept rather smaller than is now proposed. I welcome the change that was made in
496
another place to which the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, referred. It was decided to provide for the inclusion among the directors of someone with special knowledge of labour problems and the handling of personnel. That is very important from the point of view, on which my Committee laid stress, of giving the most complete assurance to the staffs of all grades in this organisation that they will have fair treatment and that appeal may be made to Ministers in any matter that may cause them concern in the future.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, raised the point, which I venture to think is of great importance, of providing for more and more devolution to industry of work in connection with the development of atomic energy. I believe there is a great future for us in that direction, not only in regard to the organisation of power stations and the effective collaboration which I hope will be developed between the Atomic Energy Corporation and those responsible for the generation of electricity, the Electricity Authority, but also in regard to the inventing, the devising and the manufacture of all sorts of plant and equipment for the application of atomic energy. I think we may well develop an important export trade in that connection.
My view, which I have expressed in unqualified terms in favour of an organisation of this kind, has been strengthened by what I have seen in other countries, in the United States of America and in Canada. In Canada, originally at our instance, important developments have taken place in this matter. The Canadian Government some time ago decided to entrust all the work to a body or bodies not dissimilar to that now proposed. It is well known and one must admit it, that, despite what the noble Lord was good enough to say about the important and spectacular developments that have taken place here, the developments in the United States of America, with their vast resources and their extraordinary capacity for mass production, outstrip anything on which we can pride ourselves. I hope I have said enough to make it clear that I have no doubt at all in my mind—and I was glad to find in the earlier debate that I was strongly supported in my views by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Portal of Hungerford—that this is a step in the right

497
direction. I cordially welcome in particular the words with which the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, concluded his speech. I am sure—I venture to prophesy to this extent—that he will find, as time goes on, no reason to regret that he ended on that note.
4.50 p.m.
LORD GLYN: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long, but I want to deal with one or two small points in the Bill and to ask your Lordships' patient consideration of them. In the first place, as I think noble Lords who study this matter will agree, it is rather extraordinary that we are still sticking to the old description "atomic energy" instead of using the more general term "nuclear energy," which is a much more accurate description and which, in the course of a comparatively short time, as science develops in the general nuclear sphere, may be the description that will have to be used. The other matter that I want to mention to your Lordships the question which has been raised in the Lord President's speech, in regard to the effect of radioactive waste. From the point of view of public opinion, that is a matter of tremendous importance. Harwell is situated in my old constituency. It was necessary to arrange that the water supply from the Thames should be pumped to Harwell, dealt with at Harwell and passed back to the Thames. As the Metropolitan Water Board are responsible for the quality of the water, it was necessary to see that the filters were of great efficiency; and the fact is that now, as the water emerges from Harwell it is far better, far clearer and less contaminated than any other water in the Thames. I think that ought to be remembered as a matter of importance, because up and down the country river boards and local authorities may become rather exercised in their minds as to the effect of getting rid of this waste material. I think that the experience at Harwell completely proves that there is no reason at all for alarm.
There are two other matters which I wish to mention. One is in regard to the two-year period during which negotiations can take place about the conditions of employment of those engaged in this vast industry and how they will fit into the new organisation. I do not think your Lordships are in any doubt
498
about the wonderful work that has been done, not only by the scientists who have been mentioned but also by hundreds of engineers whose work has been essential for the prosecution of these plans. These men have made a great contribution to the developments that have taken place. During these two years I think we have to be quite frank. These negotiations are essential; but in another place it was laid down by the Minister in charge that any man who applied for work would have to accept conditions which are abnormal and, so far as I know, do not exist in any other industry—that is to say, that men considered to be an abnormal security risk must accept the fact that they cannot be employed. I think that is very important. None of us likes this screening that has to be done, but for security reasons it is essential that it should be carried out. I am quite sure that the great mass of those employed will accept that condition and will be only too ready to see that employment is not given to those who might endanger the security which is necessary in various aspects of this arrangement.
There is another particularly important matter where I trust that, in these two years of negotiation, some contact will be made with the Ministry of Labour to set up a special arbitration organisation. It is most important with this work that there should be no stoppage, be it for whatever cause. This is a continuous process, and grave damage would be done and tremendous financial loss incurred if, by any chance, for any reason whatsoever, there was a break in the continuous process. I am quite sure that those engaged in this work would be more than willing, as this is a public utility of such tremendous importance, to subject themselves to a special form of arbitration. At the present moment there have been discussions on this matter, but it is imperative, in my view, that during this two-year period it should be emphasised that it is essential that there should be some special arbitration machinery. If noble Lords will read the result of the recent conferences at York and at Blackpool of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, I think it will be appreciated that the responsible leaders have a difficult task in keeping some of the more unruly members in order; and if we are to take what they say as gospel, it is essential that special provi-

499
sion should be made to prevent action which would be very detrimental to the national interest.
Finally, my Lords, I want just to mention the question of finance. When the debate on the White Paper took place in your Lordships' House, I felt that the question of finance might be looked at again. I understand that there is quite a possibility that the sale of isotopes will increase considerably, and everything ought to be done to foster that. I cannot help thinking that, if we want to foster development, the last thing to do is to return to the Treasury any money that the Authority is able to win: it ought to go to the organisation and not pass back to the Treasury. It seems to me that there is room for some improvement there—at any rate to form the beginnings of an independent financial set-up, which I very much regret was not originally included in the Bill. I think it is probable that within fifteen years experiments will be made so that the railways of this country may be operated by local power stations of a breeder type affecting 400 miles of track. That will lead to the elimination of waste in the consumption of coal through what is undoubtedly the wasteful method of the old-fashioned, ordinary steam locomotive. If we can get electrical and breeder stations we shall be able to reduce our transport charges very greatly.
It seems to me that if there were set up some system whereby bonds could be issued, to be taken up by the public, as a "lock-up" for a time, it would save the Treasury what they have got to find, which is, I believe, £46½ million this year and £55½ million in the next financial year—mostly expenditure of a capital character. It seems to me perfectly legitimate that the taxpayer should be asked to find the money for maintenance, but I think that there might be some means of relieving the taxpayer of the original cost of capital expenditure, on which most of this money is to be spent. There is no reason why A.E.A. bonds should not be a good investment. I believe that in time to come they would be of great value, and it seems rather a pity, just at the time when we are bearing such a tremendous financial burden, that some means could not be found for financing these projects, which in the end are bound to provide a return of great value, both to
500
those who are interested in them and to the country as a whole.
In regard to the matter of coal production, we are nearly at the limit of what can be obtained from the mining industry, and if the Electricity Authority projects which are now in consideration are carried out, it will mean that the 46 million tons of coal a year which are now devoted to conversion into electrical energy will need to be increased to 60 million tons; and it does not look as though that 60 million tons will easily be found. Therefore, it is providential that this vast and powerful new form of energy has arrived just at this moment. I feel that we should all do everything in our power to support those who have done such wonderful pioneer work, and help forward the new authority in every way we can.
5.0 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, this is a machinery Bill and in spite of the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, at the end of his speech, he was unable to find much merit in the Bill itself. It seems to me that the Bill is clear and flexible and a simple solution by Her Majesty's Government of the problem of, on the one hand, providing overall control of policy by the Government, and on the other, harnessing to this new development the technological resources of British industry. Surely, if you do not set up a new Department, such as that which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley mentioned and then rejected, it is right that a senior Cabinet Minister, such as the Lord President, should be the Minister in charge, for there is scarcely a Government Department which is not interested and upon whose interests this atomic energy development does not impinge. There are the Treasury, the three Service Departments, the Ministry of Fuel, the Board of Trade, the Ministries of Transport, Housing, Planning, Agriculture and many others. And I hope sincerely—I am going to refer further to this in a minute or two—that I can include in that list of Departments affected the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office.
We are on the threshold of a tremendous new vista of chances for the application by British genius of this new

