Lords Sitting of 2 December 1958

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the Clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, it is my duty to notify your Lordships that I have received the following letter, from Sir Francis Lascelles:
"DEAR LORD CHANCELLOR,
"It is my duty to ask your Lordship to announce to the House that I have tendered to the Prime Minister my resignation from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments as from the 31st December.
"I shall then have been in the service of the House for forty years, for twenty of which I shall have held a post at the Table.
"It has been a privilege and honour to me to serve the House, and I would ask your Lordship to express to the House my deep appreciation of the kindness and consideration which I have received.
"Yours sincerely,
FRANCIS W. LASCELLES."
It is my further duty to notify your Lordships that Her Majesty The Queen has been pleased to appoint Mr. Victor Martin Reeves Goodman, C.B., O.B.E., M.G., to succeed Sir Francis from that date.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): Your Lordships, I am sure, have heard of Sir Francis Lascelles's retirement with the greatest regret and will wish to express to him your appreciation of his long and distinguished service to this House. I propose, therefore, as our best course, and one which is in accordance with precedent, to put down on the Order Paper a Resolution in appropriate terms for the first day after the Christmas Recess, when also the new Clerk of the Parliaments will be sworn in.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged. I entirely concur.

NAVY'S GUIDED-MISSILE SHIPS
2.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: 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 any of the four guided-missile destroyers—or light cruisers—mentioned in the Navy Estimates for 1956–57 have yet been laid down, and by what date it is anticipated that all four will have joined the Active Fleet.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I am afraid cannot at present add to what I said in my explanatory statement on the current year's Navy Estimates. These four ships have been ordered and I expect them to be in service in the early 1960s.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer to my Question, which I suppose is the official way of saying that he does not know. If I might ask a further question, could he say whether it is the weapons or the ships themselves that are causing this delay?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am always willing to help the noble Earl when I can, but I do not necessarily feel obliged to reveal in public everything I know. I do not think the noble Earl should under-estimate the considerable development which these ships represent. They are the first anti-aircraft missile ships to be built. As the noble Earl is fully aware, the weapons have been under trial for some time, and I am glad to say that the trials have been remarkably successful. I do not think one can blame either one side or the other. This is a new development which is bound to take time, and I think it would be foolish to try unduly to expedite it.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether this represents the sum total of new construction for the Royal Navy?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Earl may be interested to know that we shall this year have received into service six frigates and three submarines,

979
and have on order or under current construction fifty-eight ships of one kind and another.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Earl has told us a number of things, but he has not answered the simple question: when will these four ships be ready?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I have endeavoured to explain to the noble Viscount that I am not at present willing to give dates as to when, in fact, they will be ready.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is the First Lord really seized of the great anxiety felt in many circles in this country, especially those who appreciate the importance of our overseas trade, at the rapid reduction of the numbers of ships in commission and active? Aircraft carriers in commission have been reduced from 8 in 1950 to 3 in 1958; the cruisers in commission and active have been reduced from 14 in 1950 to 3 in 1958. When are we going to have a "Stop" sign set up to finish getting rid of the Royal Navy?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I fully appreciate the noble Viscount's question, and I think I am seized of what he is endeavouring to say. It lies a little outside the Question on the Paper, and I think he will agree that it would be better dealt with by a general debate on some other occasion. I should be very happy if the noble Viscount would like to put down a Motion. I appreciate what he has said, and I have endeavoured on previous occasions to explain the general plan to which I am working. I do not want to recapitulate that to-day. However, we are under no illusion about the important part that naval power plays to-day, and, in our opinion, will continue to play.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged for that statement and I am sure that the noble Earl is sincere. But does this mean that there is not agreement on the part of the Government on the fact? Is it the Treasury or the Ministry of Defence which is holding up the proper maintenance of the Royal Navy?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I do not consider there is any disagree-
980
meat at all. What I have said, I have said on behalf of Her Majesty's Government; and Her Majesty's Government, so far as I know, are fully in agreement with what I have said.

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS (LICENSING AND INSURANCE) BILL [H.L.]
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Licensing of sites for nuclear installations
(3) A nuclear site licence shall not be granted to any person other than a body corporate and shall not be transferable, and the Minister may at any time by instrument in writing—

(a) attach to the licence such conditions as he may in the interests of safety think fit, including, in particular, conditions—

(i) for securing the maintenance of an efficient system for detecting and recording the presence and intensity of any ionising radiations from time to time emitted from anything on the site or from anything discharged on or from the site;

(ii) with respect to the design, siting, construction, installation, operation, modification and maintenance of any plant or other installation on, or to be installed on, the site;

(iii) subject to the next following subsection, with respect to the discharge of any substance on or from the site;

(b) vary or revoke any condition for the time being attached to the licence.

(4) Subsection (4) of section five of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954 (which makes temporary provision with respect to the discharge of waste on or from premises occupied by the Authority) shall apply to any licensed site as it applies to such premises as aforesaid; and accordingly references in the penultimate paragraph of the said subsection (4) to the Authority and to their duty under subsection (3) of the said section five shall be construed as including respectively references to a licensee and to his duty under subsection (1) of section three of this Act.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "A nuclear site licence" and insert:
"The Minister may, after consultation with the Atomic Energy Authority, grant such nuclear site licences as may in each case be prescribed. Such licences".

981
The noble Lord said: The first Amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friends and myself, really goes to the heart of the matter, and perhaps it would be appropriate if we looked at this part of the Bill rather more widely than the Amendment, on the face of it, indicates. I trust that the Minister and your Lordships will grant me your indulgence if the amateur drafting of this Amendment does not legally hold water. All I ask is that we may consider the principle which is therein contained; then, if it finds favour with your Lordships, we can put it into proper shape later.
The reason for this Amendment is that we feel, after the closest consideration, that the Bill which is put before us is not called for in circumstances such as they are to-day. This is not a discussion as to the advantages of State enterprise or of private enterprise: there are some people who in all circumstances favour one form and others who prefer the other. I always feel that there are some forms of activity which can be best conducted by public authorities of various kinds and some forms of activity which are best left to private enterprise. But it seems to me that, in the existing circumstances and in the present state of our knowledge of the development and use of nuclear energy, there is no case at present for the Minister to take powers (and, if I may say so with great respect, I do not think he has made a case for taking powers) to grant licences to undertakers to use nuclear power, because no such undertakers are appearing in any number.
I want to ask the Minister whether he will tell us to-day how many establishments which would require a licence as defined in this Bill do, in fact, exist. If I understood him aright, or my information is correct (and I am not sure that it is), there is only one. That one is at Aldermaston, and I am told—although I do not know how true it is—that it is the property of a company called Associated Electrical Industries, Limited. If that is so, it has been established—and presumably it has been legally established—and therefore this Bill was not needed in order to set up the research establishment belonging to this important company. Nor can I see that any such Bill is required at the present time to allow other such establishments, if otherwise justified, to be set up. If, under the law
982
as it now stands, the Minister is able to permit the establishment of this particular station, he could, if the reasons were sufficient and the public need demanded it, allow other such establishments to be set up.
I have been looking at the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, and I assume (perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm this when he replies on this Amendment) that this place at Aldermaston has been established under that Act. I see that under Section 2 (2) (e) one of the functions of the Atomic Energy Authority, which was set up by the Act, is:
"to make arrangements with universities and other institutions or persons for the conduct of research into matters connected with atomic energy and radio-active substances and, with the approval of the Lord President of the Council and the Treasury, to make grants or loans to universities or other institutions or persons engaged in the production or use of atomic energy or radio-active substances"—
just the sort of uses that are envisaged in the powers which the Minister is now seeking in regard to the grant of licences. If we had reached a point where private development and undertakers all over the country were seeking to use atomic energy in their sundry occupations, then some such Bill as this would be called for. But that is not the case. We are at the present time at the beginning of the nuclear age. There is so much that we do not know, and there are so many hazards which we have not yet measured. The Report by the Medical Research Council—The Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations—repays careful study and very serious thought.
The accident at Windscale revealed a very serious state of affairs. The Medical Research Council, with all the information at their disposal and speaking with a sense of the utmost responsibility, have told us some disturbing things not only about the possible results of that accident but also about the possibility of far-reaching, long-lasting and slow-developing effects upon human beings and animals, and upon generations yet unborn, from accidents in the use of atomic energy. These things have to be embraced and we have to go forward, but the time has certainly not come for wide-scale licensing of private enterprise in the use of nuclear energy. Whatever is required at the present time by the needs of science and in the cause of scientific progress—and

983
atomic energy may well in time prove to be one of the greatest beneficial discoveries that man has ever made—it is a dangerous thing, and I think that it would be wise if we were to confine the powers of licensing to those already granted in the Atomic Energy Act, 1946, and the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954. All that the Minister wants to do can be done under their provisions.
One thing those Acts do not provide, and I suppose that this is the object of the Bill. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to answer this question. Is this Bill brought forward merely in order to provide an escape to private users from the financial liabilities for accidents to persons and property? Is this Bill brought forward merely in order to give them a legal instrument which will enable them to sub-let their responsibility to the insurance companies and limit their liabilities to the sum of £5 million and to the period stated in the Bill, when, in fact, we know that there is no means of measuring to-day the possibility of damage, nor is it possible to estimate how many years will elapse between an accident and the emergence of the grave consequences of it. According to the Medical Research Council, some of these accidents will take twenty years to show their effects.
In my view it is quite improper at this stage to seek to limit by an overriding Statute like this the Common Law liabilities of those who are using nuclear installations. Nor can we evade the underlying basic responsibility of the community to the victims of accident in this kind of development. In my view it is quite wrong to contract out of these fundamental liabilities at this stage of the development of atomic energy. So we have put down this Amendment in the hope of calling attention to this fundamental and grave reason why the Bill should not go forward and, if some new legislation is required, to limit the Minister's powers to laying an Order before Parliament. In the Amendment we have used the word "prescribed", because in the Bill "prescribed" is defined as meaning that an Order shall be laid before Parliament in each case so that Parliament is enabled to go into the circumstances which make it necessary to go further than the Atomic Energy Act and
984
the Atomic Energy Authority Act and relieve the private undertaker of the responsibility which the Atomic Energy Authority now carries. It would seem that such cases must be relatively few; that in their very nature they must be exceptional and peculiar, and that, before Parliament is entitled to involve private citizens in these grave and extra risks and lift these liabilities from the shoulders of those who ought to bear them, it ought to know the facts.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("A nuclear site licence") and insert ("The Minister may, after consultation with the Atomic Energy Authority, grant such nuclear site licences as may in each case be prescribed. Such licences").—(Lord Wilmot of Selmeston.)
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): I listened attentively to the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, because was interested to hear that at the beginning of his speech he challenged the principle of this Bill. He said that the Bill was uncalled for and that it was not a question of State enterprise versus private enterprise. But after that, in every word he said—or so it seemed to me—he enlarged upon the fact that we are seeking to protect private enterprise and limit their liabilities, both in amount and in time. With all respect to the noble Lord, nothing could be further from the truth. As I said on Second Reading, the noble Lord himself played a great part in the nationalisation of some of our industries; and in this industry, the electric supply industry, we have looked upon the object of nationalisation as not only to coordinate the supply industry but also to provide efficient businesses capable of serving the State and the community. Therefore, it has been our endeavour to do all we can to facilitate their operations.
Further, we have always tried to look ahead in matters with which this Government have dealt and not wait until events overtook us. We have six nuclear power stations under construction or planned by the electric supply industry, and there is one small reactor in existence, operated, as the noble Lord rightly said, by Associated Electrical Industries. What we are seeking to do is not to add to the risks that people run but to safeguard them from risk by laying down conditions under which atomic power stations should be operated and by seeing that in the event of any damage resulting from