501
development. I believe that we may lead the world in this development, as we have in the steam engine, in electricity, and, since then, in aviation. It is right surely that the Government Executive should play their part. But on the other hand, it is most necessary that the inevitable restrictions, as Lord Waverley said, of a departmental organisation should not hold back that development. Lord Wilmot of Selmeston mentioned Watt, I think. If Newcomen or Watt or Stephenson or Brunel had had to confine all their plans within the restrictions and boundaries of a Government Department, and get them through the financial branch, through the administrative branch, the staff branch and all the other branches, I feel that they would not have contributed anything like so much as they, in fact, did to British industry and British commercial success in the world. The developments which they initiated would certainly not have come about as they have done. It seems to me that the strength of this Government proposal is that we shall now be able to harness different teams of scientists working along different lines of development, different teams of scientists working for different industries and different interests, whereas if it were all kept within the limits of a Government departmental organisation that could not possibly come about. I think this is, as it were, a truly British solution. It is true that it is a hybrid, and it is trying to get the best of both worlds—overall Government direction of major policy and administration and achievement by commercial interests.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said that this was not an appropriate occasion upon which to dwell on the fascinating future of atomic energy and its application. He then proceeded to do so in a most charming, though brief, way, as did, equally briefly, my noble friend Lord Glyn. But I think it is right that, in dealing with this Bill, we should have in our minds something of the possibilities which open up before us in the not far distant future. In ten years, the experts say, piles like those in Cumberland will produce power at one penny a unit, which is approximately 50 per cent. higher than the cost with a modern boiler plant. With nuclear energy costs falling and coal costs rising, it is calculated that in twenty years' time atomic energy may be able to compete on level
502
terms with coal. It will not be a rival to coal, but will be, surely, an additional source of energy contributing to our national wealth. The best estimates put Britain's coal reserves as at about 200 years. That is not a long period in the industrial life of a nation. Here, surely, is a saver for British industry, and its early and skilful application may enable us to stop burning wastefully in grate and boiler our most valuable chemical raw material—coal. Let us remember that the Ridley Report, only some eighteen months ago, foresaw a shortage of 20 million tons of coal in this country per annum by 1960. Beyond Britain's frontiers, world oil and coal supplies are getting less, and they are getting more expensive to produce. In 100 years we may be dependent upon new raw materials required for this atomic development.
For these reasons, I wish to ask the noble Marquess the Lord President whether he would consider (the matter may, of course, already have been considered, and if so I should be glad if he would tell me) whether there could be a geological survey of raw material resources throughout the Commonwealth and the Colonial Empire, a co-ordinated geological survey on a scale which has not been envisaged hitherto. A second request I would make to the Lord President is that he should tell us whether he could consider associating, in some bold, positive and close manner, the Governments of the Colonial territories, possibly through the formation of some central organisation. I do not expect the noble Marquess to give me a full answer in this matter to-day, but perhaps he will tell me if he would consider the idea, and whether he would favour associating these Governments with the geological survey for raw materials, and also with the industrial progress in applying this new source of energy.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord, as I understand him, is referring to raw material resources in respect of atomic energy.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Yes, most certainly in respect of atomic energy. It is not for us to say what the independent equal partners on the British Commonwealth are doing or are to do in this direction. On the other hand, if there

503
were some Commonwealth board co-ordinating our research, development and application with the parallel work carried on in the Commonwealth, we might go forward as a powerful Commonwealth unit in this great work.
I believe that there is a chance, in this new development of nuclear energy, and its application, for Commonwealth and Colonial Empire unity of a new kind. It would avoid all those international restrictions on inter-Commonwealth commercial unity which your Lordships know of and which I am not going to touch upon today—the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, the most-favoured-nation clause and other measures. In this matter, I believe we should be able to go forward as a Commonwealth and Colonial Empire unit, in a great new unity which will give us, if we take full advantage of our opportunity, ascendancy over all other countries. I conclude by saying that, in this great new development that Britain has, I see another chance of showing that capacity to lead the world which we have shown twice since the Industrial Revolution and may yet show a third time.
5.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, we had an interesting debate on the White Paper in December, when the Lord President of the Council explained to us in some detail what the Government had in view. To- day we welcome the Bill which is the result of that White Paper. I am sure many of us have thought that a Bill of this kind is long overdue. The atomic energy project has become a vast undertaking, spending something like £50,000,000 a year, a huge sum, comparable to all the amount of money spent last year by the British Electricity Authority in installing new plant in their stations. This gives us an idea of the vast responsibility of those in charge of this undertaking. It also makes large demands on scientists and technicians of all kinds of the highest quality, to whom tribute has been paid again in this debate. We all must be proud of the results which have been attained. Surely an organisation of this magnitude and importance is entitled to a board of its own. Surely it is entitled to have a Minister who is directly responsible to Parliament for its work. What is the present position? It is merely a department of the Ministry of Supply.
504
I speak as one entirely outside these activities, as one of the general public. I cannot have anything like the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston. To the man outside, who tries to follow the different activities of that Department, it seems, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, will agree, a wonderful example of the theory of indeterminism—no one has the foggiest idea of what anything is about. We have the names of important gentlemen in various departments, but no man in the street can follow where anybody begins and where anybody ends. I am certain that a unit of this kind, which is a unity in itself, will be far more successful if moved from the conglomerate mass which the Ministry of Supply appears to be to the ordinary man. and put under a board of its own. Then we shall know who are the prominent people responsible for running the organisation. We shall have the advantage of knowing that they will issue reports from time to time and that perhaps we shall be able to ask questions of the Minister about how the project is functioning. At the present moment to the man in the street the whole thing is obscure and indefinite. From that point of view I strongly welcome this Bill.
There are two main activities in this Bill: one deals with the supply of extra violent explosives and the other with the supply of energy for generating power. As has already been mentiond, another important question is the auxiliary production of radio-active isotopes for medical and other purposes. What I am glad to see has not been excluded from the Bill is the extension of knowledge for its own sake, which perhaps to some people may be the most important point in the whole matter. It is tragic indeed, and some people are very much worried about it, that this great organisation is being used to produce this dreadfully destructive element. I feel we must have our feet on the ground in considering this matter. The scientists are not in the least to blame. It was their duty to explore nature and record their discoveries in the hope of again and again extending the field of human knowledge. It is the wickedness of man, who came along and discerned in this wonderful invention a method whereby he could destroy his fellow men. It has nothing to do with the scientist. The blame rests on the whole of human nature. We have to be