985
their operations, people get proper compensation.
We have felt it wise to say that every operator shall be covered to enable him to meet compensation arising from damage, and we have thought it right—and I make no apology for it—to use that great British enterprise, the insurance market, in order to enable such cover to be provided, though there are alternatives. So much for the principle: that is, to enable everybody who operates an atomic reactor to take proper cover and to be fully liable for any happenings from that reactor, subject only to the limit of £5 million in any one case—a matter which we shall no doubt discuss upon a later Amendment.
I should like now to deal with this particular Amendment. The effect of the Amendment would be to require the Minister to consult the Atomic Energy Authority in each case before granting a licence. It is undesirable, I suggest, to tie the Minister's hands in this way. At the start of the licensing system the Atomic Energy Authority will certainly be consulted, and there will be the closest possible liaison between the Authority and the inspectorate appointed under the Bill. But the Authority is essentially a research and development organisation, whereas the inspectorate will be concerned with licensing commercial-type reactors. The paths of the two organisations may therefore diverge as time goes on. Consultation on the general principles of safety will naturally continue, but eventually there should be no need to consult the Authority on every application for a licence.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONCould we not have the Bill then?
LORD MILLS: I suggest that we must have the Bill now, so that men are properly trained and everything is done by the time the reactors begin to operate. As I was saying, consultation on the general principles of safety will naturally continue, but eventually there should be no need to consult the Authority on every application for a licence to build a reactor of a well-known type. A statutory obligation to consult them in such cases would be an unnecessary burden on the Minister and on the Authority.
The second effect of the Amendment would be to require the form of licence
986
to be prescribed in each case—and I use the term "prescribed" in exactly the way the noble Lord outlined. "Prescribed" must be taken to have here the meaning assigned to it by Clause 9 (1) of the Bill; that is to say, prescribed by statutory instrument made jointly by the Minister of Power and the Secretary of State. This would be an exceedingly cumbrous procedure. The conditions of a licence will be highly technical. They are, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, essentially matters which fall within a Minister's executive responsibility, and he will be advised on them by his own inspectorate; by the Nuclear Advisory Safety Committee, which as I announced in the debate on Second Reading of the Bill it is intended to appoint; and by the Atomic Energy Authority, at least in the early stages of the work. There is nothing to be gained by bringing these detailed technical matters before Parliament. Indeed, there might be an undesirable loss of flexibility, because the Bill states that the conditions applied to a licence may be varied at any time. If experience should prove that such a variation was necessary, it might need to be done at once, without waiting until a statutory instrument could be amended. For these reasons, I cannot accept the Amendment.
3.5 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I do not propose to discuss the principle of this Bill, because I take it that by passing the Second Reading your Lordships have accepted it, whether we like it or not. I want to confine myself to this Amendment, but with your Lordships' permission, I should like to say a word or two about the second Amendment, which really goes with the first. At the outset of his remarks my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston apologised in advance for the possible weakness of the drafting of the Amendment, and I should like to reiterate that statement in regard to the drafting of all of them. We on this side are in great difficulty when it comes to drafting; we have no assistance whatever, and have to do our best burning the midnight oil. It would be strange indeed if our Amendments were watertight. The noble Lord is entitled to make what capital he likes out of that, but I hope he will not treat us too roughly in dealing with any defects in drafting.

987
The purpose of the first Amendment is simply that in embarking on the unknown, as we are to-day, not knowing what is in the Minister's mind, and he possibly not knowing what his proposals are going to be; not knowing whether it is proposed to grant licences to a few individual undertakings in the course of a year, or to scores of undertakings, or to what kind of undertakings (we have no idea of that, and certainly none has been disclosed to us) we felt it right that Parliament should be informed of each proposed licence, so that Parliament could say, "Yes" or "No". That is all Parliament can do; it cannot revise the licence or make amendments. I cannot for the life of me see what is the objection to that, but the noble Lord thinks it would be cumbersome and that it is not a suitable subject for Parliament.
I can see the point which the noble Lord makes about technical conditions, which may be long and above the heads of Members of Parliament or Members of your Lordships' House, who may not understand all the technicalities of all the conditions to be imposed. But I hope that all of us are capable of appreciating the general principle of granting a licence to a particular undertaking. We are not so much concerned—and I make this point in connection with the drafting of the Amendment—to be able to express views about the detailed conditions. If, for instance, the noble Lord were disposed to accept the idea of the Amendment, namely, that Parliament should be informed in every case of a grant of a licence, I am sure we should agree about how much Parliament should be informed as to the conditions or about what kind of information Parliament should be given. As I say, we should not be insistent upon every single condition in the proposed licence being put before Parliament and forming the subject of debate.
I should have been grateful if the noble Lord had addressed himself to the reasons why it is undesirable, particularly in the early stages, the first few years when these licences are going to be granted, that Parliament should be informed as we go along, so that it may say that, generally speaking, the Minister is doing the right or the wrong thing, or that particular undertakings are not perhaps suitable, or even that a proposed site is not a suitable one for the grant of a licence. Parlia-
988
ment may well have doubts as to whether a particular site is a suitable one. I hope that, in the light of these considerations, the noble Lord will see his way clear to look at this point again.
He referred to an unnecessary burden of informing Parliament of what he is doing in this novel undertaking—for he is embarking on something very novel and far-reaching. Those of us who have been Parliamentarians for a long time realise that Parliament can be troublesome, and it is convenient sometimes, if one is a Minister, to be able to act without giving Parliament all the information which Parliament wants. But we are living in a democracy, and Parliament is entitled to know where we are going on a far-reaching matter of this kind. I would say to the noble Lord that it is really undemocratic to embark upon this enormous venture, to leave it to the Minister, and for the Minister to say: "Well, it would be very awkward if I had to tell Parliament what I am doing; it would be cumbersome. Therefore, let me go my own sweet way and consult nobody except the Treasury".
Now may I say a word on the case for consulting the Atomic Energy Authority. If the noble Lord has any alternative to that provision, we shall be glad to consider it; but we felt that the Atomic Energy Authority was the Authority which had the technical knowledge and appreciation of this problem. I do not know whether the Minister has in his Department people of equal standing who can give him advice, or whether he thinks he has all the knowledge himself. Presumably, he would be acting on some advice, and we feel that, apart from the departmental advice, he ought, in the case of a grant of a licence, to consult this body, which is an important public body and which can speak with authority on questions of atomic energy. We think that, however cumbersome and burdensome it may be to have to consult bodies—and those of us who have had responsibility appreciate that it is sometimes awkward to be under a statutory obligation to consult people—it is nevertheless, a healthy check; and it can be useful to the Minister himself if he has to consult, and if it is put in the Bill. We feel, therefore, that on both these points we ought to insist that the Minister should give the matter consideration.

989
I said that the second Amendment is really on the same lines. Perhaps that should have come first, but as bad draftsmen we were not able to arrange it. Its natural place is that we should first settle whether these licences should be granted at all to private bodies, or should be confined to statutory undertakers and Government organisations. We on this side feel—at least most of us do—that it would be desirable in the first place, at any rate, to restrict it to statutory undertakers and Government bodies. Later on, we could reconsider it. That is the feeling, and the Amendment was put down for that reason. Logically, the second Amendment arises if the first is rejected. But we think it might be convenient if we discussed at the same time both the principle of the kind of organisations to whom licences should be granted and the principle that, in any case, before the licence is actually granted, Parliament should be informed and there should be consultations with the Atomic Energy Authority. I feel that my noble friend's Amendment should be supported, and I hope that it will not be rejected lightheartedly.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I make two observations upon the first Amendment, leaving aside the broad principle which is raised by the second Amendment? On the first Amendment, it is proposed that there should be an obligation upon the Minister to consult the Atomic Energy Authority. I should like to submit this thought to those who are advocating that course. The Atomic Energy Authority, as the Minister has said, is a research and development organisation, whereas these stations will be productional. It is, I submit, basically wrong that production, production methods and plans should be subjected to the straitjacket of any organisation which confines itself to research and development. Surely, research and development are the basis upon which production takes place, and it is wrong that production should be censored, as it were, by an organisation for research and development.
As the Minister has said, in the beginning there will be consultations with the Atomic Energy Authority; but I submit that to make this obligatory for all time would be a fundamental mistake for the development of this new science. The
990
second point on this first Amendment was made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, who put forward the proposition—
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord has several times said that the function of the Atomic Energy Authority is merely research and development. Has he read Section 2 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, which sets out the functions of this Authority? They are much wider than he is saying. If the noble Lord would look at Section 2 (2) (b), he will see that it says:
"to manufacture or otherwise produce, buy or otherwise acquire, store and transport …"
and so on. It indicates clearly that these functions are rather wider. I do not want to debate this aspect: I just wanted to make a point of correction.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: In the original Bill, yes; but in fact the Atomic Energy Authority's main purpose is research and development.
LORD WILMOT or SELMESTON: If the noble Lord will forgive me, he is quite wrong, because I have the Act in my hand, and the primary purpose of that Authority is here defined:
"to produce, use and dispose of atomic energy …"
That is its function. The others are secondary functions.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am taking the Minister's own basis of the duties of the Atomic Energy Authority.
LORD WILMOT or SELMESTON: It is set out in the Act.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Yes, but in practice its purpose is for development and research. I submit that it is wrong to link an organisation whose primary purpose is development and research with production.
The second point the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, raised was that the person who may suffer injury is exposed to the difficulties of obtaining redress under private enterprise, the inference being that if it was a Government-owned enterprise compensation would be easier to obtain. I submit that it would be much better for the average man who has suffered injury to have the great insurance world behind his claim than to have to fight the official channels. The liberty of action, the breadth of view and the

991
tolerance of outlook evident in regard to insurance claims met by our great insurance market compares more than favourably with the somewhat niggardly bargaining which has to go on before one can obtain any compensation from public authorities. I submit that that is a powerful argument, so far as the man who is injured is concerned, in favour of private enterprise as against Government authority.
3.20 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: I do not know whether it is in order for me to speak to the second Amendment that stands on the Order Paper, because it is closely linked with the Amendment which has already been moved by my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston. With regard to the first Amendment, the Minister has indicated that the Atomic Energy Authority is a research organisation and is therefore not a competent body to consider the question of licences to any industrial undertaking. My understanding of the position, however, is that in any event an industrial undertaker will have to go to the Atomic Energy Authority for a licence, whether to set up a reactor in his factory or to exercise patent rights which are vested in the Atomic Energy Authority. It seems to me that if an industrial undertaker has to make approaches to the Atomic Energy Authority for a licence it is right and proper that the Atomic Energy Authority should have the opportunity of tendering to the Minister advice as to whether the site is suitable for the proposed installation.
The next point I would make is on the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, with regard to the powers under this new Bill. On February 29, 1956, in another place, when a question was raised about the growing interest of private enterprise in the nuclear energy field, the then Lord Privy Seal said that the Government were satisfied that under the Atomic Energy and Radioactive Substances Acts, 1946 to 1954, they possessed the powers necessary to exercise administrative control over the use of nuclear fuel. Therefore that goes to the question: for what purpose is this Bill brought forward to-day? The Government either have or have not full powers to exercise the necessary control.
992
Then on March 14, a fortnight after that statement was made, the Lord Privy Seal made another statement in the other place on the relationship between the State and private industry in the field of nuclear energy. In the statement he said that the Government considered that the relationship between the State and private industry in this field should be one of close partnership, subject to the maintenance of a proper degree of Government control. It is on that point that I would like to say a few words this afternoon, particularly with regard to the second Amendment which stands upon the Order Paper.
With regard to this close partnership between the State and private industry in the field of nuclear energy, the Atomic Energy Authority has been vested under the Act with powers of research and the other powers to which my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston has drawn the attention of your Lordships' House. They have been engaged in this policy of research into the nuclear field, and that has involved the British taxpayer in millions of pounds of expenditure. They have, as a matter of fact, made tremendous progress in that field, and it is true that private industry has contributed very greatly to the developments which have taken place. Private industry has been engaged to undertake much of the development of reactors for the Central Electricity Authority. The contracts have been placed out to them, and their teams of experts, and those who were seconded from the Central Electricity Authority, were in close collaboration with the Atomic Energy Authority for over two years; they were, in fact, trained by the experts of the Atomic Energy Authority in this field. It is due to the know-how which was imparted to them by the Atomic Energy Authority that private industry has been able to function in this way.
So the submission that one is bound to make, in face of this situation, is that if private industry is to continue with this kind of work then it is right and proper that the Atomic Energy Authority, which after all has led the way and given them the know-how, should at any rate have this close partnership which the Lord Privy Seal was talking about. But I notice that the electrical companies who have joined into consortia to undertake

993
this nuclear development work have joined together in groups to develop their activities in certain fields. They are depending all the while upon the Atomic Energy Authority, yet the Atomic Energy Authority, which is the one body upon which everything depends, is left out of the consortium. Had the Atomic Energy Authority been brought into the consortium then the great benefits and advantages which arise to private industry in the contracts they are undertaking, and, indeed, in the export which it is understood they will be engaged upon, would be of some benefit to the nation as a whole. The nation would have some return for the vast expenditure in which the taxpayers have been involved as a result of the efforts of the Atomic Energy Authority.
For all those reasons I would submit that, far from licensing not being the concern of the Atomic Energy Authority, it is a matter with which they are vitally concerned. They should, therefore, be consulted at the earliest moment, particularly as they will have to grant the licence for the reactor to be installed, and, indeed, will have undertaken under the terms of the licence to acquaint the industrial undertaker, with whom they will be in constant and close touch, of any further developments they may discover in the course of their researches.
Finally, I would say that the need for this Bill has not been made out. My noble friend Lord Silkin on the Second Reading asked the Minister for what purpose the Bill was brought forward. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, did not give a satisfactory answer why the Bill is needed now. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, has stated, undertakings have already been started for Associated Electrical Industries, Limited, and they have already built a nuclear reactor, not under the authority of this Bill but under the authorities which already exist, under those authorities which the Lord Privy Seal said were ample safeguard and which gave the Government complete control in the field of private enterprise development of nuclear energy. For those reasons I would ask the Minister again to consider the Amendment which my noble friend has moved.
3.30 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: I should like to add a word indicating my own uncertainty about the value of this clause. The clause, as I read it, is simple, and it is this: that nobody except the Authority shall produce or use atomic energy or store or dispose of nuclear fuel, and so on, without a licence, and that licence shall be given only by the Minister. That, I think, is the gist of Clause 1. What I am asking myself, as my noble friends have asked, is what is the purpose of this Bill? If, as the noble Lord, Lord Mills, indicated, its purpose is to ensure the safety of those working in or around a reactor, one can then examine what the processes of these safety measures are. But if, as we are also told, the purpose of the Bill is not the safety of those who are in or about a reactor, but that in the event of anything occurring there shall be a means of compensating by monetary payment those who are either injured themselves or whose property has suffered, then the whole Bill really means that here is a way of ascertaining or obtaining the backing of insurance companies for any damage or suffering that may he incurred. Is that the purpose of this Bill?
Suppose we look at it in a purely businesslike way and say to ourselves that there may be a certain number of private enterprise manufacturers of reactors who, in order to put up reactors, must first get a licence for the site. That seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But how many reactors do we envisage it may be necessary to erect in this small country of ours within the next ten or twenty years? After all, who are the potential purchasers of these reactors within our country? If, however, the answer is that manufacturers of reactors want, as it were, to develop their own methods of producing reactors in order that they can obtain a world-wide market to which to supply reactors, then that might be something that ought to be encouraged. But that does not come within the province of Clause 1 of this Bill. All that it says here is that any private enterprise which wishes to build a reactor cannot do so unless, before acquiring the site, the person concerned gets the Minister to grant him a licence for that site. That applies to anybody

995
other than the Atomic Energy Authority. Again, I think that the Minister ought to satisfy us as to what really is the purpose behind Clause 1.
3.33 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am considerably concerned by the statement that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, made with regard to the purposes of the Atomic Energy Authority. It seems to have suffered something of a change since the Lord President of the Council gave up his direct responsibility under the 1946 Act. I would ask your Lordships to hear in mind that the terms of the 1954 Act on this matter were quite specific: that the main purpose of the Atomic Energy Authority was
"to produce, use and dispose of atomic energy and carry out research into any matters connected therewith."
I appreciate that the application of atomic energy to industry will have to be mainly in the field of those who wish to use it or produce it on a large scale, whether it be the Electricity Authority or those who want to use it as a prime mover for some particular purpose. But it is clear, I think, from the 1954 Act that the Atomic Energy Authority is, in a sense, the supreme authority; indeed, the arguments for the 1954 Act were to remove from direct Whitehall control and from the control of the Minister the powers which it was argued—and as I thought quite unnecessarily at that time—could not be discharged efficiently by Whitehall.
Now we see ourselves in a position where we are not quite clear what the Minister's mind in this matter is, and we certainly do not know the views of the Atomic Energy Authority, though we may be given that information in due course when the Atomic Energy Authority make what I understand is their Annual Report to Parliament. It may be that then they will give us something of their views as to how they will apply their responsibility for licensing, particularly in the matter of those processes which they have developed. I hope, therefore, that we shall not leave this Amendment without hearing from the Minister some account of how he feels about the discharge of this duty by the Minister and by the Atomic Energy Authority, which clearly has to be done jointly in some way or another.
996
Indeed, the more I have heard of this debate the more I am concerned about what I might call the interim state of mind of the Government in this matter. The Minister suggested that the reason this Bill was necessary was that the Government wished to proceed along a path which would enable developments to go on over the years; yet this Bill is limited. If I understand it rightly, Clause 1 makes it clear that only atomic energy produced by fission processes is being considered. I do not know myself what the views are about the production of atomic energy by the fusion process. We know that some form of fission process is necessary in order to produce a fusion, but we should like some further explanation as to why this longer-term development is not necessary.
I am also concerned about the use of the word "site". Perhaps the Minister could tell us a little about it. The Explanatory Memorandum—this is relevant to the particular Amendment—makes it clear that the Bill is intended to apply to fixed sites only. I do not know whether this is a matter on which some legal expert can give us an opinion, but I am not quite sure what a fixed site is. Is a marine reactor when it is fixed in a harbour covered by this Bill? Is an aeroplane "fixed" until it takes off? All these are, on the whole, more likely developments in the field of atomic energy than the licensed fixed sites which we hear about. We are much more likely to be confronted with this sort of development in the near future in regard to things which one would expect to be not necessarily administered by the Government but in the hands of private enterprise. It would seem that, whether it be in the shipping of the world or in the aeroplanes of the world, these reactors are not necessarily likely to belong either to the Government or to the Atomic Energy Authority. I hope, therefore, that before we leave this Amendment we shall have a clearer explanation as to where the Atomic Energy Authority will come in on these matters, and perhaps also an explanation why the Bill, which seeks to protect us far into the future, is in fact so very limited.
3.38 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I might say one word on this Amendment. I had not intended to speak and I have not looked up the exact

997
wording of the Atomic Energy Act, but as my name has been mentioned by I think at least one noble Lord—at least, we were told that the then Lord President said certain things and that the Government appear to have changed their minds—perhaps I ought to say one word at least to your Lordships on this question. I hope that even now the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, will not press this Amendment.
The attack upon this portion of the Bill has been based largely, or at any rate nominally, on security reasons. But the protection that is given under the Bill seems to me very wide indeed and, I should have thought, as efficient as could possibly be devised. Clause 1 (1) says:
"No person other than the Authority shall use any site for the purpose of installing or operating

(a) any plant designed or adapted for the production of atomic energy by a maintained and controlled fission process; or

(b) any other installation of such class or description as may be prescribed … unless a licence to do so … has been granted … by the Minister."