505
realists in this matter. I ask myself, where should we be to-day, in the turmoil that exists in the world, if we did not have the atomic bomb? Where should we have been yesterday if Hitler had had the atomic bomb before we had it? We have to approach these things from a realistic point of view, though I pray that no occasion ever shall arise when this terrible weapon has to be used.
I welcome the setting-up of this high-powered Committee to make recommendations to the Government on how this important department is to be administered. In the last few years we have too often seen great undertakings initiated without a proper survey of all the conditions involved. Too often has production been jumped into without anybody considering the scientific and economic problems which must be carefully considered before any scheme can be successfully started. I recall to your Lordships the disastrous effect of the groundnuts scheme, a thoroughly desirable object, into which the Government entered without a careful analysis of the scientific problems. The deserved result was that the whole thing was an unfortunate failure and cost the nation £40,000,000. Here the Conservative Government have not followed that example and have carefully gone into this question. From the names of the gentlemen who form this Committee, men with vast experience of these questions, we know that no better solution could possibly be arrived at.
I wish I were as happy about some of the statements made about the development of nuclear energy for power purposes. Much has been claimed, it seems to me rather irresponsibly, by various speakers at different times, and the public is being led to believe that some vast development is about to come which is going to make a great change in the generation of power. We know that the station activated by thermo-neutrons will cost about twice as much as an ordinary power station. We know that its thermal efficiency will be only 20 to 25 per cent., whereas in a standard steam station it is now in the neighbourhood of 35 per cent. We do not know accurately the cost of uranium fuel, but I have seen figures quoting £5,000 a ton up to £20,000 a ton. Nobody knows the real market price of uranium metal or the quantity used to
506
generate a kilowatt. Estimates have been made of the cost of power delivered to the Grid, but in view of the many variables, all these are uncertain and unreliable, except to show that the cost of power generated by this process at the present time—and it looks to me as if it will be a long time before we shall be able to increase the thermal efficiency of these thermo-neutron stations—will be considerably higher than that produced in the ordinary, traditional type of coal-fired station.
What is the coal position? We have heard a certain amount about that to-day. The coal position, as it appears to me, is this. These traditional-type power stations burn the worst form of coal it is possible to find: it is filthy muck, containing a large quantity of ash and also a high percentage of sulphur. Nobody else wants it, and nobody else will burn it. If you did not have your huge furnaces at your power stations to consume it, that coal would be a drug on the market. The present position is that the Coal Board are developing mechanisation at the coal face as fast as possible. I am sure we all agree that that is the right policy. One of the results of mechanisation at the coal face, however, is that, unfortunately, you will increase the percentage of fines in many instances by 20 per cent. So, in a few years' time, there will be a great deal more of this type of coal to dispose of and the only way to dispose of it is in the grates of power stations. If you were to cut out coal-fired stations using this horrible stuff, you would at once raise the price of coal to all the coal consumers in the country, because there would be from 40 to 50 millions of tons which it would be impossible to dispose of. I feel that unless the advocates of the generation in the United Kingdom of power on a large scale by means of atomic energy are able to bring forward schemes whereby the cost of energy delivered to the Grid will be considerably lower than that of the cost of coal-produced electricity, there is little chance in this country of our seing any big development in the next fifty years.
But it is a different matter when you consider the position overseas. There are overseas many areas which are remote from coal and oil supplies, which have no hydro-power, and where the cost of transport is high. If you had a nuclear

507
station, you would require to bring, say, only 50 or 100 tons of uranium metal, and that would probably last from five to ten years. Overseas there seems to me to be, in special instances, a great opportunity for power stations operated by nuclear energy. It is for that reason that I particularly welcome paragraphs (e) and (f) of Clause 2 (2), which enable manufacturers and consulting engineers—who are immensely important in this overseas business—to come into the picture, to be brought up to date and to be told exactly what is possible in the matter of these great nuclear developments.
There is one other point on which I am afraid I must quarrel with the Bill, and that is the matter of its nomenclature. The noble Lord, Lord Glyn, has already mentioned it, and the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has mentioned it on other occasions. Surely, we should try to put this right. It is horrible to call this "atomic energy." Clause 2 (2) (a) says:
"to produce, use and dispose of atomic energy. …"
Surely, the words, "to produce, use and dispose of the energy of the atomic nucleons" would meet the point; and if it were introduced in that one case, it would make some of us feel much happier. I am sure we are all glad that the Minister who will have these immense responsibilities is the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House. He will have enormous responsibilities in balancing up the technical and economic claims. What is more, from the experience we have had of him in leading this House, I am sure that there is no better modulator to slow down high-speed neutrons in the Ministerial pile than the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House.
5.25 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this debate, because the best I could hope to do would be to give the Bill my blessing, and a blessing from a layman is not likely to be very efficacious. An inefficacious blessing, I suppose, is at best a bore, and at worst an impropriety. I suppose that I have been connected with atomic energy longer than any one of your Lordships—since 1940—and, as your Lordships may remember, I moved a Resolution in this House in 1951, which was accepted, asking for something on the lines of this
508
Bill. I see no reason to go back on anything that I said on that occasion. But apart from the fact that I have definitely come to the conclusion that this Bill is a big step in the right direction, there is the other fact that it is supported by a man who has had such close experience of the matter as the noble Viscount, Lord Portal of Hungerford, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who spoke. I think, then, that there can be no question that it ought to be accepted. Moreover, the very able men who were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston—whose tribute I should like to echo—are all in favour of this Bill, although he said they were to be hampered and hindered. Therefore, I feel that we can, without hesitation, accept the Bill as drafted. I am glad that the noble Lord opposite ended his speech as he did, with good wishes, and I am sure that they will be echoed on all sides, not only in this House but in the country.
5.27 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we have had a debate in which there has been a good deal of agreement and a certain amount of disagreement. Nearly every speaker has emphasised the great potentialities of atomic energy, both for peace and for destruction, and there is no possible dispute about that aspect. Most speakers have emphasised the great industrial possibilities of atomic energy, from the point of view of this country, in particular; and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, especially referred to the fact that we had one more opportunity of surmounting our economic difficulties by means of atomic energy. We all agree about that. The margin of disagreement is a narrow one, but it is important. My noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, in his admirable and well-reasoned speech, made it clear that this was a difference of opinion about machinery, and not about principle. We are all agreed that in one form or another the future of atomic energy must be in the hands of the public. I was sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, suggested that this was a doctrinal matter on the part of the Opposition—it is nothing of the kind. We are normally perfectly happy, either with departmental methods or at proceeding by means of a public authority. We have adopted either method for the purposes of nationalisation, according to which we considered

509
the more efficacious for the purpose, and therefore no question of doctrine comes into the matter.
We have taken this Bill on its merits. I admit that there is a good deal of weight on the part of those who have expressed themselves in favour of the public authority. There is the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. It has been suggested—I do not know with what authority, but I am prepared to accept it—that the three gentlemen whose great services have been commended, and who will take part in the undertaking, are also in favour of it. But, on the other side, there are the two Ministers of Supply who have been concerned with this undertaking—my right honourable friend Mr. Strauss and my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston—who are both as strongly opposed to this method at this time as other noble Lords and other people are in favour of it. I do not know the views of the present Minister, because he has not expressed them—but at any rate he has not expressed himself in favour of these proposals. Therefore, there is weight on both sides.
I thought that my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston made a strong case against this particular method of achieving what we all wish to achieve. The weight of opinion—and I want to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, and others—is not conclusive. I recognise the great authority with which the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, speaks on these matters, but since he referred to the debate of July 5, 1951, I feel bound to remind him that, in a number of statements he made, he was not entirely a good prophet. For instance, let me quote one thing that he said at that time (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 172, col. 670):
"… things have become so urgent that we cannot just sit back until the House reassembles after the Summer Recess and watch this great and vital project decline, as I feel it is bound to do unless it is reorganised."
Well, we did sit back. We waited until the Recesses of 1951, 1952 and 1953.
LORD CHERWELL: The noble Lord must not forget that in the interval there was an Election and a change of Government, and new hope sprang in the breasts of the members of the project, as it did in the country.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord will bear in mind the date of the Election, and also that a good many Recesses have taken place since. I am not chiding the Government with not having proceeded with this matter quickly. I am pointing out that the things which the noble Lord foresaw—this complete decline and decay of the whole organisation—have not taken place. On the contrary, things have gone exceedingly well.
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said that an acute crisis had been reached in July, 1951. That was not so; there was no acute crisis. The Ministry of Supply carried on, with the results which my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston read out, and with the approval of the whole House. This was published nearly three years later—three years after the noble Lord had been prophesying doom and depair. We now find it possible for this same Government, of which the noble Lord was so brilliant a supporter, to say that the obstacles were overcome in less than five years. "Less than five years" includes a considerable portion of the time after the noble Lord had prophesied this doom—half of that period, during which, according to him, the organisation ought to have gone into decay, resulted in these brilliant results. Every factory came into operation within a month of the estimated date, and so on. My noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston read it all out. Therefore, one cannot feel completely confident that this is a better method than the other, especially when one considers some of the arguments which have been put forward. For instance, the noble Viscount hoped that it would be possible to devolve a good deal of the work of the undertaking to private industry. Well, we all hoped that. I think private industry has a great contribution to make—there is no dispute about that. But it could make that same contribution under the Ministry of Supply. Surely the Ministry of Supply have been contracting out and getting private industry to make things in exactly the same way as this undertaking will do. I cannot see that the fact that the Government desire private industry to take a part in this project is a justification for the setting up of this Authority.
I do not want to repeat all the arguments which my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston put before the House. They have not been answered.

511
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, was very emphatic in his views, as he is entitled to be, and I hope that we are equally entitled to disagree. But with all respect to the case he put forward to-day, I do not think he seriously controverted the case which was put forward by my noble friend. I am content to let my case rest on what he said, and to cut my remarks short and just ask one or two questions of the noble Marquess on the Bill itself. The first is something which puzzles me, and I thought the noble Marquess dealt with it rather lightly. That is in Clause 3 (1), where it says that it is the duty of the Lord President of the Council to secure that
"… in the conduct of the affairs of the Authority, the proper degrees of importance are attached to the various applications of atomic energy."
The noble Marquess gave examples, mainly physiological, industrial and so on. I should like to ask him: What is the position of the military side—the warlike purposes? When the Minister (it may not always be the noble Marquess) has to decide upon the proper degrees of importance as between the various applications of atomic energy, has he, for instance, to decide whether at any particular moment it is more important to proceed with the manufacture of weapons of war-like purposes than to provide for the use of atomic energy for medical, physiological and industrial purposes? If we do not talk about manufacture but talk about research, would he regard it as his function to decide upon the relative importance of those matters? After all, they are matters which would have to be settled in the highest quarter. If that is so—and I imagine that the noble Marquess would not, in many cases, take upon himself the responsibility of a decision of that kind—does that not rather weaken the point made, that it needed a Minister of very high authority in charge of this to make such decisions? The most important decisions of all would, I imagine, be matters for the Cabinet itself, or even for the Prime Minister.
The other point I wish to ask on the Bill concerns security. The noble Marquess did not refer to the First Schedule, and I am not complaining of that. But if he will look at the First Schedule, Paragraph 7 (4), he will see that
512
"Except with the consent of the Lord President of the Council, the Authority shall not dismiss any officer or other person employed by them on the ground that his political associations render his continued employment undesirable in the interests of national security."
"Political associations" is a very vague term. Whether that is deliberate or not I do not know, but I understood that in another place some assurance was given that these words would be looked at again and amended. I wonder what the noble Marquess would say, for instance, about the political associations of certain people who are at present in another place. Would they be regarded as unsuitable for employment? It would be a very difficult decision for the Authority to make, and a difficult decision for the Lord President of the Council to make by way of appeal. I think two things about this matter. One is that those words ought to be much clearer, and the other that there ought to be some machinery for a right of appeal on the part of anyone whose bona fides are attacked. There is nothing in the Bill about that, and although it is a Committee point and can be dealt with in Committee I regard it as a matter of fundamental importance.
I would say, for myself, that I have not been shaken at all by what has been said in favour of this Bill. I still have grave doubts whether this is the right method of approach at the present time. As my noble friend said, we are at the beginning of these things; we shall see our way much more clearly in a few years. In the meantime I should have preferred to adopt the philosophy of noble Lords opposite at the present time, that is, the philosophy of conservatism, or preserving what is good and of not making changes, particularly revolutionary changes, unless a case has been made out. I feel that at the present time the case in favour of this change is not proven, but I would join my noble friend in accepting the position. After all, the Government have had to make up their minds on this subject, and I admit that there has had to be a weighing-up of the arguments on both sides. Any Government worthy of its salt has got to make a decision, and I do not complain that the decision has gone the way it has gone, even though I do not agree with it. But the decision having gone that way,

513
and the Government having decided to go forward with this Authority, I join with my noble friend in wishing it every possible success. Certainly I can say on behalf of my noble friends that we shall put no difficulty in the way of ensuring that it does meet with the greatest success in the future.
5.44 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, after listening to this very interesting debate I do not think there is a great deal that I need add in winding up to the rather full speech I delivered earlier this afternoon. I am happy to think that generally the Bill has had what I think I may fairly call a favourable reception. Even the noble Lords, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston and Lord Silkin, about whose remarks I have something to say, gave in their closing words what may be regarded as a modified and somewhat reluctant blessing to the Bill. No doubt—and I fully understand it—both those noble Lords would, for a great many reasons, have preferred, at any rate for the time being, that atomic energy should remain under the Ministry of Supply.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: For the time being.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Lord Wilmot was quite frank about this; indeed, he emphasised it in a large part of his speech. He criticised the whole of the new structure which the Government was setting up and he pointed out that the decision to make this change was not the result of the Report of the Committee over which my noble friend, Lord Waverley, presided, but was taken before the Waverley Committee was set up. It is perfectly true that the Government thought that that was the right course to take before they set up the Waverley Committee, and that is why they set up the Committee. But it remains equally true that it was the function of the Committee to examine the question whether such a set-up was practicable, and I should have thought no one who read the Report of the Committee could form any other conclusion than that the members—and it was a unanimous Report—regarded this proposed change not only as practicable but as extremely desirable. Indeed, if any noble Lords had any doubts about that before they came into this House this
514
afternoon, those doubts certainly have been resolved by what the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, himself has said to the House. He made it perfectly clear that he would not have accepted the Chairmanship of the Committee at all unless he had strongly approved of the Government plan. Therefore I think that that argument may be regarded as finally settled. In his view as to the desirability of this set-up, the noble Viscount had the extremely powerful support of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who spoke with all the authority of a lifetime, both over matters of science and over matters of administration.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, seemed to feel a strong anxiety lest this change should prejudice the development of atomic weapons. He said, as I understood him, quoting from the Bill, that the Authority would not be able, except by arrangement with the Ministry of Supply, to produce atomic weapons or components of weapons, and he feared that that might lead to a dangerous slowing-up, as I understood it. I must confess I was a little surprised to hear that argument coming from his mouth, because, reading the debates in another place, my impression, at any rate, of the views of quite a large number of his Party was that they wished rigidly to control the production of these weapons; indeed, many of them would like to see the production stopped altogether.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I do not agree with that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That may be regarded, perhaps, as a new example of nuclear fission. At any rate I am happy to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, does not share that view, and, what is more, fears that we shall not get enough bigger and better weapons. Indeed, we none of us want the weapons for our own purposes, but only for the purposes of bringing nearer enduring peace. That is common ground among us all. After listening to his extremely interesting and very well argued speech, however, I still could not see why he was so worried, because, after all, the position after this Bill has gone through will be that it will be only by arrangement with the Ministry of Supply that the Authority will be able to produce atomic weapons. So far as weapons are concerned, that will be exactly the