That is the first safeguard. The second safeguard is that
"the Minister may at any time …

(a) attach to the licence such conditions as he may in the interests of safety think fit."

That is the second safeguard. Under paragraph (b) he can
"vary or revoke any condition for the time being attached to the licence."
Then it states:
"Subsection (4) of section five of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954 (which makes temporary provision with respect to the discharge of waste on or from premises occupied by the Authority) shall apply to any licensed site"—
under this Bill. So that any authority which is given up to now will be extended to new premises which are to be licensed under the Bill; and under subsection (6) any person who contravenes subsection (1) is liable to a fine or imprisonment. Finally under Clause 2 (1):
"A nuclear site licence may at any time be revoked by the Minister or surrendered by the licensee."
So that the Minister, and the Government, who represent the community, I should have thought, keep complete control over the position.
The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, says that the
998
Atomic Energy Authority ought to be consulted. That is a matter of opinion; but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, was right in saying that the Authority were essentially a development and research organisation. Indeed, if my memory serves me aright, I emphasised that again and again in your Lordships' House at the time of the passage of the Bill, and it was a great surprise to me to find that that is not generally accepted. After all, Harwell is entirely a research and development project. Windscale, which has been mentioned, is also for research and development; and although it is true that there was a pilot power station at Windscale, that was purely an experimental station. While a certain amount of electricity was released into the grid, nobody has suggested for a moment that Windscale was a commercial station; at least, I have never heard that said.
I understand that every commercial station which is being or will be built under the Act is to be under the Ministry of Fuel and Power and that the Atomic Energy Authority has nothing to do with the operation of these commercial stations. That was always accepted and approved by Parliament. The position, as I understand it, therefore, is that whatever may be said about Windscale or Harwell, the actual commercial production of atomic energy has always been regarded as a matter for the relevant Government Department—the Ministry of Power, the Ministry of Health and, I suppose in some respects, the Home Office; in fact, whichever is the relevant Government Department. Commercial production is not a matter for the Atomic Energy Authority at all; otherwise why are not all commercial reactors under the Authority rather than under the Ministry of Power?
Nor do I think that security would be increased under this Bill by the suggestion that any new proposals should be referred to Parliament; for if noble Lords opposite are nervous about the capacity of Government Departments to ensure security, surely your Lordships' House or even another place is no more competent on a matter so technical or esoteric as that. Those are very technical matters, and the Government Departments concerned—the Department of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and others—

999
have given very special consideration to them. I have the highest admiration for the Atomic Energy Authority. For some time I was responsible for it, so far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned, and I think they are a magnificent body of men, very experienced in this new field; but I would not say that they were the only people who were competent to judge on the security of a reactor. Therefore I do not really feel that this argument about security holds water.
I am driven to the conclusion that what is really worrying noble Lords opposite, perhaps subconsciously, is the possibility that private enterprise might have any share in this new field. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, shakes his head but I believe that that is borne out by the second Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, which, he rightly says, must be read in connection with this first Amendment. The Amendment proposed by the noble Earl is to
"leave out 'body corporate' and insert 'statutory undertaker or Government Department'",
and that automatically cuts out any other form of enterprise at all. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin that that is the "guts" of the whole proposal. Parliament must read these two proposals together in order to see what noble Lords opposite have in mind. I do not think any of us should complain that noble Lords opposite take that view for, after all, they are convinced and sincere Socialists and they believe in the national ownership of the means of production and distribution. It is very natural for them to take that view and I should be the last to criticise them for doing so; but it is only right that we should realise what this proposal really means, otherwise we may be led astray.
Noble Lords opposite really want the reference to Parliament only in order that as each proposal is brought up they may oppose it. If the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, tells me that he will not oppose a satisfactory proposal, I must say that I do not believe he would get all his colleagues on the Front Bench to support him. I entirely agree that the grant of licences must be most carefully supervised by the Minister. This is a new field and one which is potentially dangerous, and I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, would himself
1000
agree that it is one in which the utmost care and discretion must be exercised. But surely those who sit on this side of the House would not rule out the possibility of any other form of enterprise except a statutory undertaking or Government Department as mentioned in the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan.
LORD SILKIN: Will the noble Marquess forgive me for interrupting? He rather inquired what was in our minds in moving these Amendments, and perhaps he will not mind my saying what is in my mind. It is the fact that we all think that certainly in the early stages of this new development Parliament ought to be informed of where we are going. We are not so concerned with the details of the conditions but we should like to know to whom these licences are going. The assumption is that they are going to be private.
I accept, for instance, that Her Majesty's Government are not going to accept the second Amendment. We have put it down, but it will not be accepted; therefore there will be licences for private enterprise and we should like to know where Her Majesty's Government are going. What we propose may not be necessary for all time, but certainly for the first two years we should like the Minister to tell Parliament to whom licences are going and what kind of conditions are being imposed. And if the noble Marquess wants any assurance I join my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston in saying that we shall not oppose any reasonable grant of licences.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If what the noble Lord wants is that Parliament should be consulted, I would point out that that is not in the Amendment. The Amendment has nothing whatever to do with that.
LORD SILKIN: Not consulted, but informed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Lord will allow me to say, I still believe that what is behind this Amendment is what I might call ideological rather than practical considerations.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is my view, and that is why I believe

1001
the Amendment should be rejected—because I feel that this is such an important field that any body of men who can improve the wealth of the country by exploiting this field should be allowed to do so within the very strict limits imposed by security, and it seems to me that in this Bill there is that possibility. If we limit the possibilities of exploitation merely to Government Departments and statutory undertakings we may be doing more harm than good. I realise that noble Lords opposite may not agree with that view, but I hold it very strongly, and that is why I believe that the Amendment should be rejected.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Will the noble Marquess allow me to say that if he does not know what is behind the Amendment perhaps I can tell him. It is not put down for ideological reasons but for practical reasons. The purpose behind it is exactly what is stated: to see to it that the development of this great new held of power is proceeded with in an orderly manner and with caution. The Minister has yet to tell us what he has in mind for these private licences. He has told us nothing.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment is merely exploratory, to enable the Minister to make a statement, that is a matter between him and the Minister.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I cannot compete with the noble Marquess on these fine Parliamentary points, but I should like to ask him this, for he is a great authority on this subject and speaks with great authority and experience on the matters that fell within his province as Lord President of the Council. Surely he has not been quite accurate in defining the functions of the Atomic Energy Authority as principally research and development. Am I not right in saying that its main purpose is at the present time production of atomic fuel at Windscale and the fast breeder reactor in the North of Scotland? That is the purpose for which it was set up.
LORD CONESFORD: The only embarrassment I feel in speaking at this stage is that I do not desire to say anything further on the first Amendment; but speaker after speaker has coupled with the first Amendment, I have no doubt for good reasons, a discussion of the second
1002
Amendment. I doubt, therefore, whether the second Amendment is to have a wholly separate discussion. Two things can be said quite definitely about this Bill. The first is, perhaps, unnecessary to say, in view of the fact that the House has accepted the Bill on Second Reading: that is that, whatever else is true about this Bill, it is certainly not premature.
The second matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee is this. The second Amendment would limit the people to whom licences can be given to statutory undertakers or Government Departments. I submit that it would be difficult to think of a more disastrous proposal. Whatever may be the merits of statutory undertakers or Government Departments, they are not very good at exporting goods. This power to operate plant may be of the greatest importance, as I understand it, to the export trade of this country. Some of the plants which are mentioned in the first clause of this Bill are plants of a kind which may be the subject of a valuable export trade—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.
LORD SHACKLETON: Would the noble Lord be kind enough to say which plants he thinks we should be exporting under this Bill?
LORD CONESFORD: I would only say that at the recent Brussels Exhibition there were exhibits from some of our great companies, including, I believe, the A.E.I., which has been mentioned; and they were regarded abroad as products which organisations there might possibly purchase or get contractors from this country to build in their country. That can be of the greatest importance to our export trade. It seems to me that an Amendment (I am now speaking of the second Amendment) which would debar our great exporting industries—such as A.E.I., English Electric and possibly others; indeed, many others—from operating in this country plants which, if successfully operated, might lead to an invaluable export trade for this country, would be quite disastrous on national grounds. For these reasons I strongly oppose the second Amendment.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: I wonder whether the noble Lord would forgive me for intervening. Could he tell the House under what authority the A.E.I.