515
position that existed before, and Sir William Penney and his most able and devoted assistants will operate just as they have done in the past. I can see no reason why there should be any more delay under this system than under the system that obtained before. Nor do I admit for a moment that there will be a kind of iron curtain dividing those engaged in research and those engaged in the manufacture of weapons. There will be the same close and cordial collaboration that there has always been. It is true that the fact remains that the purpose for which the Ministry of Supply was brought into being, and the purpose for which it exists now, is to produce weapons for the Service Departments. That is its function. But now the sphere of atomic energy—and this is the main argument that we put forward—is rapidly developing far beyond that. Indeed, already at this moment it covers in its civil uses a wide area with which the Ministry of Supply have in fact nothing whatever to do.
It seems to me, therefore, rather surprising that noble Lords on the other side of the House still remain so biased in favour of this system which they set up to deal with completely different circumstances. I am not in the least complaining that they should have set it up at that time, but they appear to be quite unable to face the fact that those circumstances have entirely altered. Actually, had the decision of Her Majesty's Government been what the noble Lords, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston and Lord Silkin, have to-day advocated, I believe that it would have been far more difficult, with the best will in the world, to hold the balance between military and civil requirements. I hope that it is to the civil use of atomic power rather than to the military use that the eyes of mankind will more and more turn. And yet that is an aspect which I do not think received sufficient emphasis in the speeches from the other side to which we have listened. I am glad that no references were made to-day to the bombs themselves. I did not advert to that subject and do not propose to do so now, because the actual weapons come very much outside the purview of this Bill. They are entirely a matter for the Government, and not for the Authority which it is the purpose of this Bill to set up. It may well be that
516
the time will come when noble Lords in this House will wish, very properly, to discuss that subject, and we shall be happy to meet them when they do; but this is not the right occasion. In the same way, it would not be the right occasion to discuss the Eisenhower Plan. Those types of political problem do not arise on this Bill.
The purpose of this measure, as I explained just now, is purely and simply to transfer the machine for research, development, and pioneering into atomic energy from the Lord President to the Atomic Energy Authority.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: If the noble Marquess will forgive me for interrupting, so that there shall be no misunderstanding on a vital matter, would he explain whether the Ministry of Supply will have a research organisation to guide them in their ordering programme, comparable with the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, which they must have to discharge their function in ordering military aircraft?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think I can go into that now. In fact, I am not equipped to go into the exact machinery which the Ministry of Supply will have, but I do not anticipate that there will be this division, as I said. I should have thought that those who are engaged in the research which will be going on at Aldermarston and places of that kind will keep in the closest contact with the Ministry of Supply. I do not anticipate that that difficulty is likely to arise.
There were a number of questions asked which do come within the purview of this Bill. I will try to answer them. First of all, there was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inch-rye. He asked: Could there be a geological survey of the Commonwealth and Empire both for mineral resources and for raw materials as they affect atomic energy? I can assure the noble Lord that these practical questions are under constant study at the present time, and the extension of Commonwealth co-operation is very much in our minds. That really is the reason for the provisions of the Bill under Clause 2 (2) to which I referred, and which, as the noble Lord will remember, would enable the Authority to carry on its operations outside the United Kingdom.

517
Then there was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, about screening for security purposes. I was glad to hear him say that the great majority of the workers would like these necessary measures, to ensure that unreliable men were not employed in positions of great national importance. I am sure that that is true. I am sure that it will remain true so long as they feel—and I hope they will feel—that every precaution is taken to ensure that justice is done in all cases. That raises a question mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, at the very end of his speech. He said that a final decision with regard to the removal of men would rest with the Lord President. That is quite right and, in my view, should be right. He said that he did not like the existing wording which referred to "political associations" and so on. He mentioned the fact that this matter had been discussed at some length in another place and asked whether the Government had come to any decision yet. I can assure the noble Lord that we are well aware of the difficulty of this particular point. It is still under discussion, and I hope that we shall have an Amendment which we shall be able to put down by the Committee stage. If there is anything I can tell the noble Lord on the subject, I shall be happy to have his collaboration over it.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, made a financial point. He said that the sale of isotopes was likely to increase. I think that is perfectly true. He said it was rather hard that, when one portion of the Atomic Energy's business was going to profit, that profit would have at once to be paid back into the Treasury. I think that the profit will go up but, of course, we must not over-estimate the amount of money involved. It will be an absolute "drop in the bucket" compared with the total expenditure of the Authority. All that expenditure will, ultimately, have to be borne by the Treasury. Therefore, it is a little doubtful whether it would be worth while creating some special plan by which they could keep the profits from this very small, though important, part of their activities. I will certainly pass on what the noble Lord has said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I should not like to give him any assurance that his
518
idea, excellent though it is, will be adopted.
The noble Viscounts, Lord Samuel and Lord Waverley, both spoke of the importance of collaboration between the Authority and industry—certainly the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley did. It is, and of course must be, the policy of the Atomic Energy Authority to disseminate information with regard to the techniques of atomic energy to industry generally, as and when possible. We regard that as one of the most important functions which they will have to perform. As noble Lords know, there are already reactor schools in existence, and a wider and wider measure of collaboration is being built up. I hope that it may be possible to extend these contacts in the fullest practicable measure as conditions allow. I should not like to go further than that to-day, but, as in so many things, the spirit in which one approaches the problem is probably the most important point in solving difficulties. I can assure the House that the Government are most anxious to make progress in that direction.
Then there is the question of negotiations on staff terms and conditions, a matter which I think was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lord, Lord Glyn. I would only say at present that we know that anxiety has been expressed, both here and in another place, as to the future of the staff engaged in this project. The Minister of Works gave an assurance during the Second Reading debate that the Authority's terms would be not less favourable than those enjoyed by the staff in the Civil Service. Since then, these improvements have been discussed in detail on the Departmental Whitley Council, and the staff have been given a good deal of the information as to the probable conditions of employment under the Authority. They have, I understand, expressed themselves as generally satisfied with the way things are going. Of course, a great many points remain to be settled, and these will have to be worked out during the period in which the staff remain seconded civil servants. But I believe there is no reason to suppose that any of the points which remain outstanding will present great difficulty; I think the situation in that respect appears to be most satisfactory.

519
My Lords, in conclusion I would say this. It is of course profoundly true, as was emphasised, I think, by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel and others, that with the discovery of nuclear fission, with all that is implied by that, for good or for ill, a new era is opened for the world. It may be an era of unexampled brilliance for mankind, or it may be an era in which mankind by its own folly puts a termination to its own existence. The possibilities of this era are absolutely infinite. What is to be the final outcome of these tremendous events, beside which I feel that even those great world wars that we have just experienced will soon appear to be mere episodes in the past, we do not yet know; but at any rate I think we can say this: that the purpose of the measure which we are discussing to-day is purely beneficent. Its object is to ensure for mankind generally, and in particular for the people of this country, new sources of power for the supply to industry of such products as isotopes, to which reference has been made, and which have already been used with such success in the treatment of disease—that these new sources shall be secured for the benefit of mankind, and that their production should be largely increased for that purpose. I am certain that this is an object which must appeal to all of us, in whatever part of the House we sit. I am very grateful to all those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate this afternoon. I can assure them that we shall give careful consideration to everything that has been said, and if we can with advantage meet any of the points that have been made, we shall certainly make provision for that in the Committee stage. In the meantime, I hope that the House will now feel ready to approve the Second Reading of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL
6.3 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Exceptions to s. 1 with respect to certain wild birds, nests and eggs
2.—(1) Except in a prescribed area on Sundays, an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence under section one of this Act by reason of the killing or taking of, or an attempt to kill or take, a wild bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act, or by reason of the injuring of such a bird in the course of an attempt to kill it.
(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section one of this Act—
(b) by reason of the taking for the purpose of human consumption or of use as food for poultry, ornamental ducks, ornamental geese or swans, otherwise than from any area which the Secretary of State may by order specify for the purposes of this paragraph, of an egg of a black-headed gull or common gull.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, in subsection (1), after "Except," to insert: "in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day or." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Haddington, who desires me to apologise to your Lordships for being unable to be present to-day. This Amendment is one which the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, has very much at heart. Its purpose is to insert the words "in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day or" at the prescribed place in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, will be able to accept the Amendment, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, after ("Except") insert ("in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day or").—(Viscount Elibank.)
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, when the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, moved this and the three following Amendments in Committee, they ranged a good deal wider, and I would address the first part of my answer briefly to Amendments 1 and 2. The effect of these Amendments, with the consequential Amendment at page 2, line 24, is as the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has already sketched. As this proposition is