1003
have already contracted to sell to Western Germany a Merlin reactor? They will not derive any authority under this Bill. Under what authority are they doing it?
LORD CONESFORD: Any questions as to the legal powers under which things are now taking place would, quite clearly, be far more appropriately directed to the representatives of Her Majesty's Government. What I am confining myself to is something about which I believe the noble Lord who has just spoken will probably agree with me. The effect of the acceptance of the second Amendment on the Order Paper would certainly be that further enterprises would not be allowed to operate these plants in this country. I think that that would be the effect—indeed, I think that that is intended to be the effect; and I believe it would be a disastrous effect. For these reasons I am wholly opposed to the second Amendment.
On the first Amendment, I do not wish to add to what has been said. If it was intended that there should be a wholly separate discussion on the second Amendment then I apologise for having intervened now. But I know that noble Lords on the other side will forgive me, because so many of them have themselves coupled the second Amendment with the first in this discussion.
3.57 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: I have one small point on the first Amendment. That concerns the question on which I thought my noble friend Lord Silkin and the Minister were in agreement—namely, that the first Amendment would cause these licences to come before Parliament. The value of this is very great from the public point of view. There will be very few of these stations licensed; and if the rest of the Bill is to operate, it is very important in the interests of public safety, that people should know where they stand. This would be a convenient way of getting it known. I very much hope that the Minister may find some method, even if he does not accept this Amendment, by which the granting of a licence should be publicly known, so that the public risks with which this Bill is mainly concerned are as widely known as they ought to be.
LORD MILLS: We have had a far-ranging debate on this matter, which has
1004
taken in not only the first Amendment but also the second. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, say that there are no ideological reasons behind his first Amendment. I do not really believe that the same can be said about the second Amendment. Be that as it may, I am grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for giving us his views, which I largely share, based on his experience with the Atomic Energy Authority.
I said that the Authority is largely a research and development organisation; and that is true. The object of the research and development is the production and use of atomic energy. But other bodies, notably the electricity generating boards, will be mainly concerned with exploiting the results of the Authority's research and development. The noble Lord, Lord Granville-West, referred to the work of the consortia which the Atomic Energy Authority brought together and instructed, as he rightly said; but they are to-day contributing greatly to our knowledge on these matters. I was very proud the other day to go to Italy and attend the laying of the foundation stone of the first large atomic station on the Continent, which is being designed and built by a British firm. We should always have in mind that kind of development.
I have been pressed to say what is the purpose of this Bill. Really, I do not understand why the purpose is not understood—it is clear enough. At the present time, any person can operate a nuclear reactor without a licence, apart from the ordinary patent licence for construction, from the Atomic Energy Authority. The whole purpose of this Bill is to institute licences for safety reasons, and to enable the Minister to set up an organisation to ensure that proper conditions are laid down and followed. That, surely, is a very proper object, and one which should not be delayed until we have reactors operating throughout this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, rather suggested that what we were seeking to do was undemocratic. But the function of the Minister, surely, is to administer the Act which enables him to do certain things. It is no part of his duty, every time he carries out an administrative act which is entrusted to him, to run to Parliament and to say: "Please may I

1005
do this?" We are fully safeguarded in this matter. First of all, if there is an important reactor to be established, the question of a site is subject to a full public inquiry, and Parliament knows what is happening long before the reactor is built.
LORD TAYLOR: Was there such an inquiry in the case of the Aldermaston reactor?
LORD MILLS: This reactor is a small one known as a "swimming pool type" reactor, and its establishment was carried out in full consultation with the Atomic Energy Authority. I cannot at this moment answer the noble Lord's question as to whether or not there was a public inquiry, but I will see that he does have an answer.
I informed noble Lords that the intention was to set up an inspectorate inside the Ministry of Power, the Department which is responsible for electricity authorities and for the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, and I informed noble Lords of the suggestion by the Secretary of State and by myself that we should also have a Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee composed of those best qualified to advise us. Then, of course, I should think that for some long time to come the Atomic Energy Authority would also be fully consulted.
The noble Lord, Lord Granville-West, referred to the statements made by the Lord Privy Seal, but I must say that I see nothing in those statements inconsistent with the introduction of this Bill. There is a very close partnership between the Atomic Energy Authority and private firms. If private firms come along with a proposal to have a research reactor, we must he prepared to see that the proposal accords with certain principles of safety which will be prescribed, and to see that they carry them out. Then, the other purpose of the Bill is to make proper arrangements for meeting claims which might occur as a result of an accident. We cannot leave these things to chance, and the Bill describes precisely what should be done.
The question was raised as to whether this referred only to the control of fission processes. It goes much further than that. As your Lordships see, under Clause 1 (1) (b), "any other installation of such class or description as may be pre-
1006
scribed" would be covered by this Bill. So that it is not confined only to what we know to-day: it can extend to what we may know to-morrow.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sorry to pursue the Minister on this point, but why, in that case, does paragraph (a) specifically mention fission? It seems to me that this is a very important point; and we understand now that this Bill will enable the Minister to license any future atomic energy power.
LORD MILLS: Clause 1 (a) specifically mentions fission because that is the practical thing with which we are dealing to-day. Clause 1 (1) (b) gives the Minister power to license further methods of producing nuclear power of which we may know nothing to-day but which may come along in the future. It seems to me that that is a proper thing to include in this Bill.
When one comes to the second Amendment—and it may be that your Lordships would wish to debate that by itself—here is a clear case where it is desired to restrict the Bill entirely to statutory undertakings or to Government Departments, and that would be wholly unacceptable. I hope, therefore, that the first Amendment will be rejected.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Before the Minister sits down, I should like to ask him one question which seems to me to be of great importance. If I understood him aright, he said that at the present time, and under the law as it now is, any person can set up an atomic reactor without a licence or without permission from the Authority. Is that so?
LORD MILLS: The site would have to be approved. Anyone desiring to set up a reactor would, in the state of the law as at present, have to get a licence from the Atomic Energy Authority.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: That is what I thought.
LORD MILLS: But if they were to produce their own design which was different from the Atomic Energy Authority's discoveries, then a new situation would arise.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Subject always to the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1946. The Minister can make an order at any time he likes in these matters.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I had to present the sanction to Parliament, and I think it certainly was the intention of Section 10 that an absolute control should be vested in the Minister, who is the Minister under that Act. That was afterwards transferred under the Atomic Energy Authority Act to the Lord President of the Council and to the Authority.
LORD SHACKLETON: Has Section 10 been lost from the original 1946 Act?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not wish to weary the House by intervening again, but I have now looked up what I said on the Second Reading of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill in 1954. This is what I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, vol. 187, col. 475]:
"The Atomic Energy Authority is given power by this clause to produce and dispose of ' articles ' required for the use of atomic energy. … This … means that the Authority could, so long as it did not make electricity generation its primary business"—
and that is what was under discussion at that time—
"produce electricity as a by-product of its undertaking. … 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 by-product of the manufacture of fissile material, …"
I think that makes it clear that there was no question of the Atomic Energy Authority being anything but an experimental and development project.
It is the same with regard to weapons, with which the Authority was also concerned. The first three lines of Clause 2 (2), as your Lordships will see, prohibit the Authority from undertaking the development or production of any weapon or part of a weapon save in accordance with arrangements made with the Minister of Supply: but the last four lines allow the Authority, on its own initiative, to undertake any experimental work. Throughout my Second Reading speech the whole emphasis was on experiment, and I do not believe that it was ever conceived at that time that the Atomic Energy Authority was anything but an experimental and development project.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for giving me my case completely. He confirms what I thought was the case: that the Atomic Energy Authority's primary business was to produce atomic
1008
energy—not, I agree, to make weapons and not, I agree, to generate electrical power by the use of atomic fuel; that is the function of the generators of electricity. But the primary purpose of the Authority, as its name denotes, is to produce atomic energy and, ancillary to that, to undertake research.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not accept that, if the noble Lord will forgive me. Of course, it would produce fissile material, which was one of the purposes.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Its main purpose.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is why the Lord President of the Council, as a non-departmental Minister, was given the job of deciding how much would go to civil and how much to military use. The main purpose, I should have thought, was experiment and development in this entirely new field in projects which could afterwards be used by industry, for export and for the development of electrical power. I certainly understood that to be the purpose.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am sorry to delay your Lordships but this is important, the more important since the noble Marquess, with his authority, has intervened. If the noble Marquess would look again at Section 2 (2) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act he will see that it says that the functions of the Authority are:
"(a) to produce, use and dispose of atomic energy and carry out research into any matters connected therewith;
(b) to manufacture or otherwise produce, buy or otherwise acquire, store and transport any articles which in the opinion of the Authority are, or are likely to be, required for or in connection with the production or use of atomic energy …"
which is its main function. The noble Marquess's memory is at fault if he thinks that I am wrong.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Lord were right, Harwell would have no function at all.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Harwell is experimental and Windscale is for the production of atomic energy.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was always thought to be an experiment in this new fuel, and Harwell was set up

1009
as an experimental and development project so as to keep us abreast of other countries. The noble Lord is perfectly right in saying that they produce fissile material, but that is not the only and, in my view, not the main purpose.
LORD SILKIN: The relevance of all this interesting discussion is whether the Atomic Energy Authority are a suitable body to be consulted before the granting of a licence, and I think that every word that has been said demonstrates that they are.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to remind him that any confusion about the function of the Atomic Energy Authority must be laid at the door of the Government, because the noble Lord, Lord Mills, in 1957, when he made his case for the expansion of the nuclear power project, said that the Government, in conjunction with the English and Scottish Electricity Authorities and the Atomic Energy Authority, had now completed their re-examination of the programme. If they were brought into consultation then over that matter, surely there is a case for their being brought into consultation over licensing.
LORD MILLS: There is nothing inconsistent in that statement with the present position. We consult the Atomic Energy Authority from day to day and we will go on consulting them for a long time to come. Section 10 of the Atomic
Energy Act, 1946, to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred empowers the Minister generally responsible for atomic energy—at that time it was the Minister of Supply and it is now the Prime Minister—to make orders prohibiting the construction and use of nuclear power plant except under licence. That section, however, extends also to a wide range of other activities, including the working of minerals and the import and export of plant and materials. Its purpose was clearly to ensure that the development of atomic energy remained in the hands of the Government or their approved agencies, and it would be quite inappropriate to use it for the kind of licensing system now proposed, concerned, as it is, with detailed safety arrangements. What we are seeking to do is, on the one hand, to set out detailed safety arrangements which must be followed and, on the other hand, to provide the degree of compensation appropriate to the circumstances.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We are quite dissatisfied with the noble Lord's reply. We do not wish to prolong the debate in view of the remaining items on the agenda for to-day, and we shall certainly divide in favour of our Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Chorley, L.

Pakenham, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller]

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Granville-West, L.

Shackleton, L.

Addison, V.

Greenhill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Silkin, L.

Hall, V.

Kershaw, L.

Stonham, L.

Stansgate, V.

Latham, L.

Taylor, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Williams, L.

Ammon, L.

Mathers, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Amwell, L.

Morrison, L.

Wise, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Baroness.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bathurst, E.

Selborne, E.

Dundee, E.

Selkirk, E.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Ferrers, E.

Shaftesbury, E.

Gosford, E.

Swinton, E.

Atholl, D.

Halifax, E.

Home, E.

Cilcennin, V.

Cholmondeley, M.

Howe, E.

Goschen, V.

Salisbury, M.

Jellicoe, E.

Hereford, V.

Willingdon, M.

Munster, E.

Margesson, V.

Perth, E.

Monsell, V.

Albemarle, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Soulbury, V.

Templewood, V.

Dovercourt, L.

Mills, L.

Tenby, V.

Dynevor, L.

Newall, L.

Ebury, L.

Raglan, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Baroness.

Rathcavan. L.

Airedale, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Remnant, L.

Amulree, L.

Gisborough, L.

Robins, L.

Baden-Powell, L.

Grantchester, L.

Rockley, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hampton, L.

Saltoun. L.

Birdwood, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Howard of Glossop, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Colyton, L.

Luke, L.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Teynham, L.

Digby, L.

Meston, L.

Waleran, L.

House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: the Amendments made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills agreed to.

4.27 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: We have had a discussion which covers the object of this Amendment and, therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I formally move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("body corporate") and insert ("statutory undertaker or government department").—(Lord Granville-West).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: A good deal has been said already on this Amendment, but one point has not been raised. There is what some noble Lords have called the ideological approach to this question—the differing views taken by different Parties of what is the national interest. Some of us feel that in matters that are so vital to the life of the country as atomic energy and its development the State is the only authority that should be entrusted with it. We can understand that noble Lords opposite do not take that view, and one sometimes hears the view expressed that what is good for private industry is good for the country. However, setting aside that disagreement, there is another purely practical consideration on which surely the Government should think again in the matter of throwing open the setting up of nuclear establishments, and that is the question of skilled manpower.
We see continually in the newspapers, and we hear from the most authoritative sources in the country, that there is a grave shortage of scientific and technological manpower. Moreover, we are told from equally responsible and authoritative sources that the position will get worse before it gets better; in other words, that we shall not catch up for a long time with the demand for scientific manpower. We hear that we are being outstripped in many directions by many other countries. Yet this Bill is
1012
going to give power to use up this treasured manpower. Surely here is a case for Government control of a scarce commodity. If any body corporate that can convince the Minister it can cope with the job is allowed a licence, and is allowed to draw on the scientific manpower of the country, that can only, in the long run, weaken us.
LORD MILLS: The Government cannot agree that private industry should be debarred from the use of nuclear energy whether for purposes of research, or, in the future, as a source of industrial power. If Great Britain is to be in the forefront of countries manufacturing nuclear reactors and equipment, both for the home and overseas markets, the public and private sectors of industry must be free to gain first-hand experience of the use of nuclear energy. I am aware of the shortage of skilled manpower. I am also aware of the great benefits we have already received by the co-operation of that skilled manpower employed in private industry, as well as in public undertakings. I suggest that the manufacturers of nuclear equipment must be free to experiment and to evolve new ideas, designs and materials under working conditions. If this is not permitted, we shall be at a great disadvantage compared with our competitors. The purpose of the Bill is to provide that installations to exploit nuclear energy are designed, constructed and operated in accordance with the best safety standards, whether the owners are electricity boards or private firms. For these reasons, I beg your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Could the noble Lord explain why it is necessary for a private firm to have a licence to set up a nuclear establishment? Surely, any firm in private industry can obtain their experience in the way they already do.

1013
They have built the stations that are now operated by the Electricity Authority. That was the intention in the Government White Paper of 1955: that the stations should be built in the normal way by private industry for the electricity authorities who will own and operate them. Surely, for export the same procedure will apply. A private contracting firm in England will contract to export a nuclear station to a foreign country, and will contract to build it in the same way that it has been building stations for the Electricity Authority. Why is it necessary for such a firm to be given a licence to operate a station in this country?
LORD MILLS: In reply to the noble Earl, I would say that British industry does not stand still. British industry may need to know at first hand the result of certain conditions with which they will meet in designing nuclear installations. We have an example already in the Associated Electrical Industries reactor. Personally, I should welcome British industry being continually alive to all the possibilities in this field, and where they need to deal with nuclear materials to advance their work I should welcome their application.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: Can the noble Lord say whether there are reciprocal arrangements in existence between the private industrial company and the Atomic Energy Authority, because the Authority have undertaken, under the terms of their licence, to supply private industry with the results of their further research and development. If private industry makes a discovery in its research and development, is it under a similar obligation to the Atomic Energy Authority?
LORD MILLS: I cannot answer that question specifically, but I should be surprised to see the Atomic Energy Authority making any arrangement with any private firm without having such reciprocal arrangements.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: With respect, may I refer the noble Lord to the publication which has been made concerning nuclear energy in Britain, where it states specifically that, where the Atomic Energy Authority grants a licence to private industry, in consideration of that licence, and as part of it, it undertakes to acquaint them and keep them
1014
aware of the results of their further researches and any further developments which take place.
LORD MILLS: I think the noble Lord must have misunderstood me. I said I should be very surprised if the Atomic Energy Authority did not have such reciprocal arrangements.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: I am obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.36 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to add to sub-section (4):
"Provided that in its application to a licensed site subsection (4) of the said section five shall have effect as if

(a) in paragraph (a) thereof the words "water undertakers" were inserted after the words "local fisheries committees"; and

(b) in paragraph (d) thereof the words "water undertaker" were inserted after the words "local fisheries committee"."

The noble Lord said: Your Lordships having now emerged from the fall-out occasioned by the first two Amendments, I rise to move Amendment No. 3. It is perhaps appropriate that I should declare my interest in the matter of the water suppliers of this country, in that I am a member of the Metropolitan Water Board, which supports the Amendment, as does the British Waterworks Association which, as your Lordships will know, has within its membership water undertakers who supply over 95 per cent., of the total population of the Kingdom with a piped water supply.
It may seem that this Amendment is of a minor character. In point of fact it is not. Its purpose is intimately bound up with the safety of the consumers or users of water, and as the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has said repeatedly in the debate this afternoon, this Bill is largely concerned with safety and security. The purpose of the Amendment is to cure what is now recognised. I think, even by the Government, to be a defect in the Act of 1954—a defect which perhaps was accepted at that time because then there was only one authority, the Atomic Energy Authority, whereas now we must contemplate that there will come into existence a number of reactors in private hands, or in the hands of statutory undertakings other than the Atomic Energy Authority. It is of considerable importance to water undertakers to bring

1015
within the provisions of this Bill an obligation upon the Minister or Ministers referred to in the Bill to advise water undertakers and consult with them before the Minister or Ministers grant a licence.
Subsection (4) of Clause 1 of the Bill proposes to apply to any licensed nuclear site subsection (4) of Section 5 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954. That subsection makes provision—and this is important—for the discharge of radio-active wastes from nuclear sites. This provision states:
"No radio-active waste shall be discharged "
into water courses without an authorisation
"given by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, after consultation, … with such local authorities, river boards, local fisheries committees or other public or local authorities as appear to the Minister in question to be proper to be consulted."
There is no requirement, as your Lordships will notice, that the Minister or Ministers should advise or consult with the water undertakings. It is in order to correct that and to enable the water authorities to be advised and to be consulted that I have put down this Amendment.
It is the case that one of the very difficut problems in operating nuclear sites is the disposal of unwanted radio-active by-products. One of the methods of disposing of these wastes is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will know, to discharge them, after dilution, into the nearest available water course. An increasing number of water undertakers are taking water from rivers and streams, and this water is supplied through the public mains for drinking purposes. Of course, the pollution of these water courses is a common problem and the water undertakers keep a close watch upon the situation. There are various Statutes prohibiting pollution of surface waters upon which they can call. Pollution by the discharge of radioactive waste is, however, an entirely new form of pollution which the water undertakers are now having to face, without, I submit, the necessary rights of advice and consultation.
So important is the matter regarded by the British Waterworks Association that they set up a national expert committee on the subject, which has, as the Minister no doubt is aware, already issued an
1016
interim report. The Association also communicated with the Ministers of Health and Local Government giving the views of the committee on radio-active substances and some useful notes upon the Fleck Report on health and safety. The Association much regrets that they are still awaiting a considered reply.
One of the recommendations of this interim report was—and I quote from the document aft page 6:
"We consider that the earliest opportunity should be taken to amend this section of the Act …"
that is Section 5 of the Act of 1954:
"so as to provide that the Minister of Housing and Local Government shall consult with the appropriate water undertakers before granting an authorisation for the discharge of radioactive wastes."
It will be observed that under the Act, as I have said, the local fisheries committees must be advised and consulted. No doubt that is very important, and no one would question its wisdom. But it is a little difficult to understand that human beings should, in this connection, be rated a little lower than fish. If it is proper that river boards and fisheries committees should be advised and should be consulted, I cannot understand why it is not equally proper that water undertakers should be. It seems to me that their case is not only equally strong; it is much stronger.
I should like the Minister to tell the House what is the objection to the Minister or Ministers advising water undertakers. What mischief is it thought would be created by so doing? So far as I can see, there are no valid reasons why water undertakers should not be advised and consulted, as are the other bodies I have mentioned. I sincerely hope, as do the Metropolitan Water Board and the other water undertakers, that the Minister will accept the Amendment, which involves no question of principle—there is no ideology, at all events, in this Amendment. It is a question of a Minister co-operating and enabling the water undertakers to discharge a very serious and onerous liability which Parliament has cast upon them. Whether the water undertakers be statutory authorities, local authorities, or private water companies, they all carry this Parliamentarily imposed obligation, and they should be assisted in this very important respect in carrying it out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD MILLS: As the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has said, the purpose of this Amendment is to specify water undertakers as being among the local bodies which the Ministers of Housing and Agriculture are to consult, where appropriate, before authorising the disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear sites. The Amendment, as the noble Lord has said, relates to Section 5(4) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, in its application to licensees under Clause 1(4) of the Bill. But the arrangements for authorising the disposal of waste under the 1954 Act are in any case temporary. I have consulted my right honourable friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and I am informed that that Ministry are about to enter into consultation with the British Waterworks Association and other associations of local bodies regarding the permanent arrangements to be made between those bodies and the Minister of Housing in regard to the question of radio-active waste generally; that is, not merely waste from the premises of the Atomic Energy Authority and licensees under this Bill, but waste front all sources. I suggest to the noble Lord, and I hope he will accept it, that it would not be proper for me to accept an Amendment of this kind while those discussions are in progress.
LORD LATHAM: Can the noble Lord say whether the discussions will include arrangements for consultation with the water undertakers by the Minister?
LORD MILLS: I understand that that is one of the objects of the consultation.
LORD LATHAM: These arrangements would be more or less of a permanent character, once they were agreed and approved?
LORD MILLS: That, again, is the object of consultation.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Might I ask the noble Lord how long it will be before these consultations reach finality? Could it possibly be before the next stage of this Bill?
LORD MILLS: I cannot say. All I can say is that the noble Lord is probably well acquainted with my right honourable
1018
friend and is well aware of his energy and speed.
LORD LATHAM: That may be so generally, although perhaps some of us would have some modest reservations in that respect. It is the case that the Association communicated with the Minister early in June and as yet have had no reply, which does not show any excessive capacity for expedition in this particular matter. However, having regard to what the noble Lord has said, and in reliance that something will be done, and done fairly speedily, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Revocation and surrender of licences
2.—(1) A nuclear site licence may at any time he revoked by the Minister or surrendered by the licensee.
4.51 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (1):
"and without prejudice to the generality hereof the Minister will revoke such licence if without his consent in writing the constitution or control of the licensee has materially changed."
The noble Lord said: I cannot help feeling that after the champagne of the debate on the first two Amendments we are now on the bread-and-cheese course. I do not believe that the Minister or the Committee will find the Amendment that I am moving in any way controversial. It does not attack the principle underlying the Bill as described by the noble Lord, Lord Mills. In fact, I would submit that it strengthens Clause 2 (3) which, the Committee will note, is the clause in the Bill giving the Minister power to grant a nuclear licence to what is described as "bodies corporate". The subsection reads:
"A nuclear site licence shall not be granted to any person other than a body corporate and shall not be transferable."
The intention of this subsection, as I see it, is that a licence may be granted to a body corporate by the Minister, subject to the Minister's being satisfied as to the standing of that body but stipulating that the licence cannot be transferred to another person. I believe that the Committee and Parliament would agree with that stipulation. Our difficulty in this