521
very different from the one moved in Committee, which would have applied the provision uniformly to Britain, I can say as regards these two Amendments that I have much pleasure in accepting them. As we are considering all these four Amendments together, however, may I now address myself to Amendments Numbers 3 and 4. There is a little more to be said under this heading. These Amendments would make it an offence to do in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day any of the things which are permitted at present by subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 2—in other words, bird's-nesting or destroying the nest or eggs of Schedule II birds, or taking the eggs of ducks, geese or swans for hatching, or gulls' eggs for human consumption or food for poultry or ornamental water fowl.
The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, put forward his views very clearly on the Committee stage. To give your Lordships an idea of the present position in this country, I may say that the taking or destroying of eggs of any wild birds on Sundays is prohibited by local order in twenty-eight Scottish counties and is permissible only in five. When we debated this matter before, I said that wherever the Sabbath was concerned I leaned strongly towards the view that local option should always be exercised. As the law now stands, however, it is a case of twenty-eight Scottish counties prohibiting and only five permitting; therefore it is virtually a matter of the status quo. There is, of course, a case on the other side: that there is a clear distinction between shooting and taking eggs, and this might be regarded as one more vexatious restriction. However, in view of the arguments which I have just put forward and of those we heard at an earlier stage, and also having regard to what the noble Viscount has just said, I am prepared to accede to these two Amendments as well.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, will be also. I understand that the noble Lord has accepted all four Amendments, and I express to him my gratitude for having met us so generously on this point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, after ("Except") insert ("in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day or").—(Viscount Elibank.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, at beginning insert ("Except in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day,").—(Viscount Elibank.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, at beginning insert ("Except in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day,").—(Viscount Elibank.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.9 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, to add to subsection (4):
"or (c) by reason of the taking or destruction of an egg of a lapwing before the fifteenth day of April in any year."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 standing in his name. My noble and learned friend has asked me to convey to the House his sincere regret for absence. He is concerned to-night with some public function in London, and he has found it impossible to avoid the appointment. I hope your Lordships will accept his regrets. On the Committee stage of the Bill my noble and learned friend expressed great concern for the lapwing, which he said was gradually disappearing, or at any rate was being reduced in numbers. He was also somewhat concerned about the proposal that the eggs of the lapwing should be sacrosanct during the whole of the year instead of a portion of the year. He suggested that protection should be given only from April 15 which would leave the eggs available for gathering in the earlier part of the year. My noble and learned friend made a suggestion to the noble Lord opposite that inquiries should be made as to the position in Holland. He was under the impression that the Dutch Government had resisted proposals to bring the eggs of the lapwing under full protection for the whole of the year, but had decided to grant them protection from, I think, April 19 in any given year. The noble Lord opposite kindly undertook to make those inquiries, but suggested that, in view of the circumstances, it would be well if my noble and learned friend were to withdraw the Amendment

523
at that stage and put it down at this stage. I understand that, in the meantime, there have been discussions and that the Amendments now standing in the name of my noble and learned friend will be accepted. I want to express on his behalf, and on behalf of noble Lords sitting on the Benches behind me, grateful thanks for the way in which we have been met. With regard to the subsequent Amendments I will move them briefly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, at end insert:
("or (c) by reason of the taking or destruction of an egg of a lapwing before the fifteenth day of April in any year.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
6.10 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, anyone who was present during the Committee stage when we discussed the lapwing must have realised how strongly Members of the House feel about the disappearance of this splendid bird. I had a considerable discussion with the noble and learned Earl on the subject. I took a different view from that which he took. There was a considerable clash of material evidence, and I undertook to the House and to the noble and learned Earl that I would ascertain facts from Holland. I felt that I could do no more—and certainly I could do no less—in fairness to the noble and learned Earl and to the whole House. I received back from the learned Dutch ornithologists a good deal of evidence with which I will not trouble your Lordships this evening. I will only say that I considered that evidence carefully, and I came to the conclusion that there is a certain area in the study of any bird which will defy the most accurate human analysis. One can take percentages, and one can take all kinds of observations and have them tabulated, but there is always a certain area of the unknown. Therefore I am prepared to accede to the noble and learned Earl's Amendment and to agree that we should give this a five-year experimental run. My noble friend, Lord Lloyd, at an appropriate stage later will give a Government undertaking on that particular head. I trust that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has just said, but I hope the Government will consider whether five
524
years is long enough for a test. I think there is a great deal to be said for a ten-year test. I agreed with every word that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said when he moved his Amendment on this matter in Committee. I remember at the time the original Act was passed an old keeper in the country prophesying exactly what would happen, and for the reasons which Lord Jowitt gave. I believe we are now dealing with a most unfortunate piece of legislation which was thoroughly beneficent and well-meaning in its intention but had a diametrically opposite effect to that which was intended. I only ask my noble friends to consider whether five years is long enough to give what I agree ought to be an experiment a sufficient trial. After all, the plover has been reduced in numbers, we have already lost the Spring of 1954, and I shall be surprised if we see any appreciable difference for at least three or four years. If once we got the birds breeding again we might then get a real increase So I hope that my noble friend will consider whether some longer period for experiment cannot be given.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to support that plea, and for this reason. To my mind there ought to be a testing period sufficiently long to contain at least one or two, and if possible more, favourable years. For that reason I think the period should be at least ten years.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I support what has been said by the two noble Lords who have just spoken. I wonder how the period of five years was decided upon. Surely a little longer would be helpful.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, perhaps it would be useful if I gave the Government's views at this stage of your discussion. If your Lordships will look at the Amendment to an Amendment which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is moving you will see that the noble and learned Earl there has tried to put a date to the period. My view is that we should be very unwise to put a specific date to the period either way. The Government feel that this should be a five-year experiment in the first instance; but if the experiment were shown to be disastrously wrong it would be unfortunate to be tied completely and not be able to protect birds any earlier in the way that they are

525
at present protected. The general opinion is that this particular provision will increase the number of plovers. As my noble friend, Lord Tweedsmuir, has said, there is an area of doubt which is not susceptible to analysis. Therefore, my view is that we should initially set out to have a five-year experimental period, but that we should not tie ourselves rigidly by putting a specific date in the Bill. I give an assurance that we will have a five-year experimental period. If that is later considered not to have been enough we are not tied; it will be possible to have longer if my right honourable friend, after having consulted his Advisory Committees—as he will be bound to do—comes to the conclusion that a longer period will be necessary. But, as I have said, I think that in the first instance a five-year period would be about right and it would be a pity to put a specific date in the Bill. I think the matter should be left to my right honourable friend in conjunction with the Advisory Committees.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I gather from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that he is personally of the opinion that it would be wrong to put in the Bill a period of five years. I did not gather that the undertaking he gave was an undertaking on the part of the Minister. I should like to know whether the undertaking which he is now offering is a firm undertaking from the Minister and not merely an expression of his own opinion.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I meant to say quite clearly that this is an undertaking on behalf of the Government. We will give this a five-year experimental period, but I think it would be a pity, for the reasons I have given, to put a specific date in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("(a) Scotland; and").—(Viscount Elibank.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power to establish bird sanctuaries]:
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the next five Amendments are all consequential and I beg to move them on behalf of my noble friend, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 26, leave out ("(i)").
Page 3, line 27, after ("offence") insert ("(i)").
Page 3, line 31, after first ("or") insert ("(ii)").
Page 3, line 32, after ("or") insert ("(iii)").
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("(ii)") and insert ("or
(iv) by reason of the taking or destruction of an egg of a lapwing before the fifteenth day of April in any year;
and").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5:
Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds
5.—(1) If, save as may be authorised by a licence granted under section ten of this Act, any person—
(d) uses for the purpose of killing any wild bird a shot-gun capable in the condition in which it is used of firing more than two cartridges without re-loading, or of which the barrel has an internal diameter at the muzzle of more than one and three-quarter inches; or
he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and be liable to a special penalty:
6.20 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1) (d), to leave out all words after "shot-gun" down to and including the word "or," where that word next appears. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved this Amendment, on the last occasion when the Bill was before you, largely as a question of principle. The Bill seeks to forbid the killing of any wild bird with a gun which can fire more than two cartridges without reloading. What I seek to delete from this subsection is just that particular provision. My Amendment retains the provision which limits the diameter of the muzzle of any gun. I do that because it is, as I say, a matter of principle. This Bill is a measure for the protection of birds, and it is quite right to limit the size of the gun with which birds are shot, but not, I think, right to limit their shooting to one kind of 12-bore gun rather than another. The