1019
debate—and it remains so—is as to how many bodies corporate are going to be covered by the Bill. Therefore, for the purposes of my Amendment I must assume that quite a large number of public companies and statutory undertakers will be involved.
Noble Lords on this side of the House have no anxiety about the granting of a licence to a statutory undertaking, since the control of that undertaking would always remain within the orbit of the Minister and, of course, of Parliament. However, the position of a public company is quite different: its management, its capital control and the shareholders, are all subject to change. Under this Bill, a company that has been granted a licence will not be permitted to transfer that licence to another company. But we well know—in fact, we see it repeatedly in our daily Press—of companies changing completely their character. We believe that if a company has been given a licence to operate a nuclear site it should not be permitted to change its control and constitution without the prior authority of the Minister. That is the purpose of our Amendment.
We believe that it would be quite objectionable if, having put into the Bill that a licence is non-transferable, an outside body could secure the rights and privileges of that licence by obtaining the capital control of the company. Let us take, for instance, the company which I was under the impression had a licence, but I understand this afternoon that it has not a licence. It is the company operating a research reactor, the Associated Electrical Industries, Limited. Nobody would pretend that this company is not a large and responsible body, but, as I understand it, there is nothing that can prevent it from changing its constitution or its management. It might well conclude an agreement with an outside body which could take the control of that company to places like Europe or the United States. If that were to happen, I believe it would be quite objectionable and that the Committee would not approve of such action. It might be claimed that the possibility that a company like the Associated Electrical Industries, Limited, would change its constitution or become the subject of a take-over bid by a company outside this
1020
country is unlikely; but if there is any element of risk that that might happen, I believe it is right that the safeguard should be written into the Bill.
The Committee will have noticed in the Press since I placed my Amendment on the Order Paper the announcement of a possible change in the capital structure of The British Aluminium Company Limited. I do not propose to make any comment on the activities of the directors of that company, but I should like to use the evidence that has arisen in the paper to substantiate the point that I have been trying to make this afternoon. The British Aluminium Company Limited is the biggest fabricator of that metal in this country. It announced in the Press on Saturday that the hoard of the company
"recently entered into an agreement with the Aluminium Company of America, whereby, subject to the necessary Treasury consents, that company undertook to subscribe for the entire unissued Ordinary capital of The British Aluminium Company—that is, 4,500,000 shares."
According to my information, the Ordinary share capital of this company to-day is £9 million. In other words, it would appear from the company's announcement that the American company will obtain practically the everyday working control of this company.
The City Editor of The Times writes:
"Apart from the Tube Investments offer there is an important point of principle involved in the British Aluminium plan—that the Directors are issuing a large block of shares, giving an outside firm a one-third stake in the share capital, without consent from shareholders, and this stake must amount to effective day-to-day control of British Aluminium. There is no question that this action is permissible: whether it is desirable that a step of this importance should have been taken without shareholders' approval is a different matter."
All I am interested in is this. Assuming that The British Aluminium Company Limited, had been a company to whom a licence had been given to operate a nuclear plant, it would be quite objectionable, in my view—and I think my noble friends on this side of the Committee would agree—that the company could change its constitution and its control without the prior approval of the Minister. We have no objection to a company which has a licence changing its control—but subject to the Minister. We believe that this is just as important as the inclusion in the earlier part of the

1021
Bill of the words "non-transferable". We should also remember that this Bill opens out a tremendous field. There may not be only a few firms operating. We should also remember that a nuclear licence will become a very great asset, and we certainly do not want that asset to instigate take-over bids by outside bodies who have failed to obtain a nuclear licence. I do not think I need speak any further, for I feel that the words of my Amendment speak for themselves. They have been included to strengthen the Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will be able to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, after ("licensee") insert ("and without prejudice to the generality hereof the Minister will revoke such licence if without his consent in writing the constitution or control of the licensee has materially changed.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I rise to support this Amendment. Its purpose is very brief and obvious, and I believe that the Minister is most likely to accept it. Since the Bill as drafted says that only a body corporate can receive a licence, and since a body corporate is capable of transformation, possibly outside the Minister's control, it is right that any licence granted to a corporate body should lapse if that corporate body materially changes its character or its control.
LORD MILLS: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has made his intention quite clear, but I would remind him and the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, that under Clause 2 (1) as it stands the Minister has power to revoke a licence at any time. The Amendment would compel the Minister to exercise this power if the constitution or control of a licensed body were materially changed without his written consent. But such a change might not necessarily be for the worse, from the standpoint of nuclear safety. It would be absurd, therefore, if the Minister had to revoke the licence solely on the ground that the business had passed under different control without his consent.
The Minister needs to be satisfied that the licensee maintains the resources and qualified technical staff to implement the conditions of the licence, and to provide cover against claims for radio-active
1022
injury or damage. In short, the Bill is primarily a measure to ensure that the installations are operated in accordance with the best safety standards and that if anyone suffers radio-active injury or damage resources are available to compensate them. At the same time the Bill already gives the Minister complete discretion to revoke a licence for any reason at all. I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord the Minister has used the argument that he already has power under the Bill to revoke a licence. Of course he already had that power under Section 10 of the Act of 1946; but since we are discussing a Bill which in this respect we have regarded as unnecessary, I think it is desirable that we should make it comprehensive and should make clear the purpose of each particular provision. I do not think that my noble friend who moved this Amendment would necessarily argue that the actual wording designed is ideal to meet the situation, but the purpose is a perfectly clear one, and there are respectable traditions.
May I direct the Minister's attention to the Television Act, on which your Lordships spent very considerable time? Written into that Act are certain conditions with regard to people who could or could not be programme contractors. It may be undesirable to go into too much detail as to who is or is not qualified, but I believe it to be of the most fundamental importance that these licences should not, in the sense of programme contracting licences, be held up to auction as an additional asset. This matter can easily be dealt with, perhaps, without making it absolutely obligatory in form but requiring somewhere in the actual terms of the licence a statement or condition which has statutory authority that the licence is liable to be revoked if there is a substantial change in the ownership of the company. There are a number of ways in which that could be achieved. I do not know whether we should come across any difficulties in the Companies Acts, but I believe that it would be reasonable for the Minister to inform your Lordships as to what his intention would be with regard to this question—even though he does not feel inclined to accept this particular Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I hope the Minister will not regard all these Amendments as things which he has automatically to oppose because they are being moved from this side of the House. Our object is to improve this Bill, and we have put down Amendments for that purpose; and we should very much deplore it if we had the feeling that any suggestion we made was automatically to be turned down. I believe that we have a point here. It is easy to make a game and to talk about the drafting of the Amendment, but even the Minister himself is to move quite a number of drafting Amendments later on. Evidently, even though he had the benefit of skilled draftsmen accustomed to this kind of thing—which we are not—he is finding it necessary to move eight or nine such Amendments to the Bill. I hope therefore that he will not make too much of the fact that the words as they are on the Paper do not quite do everything we want to do or are suggesting.
The evil against which we want to guard is that these licences might be hawked around. We know that the Minister has power to revoke. We are perfectly well aware of that provision in the Bill, and the wording of the Amendment takes account of that. It follows the particular words to which the noble Lord is referring, his power to revoke, and says:
"and without prejudice to the generality hereof the Minister will revoke such licence if without his consent in writing the constitution or control of the licensee has materially changed."
I quite understand the argument that the Minister ought not to be automatically required to revoke, and I will accept that; for I believe he is quite right in saying that a change might be a change for the better, and that it would be quite wrong to make revocation automatic. Perhaps in that sense this Amendment would not be appropriate. But I would ask the noble Lord to give consideration to the underlying purpose of this Amendment—that is, that where he thought a change was for the worse and could be damaging to the interests of the community, he should revoke. Exactly how that is to be put into words I do not know. I know that the Minister has power, but no Minister would arbitrarily revoke a licence unless something were provided in the Bill specifically giving him such power. So I hope that he will be able to say, "This is a
1024
matter I am prepared to look at again to ascertain whether some appropriate words can be put in the Bill to ensure that where there is a change of the kind of which I do not approve I can revoke the licence."
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Before the Minister replies, I wonder whether he would consider the point made by the noble Lord who has just sat down and tell us now that, in granting licences, he will make it a condition of the continuation of licences that there shall be no material change in the constitution or control of the company without his consent. I believe that this would go a long way to meet the point.
5.11 p.m.
LORD MILLS: I am deeply appreciative of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says about drafting these Amendments; and I hope that I shall never give him cause to say that I do not pay full attention to what noble Lords have to say on these matters. I had offered to consult fully with my noble friends in regard to this Bill; unfortunately, the opportunity did not present itself to them.
In suggesting to your Lordships that this Amendment should be rejected I used the word "absurd". I said that it would be absurd if the Minister had to revoke a licence solely on the grounds that the business had passed to different control. I still think that that would be the kind of condition that I could not justify including in the regulations. I quite appreciate that in certain circumstances it might be necessary to reconsider the licence, but I have full powers here to do it and, with the best will in the world, I really do not think that it is appropriate to put something of this kind in the Bill.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I wonder whether the Minister would consider the suggestion I made: that he should make it a condition of granting licences that there should not be a major change without his consent, because unless he does so he might find that he does not officially become aware of some change when it is made and it becomes known officially only after some time has elapsed. There is no obligation to publish notification of such changes.
LORD MILLS: As I have said, I am doubtful whether that is a proper thing