527
Bill leaves it possible to shoot birds of any kind with three double-barrelled guns and with two loaders to help. That gives a very effective fire, especially if one is trained. The provision is not covered by the Title of the Bill and is not really for the protection of birds. One reason why I wish to retain the power to use this re-loading gun is because a third barrel is of the greatest possible value in saving a shot from sending birds away wounded. I do not think I am different from other noble Lords, and sending away a wounded animal on a day's shoot is a nightmare to me. That third barrel saves me in many cases, especially when I am not shooting so well as I might. It saves perhaps two-thirds of the birds which otherwise might be wounded. Another reason is that many of us are very shorthanded and have the duty of killing vermin like rabbits and pigeons, and I do not know of any better weapon for the purpose than this kind of gun. But the principal reason for my Amendment is that the prohibition which I seek to omit is not covered by the Title of the Bill and, therefore, ought not to find a place in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, leave out from ("shot-gun") to ("of") in line 37.—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, moved his Amendment on Committee stage, it covered the punt gun too. He has now altered his Amendment to limit it to the repeating shot-gun. He has developed his case to-day and his horror of wounding birds is something which we all share—I think all true sportsmen do. He has stressed the need of killing vermin and that in this he finds this gun a useful instrument. The noble Lord will realise that a certain number of people have great apprehension about what is done with these guns when in the hands of unscrupulous men, instead of in the hands of men of high principle and high sporting code. To some extent I share that apprehension. In the discussion on Committee stage there were noble Lords who supported the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I have taken a second look at this Amendment, as I promised, and so far as I can discover there are not many of these repeating shotguns in
528
this country. By accepting this Amendment the status quo is maintained, and although I have some slight misgivings as to what may be done about these guns in unscrupulous hands, I will accede to his Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for accepting my Amendment. Perhaps I may quiet his apprehension by saying that the late Duke of Rutland, a good shot, who could fire a gun as quickly as any man I have known, could never do one half the things which in story can supposedly be done by this gun.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on one moved by the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, on Committee stage. The noble Earl's Amendment inserted a new subsection (2) in Clause 5 enabling the Secretary of State to make local orders prohibiting or restricting the use of decoys for the shooting of geese. Owing to an oversight, this subsection does not provide any penalty, and this Amendment makes good that omission by providing that the penalty for offences under any such order, like the penalties for any other offences under Clause 5, shall be the special penalty, provided by Clause 12 (2) (a). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, at end insert ("and any person who contravenes any such order shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and be liable to a special penalty.").—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Restrictions on sale of live and dead wild birds, eggs, etc.]:
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 25, at end insert—
("(iii) in the case of an egg of a lapwing, at any time before the fifteenth day of April in any year").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Restrictions on importation of certain wild birds and eggs]:
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 45, after ("or") insert ("on or after the fifteenth day of April in any year").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Power to vary Schedules by Order]:
LORD TWEEDSMUIR LORD TWEEDSMUIR moved to add to the clause:
"(4) The Secretary of State may by order declare that as from such date as may be specified in the order the following provisions of this Act shall cease to have effect, that is to say—

(a) paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of section two;

(b) paragraph (iv) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section three;

(c) paragraph (iii) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section six; and

(d) in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section seven, the words 'on or after the fifteenth day of April in any year'."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a matter of the importation of lapwing's eggs before April 15 being considered under the question of the experimental period. This further Amendment will allow the Secretary of State to bring the provision in question to an end if the experiment shows that the taking of the first clutch of lapwing's eggs is harmful to them. Without the Amendment, the provision can be brought to an end only by a further Act of Parliament. The Secretary of State's order for this purpose will, of course, be subject to the procedure required under Clause 13, which lays down that before making an order he shall consult the Advisory Committee and give the public an opportunity for objection. The Amendment allows the Secretary of State to make an order at any time. It does not seem desirable to prevent him from making an order until some fixed period of years has elapsed, because it might become clear in as short a period of time as a year or two that the results of the experiment were disastrous. In the absence of anything unexpected happening in this way, however, the intention is that the experiments will continue, at any rate for five years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt had down an Amendment to this Amendment,
530
but in view of the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, earlier on, I do not propose to move it. Perhaps I ought to say this, however. The reason why my noble and learned friend put down this Amendment was because of the demand frequently made by noble Lords opposite when they were in Opposition. Frequently we objected to the inclusion of a date in a Bill, only to be met by the demand, "Put it in the Bill."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Interpretation]:
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, the House will remember that in Committee an Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, was inserted in Clause 14, defining a game bird. In the absence of the noble Lord, I moved the Amendment, the effect of which was to apply Clause 5, and consequently Clause 10, to game birds. On consideration, it seems that Clause 12 should also be applied consequentially. Subsection 1 (b) of that clause allows the police to seize and detain for the purpose of proceedings any wild bird in the possession of a person found committing an offence under the Bill. Since it may be necessary to produce the bird in evidence, it is desirable that the police should have this power in respect of game birds which are the subject of an offence under Clause 5. This Amendment is designed to meet the point.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 1, leave out ("and ten") and insert ("ten and twelve").—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule [Wild birds and their eggs protected by special penalties]:
Part I: At all times.
Part II: During close season.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, this Amendment and the next meet a grammatical point raised by my noble friend Lord Elibank. They merely instance that handsome bird under the name of "stone curlew," instead of "curlew, stone." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 16, first column, leave out ("Curlew, stone").—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for having acceded

531
to the request I made to him at the very last moment. Although he seemed to treat it lightly, it is, as he knows, a point of great substance. I am grateful to him for having accepted my suggestion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 20, second column, after ("Stint, Temminck's") insert ("Stone curlew").—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved to add to Part I, "Kingfisher." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it will be in the recollection of your Lordships that a discussion took place in Committee when I moved this Amendment. During the debate quite a number of your Lordships gave expression to your views, and I think I can fairly say that the consensus of opinion was that the Amendment should be accepted. At the end of the discussion the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, made a suggestion, which was acceded to by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, that between the Committee and Report stages the matter should be reconsidered, in order to ascertain whether an Amendment could be accepted on the Report stage to include the kingfisher in the First Schedule. I said that I hoped that a satisfactory settlement would be arrived at on the Report stage. I appreciate the views of the owners of trout hatcheries and, on the other hand, the views of those of us who have the interests of our feathered friends at heart. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, will give us the benefit of his reflections since the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 28, first column, after ("Hoopoe") insert ("Kingfisher").—(Viscount Elibank.)
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, in accordance with the undertaking that I gave to the Committee, I have looked carefully into the question of the kingfisher. I believe that one of the reasons why there was a strong sentiment towards putting the kingfisher in the First Schedule was disgust at the idea that anyone should wantonly shoot any of
532
these beautiful birds, and a wish to penalise him as heavily as possible. That is not really the canon for inclusion in the First Schedule. The canon is rarity, and by no standards can the kingfisher, beautiful as he is—which is not really relevant—be regarded as a rare bird in England, though when you get far north in Scotland he becomes very rare, and finally disappears.
I have looked carefully into the whole question of the damage done by this bird, and there is nothing mutually exclusive about a bird being of great beauty and at the same time in certain circumstances extremely harmful. There are about twenty-four proprietors of trout and other fish hatcheries in this country. They make their livelihood by this means. So far as protecting their stock from birds is concerned, they think they should receive protection in the same sort of equation as the market gardener and the fruit grower. We have taken steps to see that the market gardener and fruit grower shall not be prejudiced by the depredations of any bird, however beautiful. I took the trouble to acquire figures from one of these farms to show the damage that the kingfisher can do. I am informed that last year there was a case in Hertfordshire where kingfishers cleaned out a pond containing 20,000 rainbow trout fry. That represented quite a lot of money, the loss of which would have a prejudicial effect upon the owner of that farm.
Trout farms are not easily netted in to keep the kingfishers out: in fact, they vary from about half an acre to anything up to ten acres. The fish are not safe until they have achieved the length they achieve after about a year's growth, and the ponds in which they are kept may be anything from twenty to 100 yards long. It was suggested during the Committee stage that, rather than give the owners of such places the right to protect their stock against the kingfisher, the kingfisher might be inserted in the First Schedule and a special system of licensing established for trout farmers to protect themselves. If we license trout farmers to protect themselves, just where do we stop? There are a great many trout streams in the South of England—I can think of one or two chalk streams—which are very shallow in places, and where, it may be, the kingfisher does a great deal of harm at certain times and

533
seasons. Also, it may be that that particular piece of fishing has a considerable capital value, so the damage done in terms of money is by no means negligible. I strongly urge on the noble Viscount, who moved the Amendment with such force and such sympathy, to consider what I have said, and I would ask him not to press the Amendment, but rather to leave the kingfisher where he is, receiving, as I esteem it, the ample protection of the Bill in the part where he now resides, and allow those whose livelihoods are prejudiced by the occasional depredations of the kingfisher to protect themselves under the provisions of the Bill as they stand.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, as I supported the Amendment on the Committee stage, I feel that I ought to tell your Lordships that the debate on that occasion convinced me that I was wrong, and I am now on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir. I would only add this. This Bill has one disadvantage which I hate about all legislation—namely, that it will be operative only in so far as it has the good will of the people who have to make it effective. I think it would be a bad way to try to obtain this good will if we arouse the hostility of people who have legitimate business with trout farms.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir. Since the Committee stage I, too, have been in touch with a number of trout farms. I should like to quote to your Lordships one story from a big hatchery on a well-known river in the south of England where there were a large number of small fry which were disappearing at an alarming rate. The water bailiff failed to find any holes in the net which he had put over the pond, but eventually he got there one morning at half-past three, and he found forty kingfishers inside the net. They had burrowed in—so that he had not found a hole—and had cleared the pond. This First Schedule, as I understand it, is for the purpose of protecting rare birds; if we are going to be sentimental—which is what we shall be, if we add the kingfisher to this Schedule—and add a bird merely because it happens to be the most beautiful bird in England, I feel that we shall be making a great mistake. The kingfisher has survived quite satisfactorily
534
without any form of protection and, from the information that I can gather, is on the increase. With the additional protection that he will get, in any event, under this Bill, I am sure he will survive quite well.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am glad that I put down the Amendment, because it has had some illuminating results. We have now had from the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, and the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, a number of facts of which I feel sure some noble Lords were not previously aware. The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, has appealed to me to withdraw the Amendment. It is clear that if this Amendment were passed and the kingfisher were included in the First Schedule it would open up in another place an entirely new situation. It might have the result of imperilling the passage of this Bill, which we all desire to see on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment, both because of its excellence and because of the skilful manner in which the noble Lady, Lady Tweedsmuir piloted it through another place, and the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, has piloted it through this House. In view of all those facts, and in view of the new facts which have been submitted to us to-day, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved to add to Part I, "Whimbrel." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Haddington. When this Amendment came before the Committee I was somewhat at a disadvantage, in that I had seen the Amendment on the Order Paper for the first time only a few minutes before. The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, in withdrawing his name from the Amendment, said that the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, was entirely correct when he suggested that the whimbrel and the curlew went together. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, certainly did not think the two went together; and neither did I. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, did not think that there was any need to identify the whimbrel and the

535
curlew together, and he went on to say that the suggestion that nobody could tell the difference between the two very much surprised him. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, also said that it surprised him, and I think it would surprise anyone who knows the curlew and the whimbrel to say that they are the same bird and have identical looks. As the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, believes (I am not sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, would not have taken the same view, although I do not wish to bind him) the whimbrel is a rarer bird than the curlew, he thinks it ought to have full protection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 28, second column, after ("Warbler, marsh") insert ("Whimbrel").—(Viscount Elibank.)
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I find myself in some slight disagreement with the noble Viscount who has moved this Amendment. I see as an objection the fact that the whimbrel so closely resembles the curlew. The noble Viscount has cited a number of authorities in this House to show that there is no real danger of a clash. If you are wildfowling, you are generally shooting birds in a poor light. You are doing exactly what we did in the war with enemy aircraft—identifying them by silhouette. I do not say that a great ornithologist could not tell the difference a considerable way off, but what I am saying is that the average man who has a gun in his hand, and who is in a place where he may see a curlew or a whimbrel, has not the knowledge to tell them apart immediately. We do not try to make laws merely for experts; we usually try to make laws which are enforceable, and which the ordinary man can understand and obey. I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with the noble Viscount on that point, but I would ask him if he can see his way not to press this Amendment.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, as one who on the Committee stage spoke on an Amendment with regard to the curlew, which was accepted, I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed, because I think it would put the wildfowler in a very difficult position; and if the curlew can be shot the whimbrel should be in the same category.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, and the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, have said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, was not able to be here to-day, and he asked me to move the three Amendments standing in his name. I have not had an opportunity of considering the subject very carefully, but to my mind the rarer of the three birds dealt with is the brambling. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, will accept the inclusion of that bird in the First Schedule, even if he cannot accept all three birds mentioned in this series of Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 33, before ("Godwit, black-tailed") insert ("Brambling").—(Lord Gifford.)
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, the purpose of this series of Amendments is to seek protection and encouragement for these three birds who, at different times over the last twenty years, have made attempts to nest in Scotland. As your Lordships probably know, the brambling is a good deal less common than the redwing and the fieldfare. Perhaps I am rather biased on the subject of the fieldfare, because I happen to live in that part of Scotland which is the point of departure for a great myriad of fieldfare who cross that stretch of salt water to the Northern countries once a year. There is no doubt that the fieldfare and redwing at that season of the year are in this country in great abundance. Again, there is a good deal of clash of evidence on their having bred. But they have attempted occasionally to breed, and we wish, if it is possible, to encourage them.
I have a certain amount of misgiving on the Amendments generally, and for this reason. These birds, under the provisions in which they appeared in the Bill before, had complete protection, albeit the penalty was only one of £5. By moving into the ambit of Part II of the First Schedule, they now receive what one might call five times the protection in the close season and no protection at all in the open season, which is the

537
season when they are here in good numbers and become a bird which may be shot. This is rather a recondite ornithological point. We all wish to encourage these birds to breed here if they will. They cannot be described as really rare, but the brambling is a good deal less common than the others and requires every possible encouragement and protection that we can give it. Therefore, if the noble Lord would see his way not to move the Amendments regarding the fieldfare and redwing, I should be happy to accept the brambling.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer. I will not move my Amendments, Nos. 23 and 24, with regard to the fieldfare and the redwing.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I beg to move the last Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Since the moorhen, as a result of the debate we had last week, graduated to the "rogues' gallery," it is reasonable and consequential that he should be removed from the Third Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 24, leave out ("Moorhen").— (Lord Tweedsmuir.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CREWE CORPORATION BILL
Reported, without amendment.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.