1025
for me to do, but I will certainly consider the matter between now and the Report stage.
LORD SHACKLETON: Could the Minister tell us what he is in fact taking this power for? It seems to me to be a very considerable and quite a dangerous power. It is one, furthermore, that might, if arbitrarily used, work seriously to the disadvantage of the licensee. We have put forward a quite reasonable suggestion for the use of this power. I am now in a deeper quandary, because I have no idea what this particular subsection is for.
LORD MILLS: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I would say that it is quite clear what is the main purpose of the subsection. Its main purpose is that if the regulations are not adhered to the Minister shall have power to revoke the licence; or if he is satisfied that there is no real intention to conform to the regulations he shall have such power. I think that to exercise such power in the case quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would want much consideration. But it is quite clear what the main purpose of the power is, and the power must be such that it can be used quickly in order to ensure the safety of the public.
LORD PETHICK - LAWRENCE: Would it be possible for the Minister to insert some words which implied that the continuation of the licence must not be taken for granted if there were a complete change of control? That is really the point. I do not want a company which has a licence to take it for granted that licences will be continued in the case of a change of the constitution and control. I think that that is a point which the Minister ought to take into consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that we do not want the fact that the licence is in the possession of the company to be hawked around and to be a factor in the price which is being paid for the company. I venture to suggest that the Minister might undertake to look into that particular situation to find out whether he cannot find words to suggest that this is not the case.
LORD MILLS: I have already said that I am doubtful whether it is proper for me to suggest words to cover the cases that are in mind. But as I have already said, I will consider the matter between now and the Report stage.
LORD SHEPHERD: At first I thought I was going to be disappointed; I have now some hope. Having received the Minister's promise that he will consider this matter between now and the next stage of the Bill, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Licensee's liability
(4) Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment, but subject to subsection (3) of section four of this Act, an action by virtue of subsection (1) of this section in respect of any hurt to any person or any damage to any property may be commenced at any time before, but may not be commenced at any time after, the expiration of the period of ten years commencing with the last date on which any ionising radiations to which the hurt or damage is wholly or partly attributable were emitted.
LORD MILLS: With your Lordships' permission, I shall deal with this Amendment and Amendment No. 7 together. These are drafting Amendments intended to clear up certain ambiguities in the Bill as presented. They make it clear that when the Atomic Energy Authority carries irradiated fuel on behalf of a licensee between places within the United Kingdom, the licensee and not the Authority will be liable for any injury or damage caused by radio-activity from the fuel while it is in transit. They also make it clear that when irradiated fuel is carried from one licensed site to another in connection with the use of both sites the person liable is the licensee of the site where the fuel has become irradiated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 17, leave out from beginning to second ("the") in line 18 and insert ("on behalf of the licensee within, or between places within, the United Kingdom, being fuel which has become irradiated in the course of its use at").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD SILKIN: I have no objection to the noble Lord improving this Bill as he goes along, but I hope that he will not hereafter make as his first point any defect in the drafting of any of our Amendments. We could have done all this ourselves in Clause 3; but what we hoped was that he would be able to address himself to the substance behind the drafting and deal with that. He has had ample time to prepare a perfect

1027
draft, and has all the advantages of having the services of draftsmen of the highest skill; and yet he has come along with four Amendments to this clause which, I submit, with all the advantages he has—those of his Department, the draftsmen, himself and everybody else—ought to have been foreseen. So let us hear no more about defects in drafting.
LORD MILLS: This is certainly not the noble Lord's first experience of such matters.
LORD GREENHILL: On a point of elucidation, may I ask whether "irradiated nuclear fuel" includes isotopes?
LORD MILLS: The answer is, "No"
LORD GREENHILL: In that case, would it not be desirable to have the transport of isotopes included, as they may cause injury?
LORD MILLS: Perhaps the noble Lord will again allow me to consider that matter before the Report stage.
LORD MILLS: This is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, leave out from ("any") to end of line 31 and insert ("ionising radiations to which subsection (1) of this section applies.").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD MILLS: I suggested that we took this Amendment with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, leave out first ("in") and insert ("within").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD MILLS: Under Clause 3 (1) and (2), the licensee alone is to be liable for injury or damage by radio-activity from his installation or from irradiated fuel carried on his behalf. But as an exception to this general rule, subsection (3) of Clause 3 provides that where irradiated fuel is carried by sea or air for a licensee certain Acts which give effect to international conventions governing the liability of shipowners or aircraft operators are still to have effect. The Maritime Conventions Act, 1911, has been wrongly included in the list of Acts
1028
which are to continue to operate in this respect, and the purpose of the Amendment is to remove it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, leave out ("the Maritime Conventions Act, 1911,").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD SHACKLETON: May I ask the Minister what would be the effect if we did not pass this Amendment and if the Maritime Conventions Act, 1911, remained in the clause?
LORD MILLS: As I understand it, it would have no effect at all, but it would be a wrong reference.
5.23 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, in subsection (4) to leave out all words from and including "before" down to the end of the subsection. The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment standing in my name and in the name of my noble friends is to remove the ten-year limit on the period within which claimants may make claims. May I say at once that this is not, I hope, a hostile Amendment in any way. One realises the great difficulty facing any Government which is attempting to legislate for the unknown, but I think that this goes very near the heart of the Bill, since the Minister has stressed—and I think has rightly stressed—that this is a health measure; it is concerned with the safety and welfare of those operating the plants and those who may be affected as a result of disaster in the plants. I am speaking from a technical, medical viewpoint, and if I am in any way inaccurate in what I say I hope the Minister and his technical advisers will not hesitate to correct me. If, however, I am accurate, then I think that the case against a ten-year limit is a very strong one indeed, and I hope the Government will either accept this Amendment or will in some way deal with the problem appropriately when the time comes.
In the Second Reading debate the Minister referred to the time taken by diseases like leukæmia to develop. The other diseases to which he must have been referring were bone sarcoma, aplastic anæmia, and a condition called aleukæmic leukæmia. In the past, aplastic leukæmia has sometimes been misdiagnosed, when it should have been aleukæmic leukæmia. These diseases have this one feature in common: that, in the present state of our knowledge, they are, unhappily, fatal,

1029
usually within a period of about five years. In many cases there is no known cause, but where there is a known cause the date of onset of these diseases may be very much longer, and it is this latent period between the start of the cause and the development of the disease which is vitally important in connection with the period in which the claimants may make a claim.
As I understand it, the principal hazard of a disaster in a nuclear plant is the liberation of radio-strontium. Radio-strontium has the capacity of being picked up by the body and of finding a resting place in the bones because it is so very similar to calcium. From there it proceeds to emit beta radiations, which are low, penetrating radiations, on to the bone marrow from the hard bone. It is this continuous process of radiation which causes the damage to the bone marrow and may ultimately lead to a disease of the bone marrow and to death. We are entering here on a field of great technical difficulty, first, because the half-life of radio-strontium is twenty-eight years. That is to say, if radio-strontium gets into the body, it goes on acting not for twenty-eight years but for a much longer period, and in the course of twenty-eight years its power has been reduced by half. It goes on acting over the whole period of twenty-eight years, then, and for a longer period still.
Moreover, the effect of radiation on bale marrow appears to be cumulative—that is to say, once bone marrow has been damaged by radiation then a further irradiation which would, in itself, have been harmless is sufficient to precipitate disaster. A very much smaller dose, which would normally be safe, in a person who has radio-strontium in his skeleton could provoke a fatal change. Now I said that this was very difficult. Indeed, it presents medical research workers with the greatest problem, because nobody knows exactly what is the situation. There are no people who have these quantities of radio-strontium in their bodies as far as we know. But we have a useful analogous argument from the case of radium and X-rays. Radio-strontium gives out what are, in effect, doses of X-rays, continuing over a very long period, and in the early days of X-ray treatment and X-ray diagnosis the radiologists were quite unprotected. They operated their X-ray machines with
1030
no protection and, in consequence, they did radiate themselves over long periods, in just the same way as it is thought that radio-strontium acts.
It was in 1896 that the first harmful effects of X-ray were recorded. But it was not until 1914 that the first X-ray death in a radiologist occurred. He died from aplastic anæmia, which is one of the diseases caused by this type of radiation and from which, indeed, the Yugoslav workers are, I understand, suffering as the result of an accident in their experimental plant. This man, the first radiologist to die from this condition, had been exposed to such radiations for a period of fourteen years before he died. The interval between the onset of the first changes, as a result of X-ray radiation, X-ray dermatitis, and the development of malignant disease, is any period between three and twenty-seven years that is to say, it may take twenty-seven years of radiation before its final and fatal effects are manifest. On this experience one would suggest that the proper time limit, if there is to be a time limit, should be of the order of thirty years.
It may be argued that these diseases would have occurred in any case, regardless of radiation exposures. Of course, this is perfectly true. There are unhappily many cases of leukæmia and for most of these we do not know the cause; but it is equally true that within this ten-year limit some cases of leukæmia occurring in people exposed may not be due to an atomic accident. One presumes that in either event it would be necessary to show that there is an increased radio-strontium level in the bones of such people before they have a case which enables them to claim compensation under the Act. If it is shown that there is an increase of radio-strontium in their bones and a person then develops leukæmia or aplastic anæmia, whether after 12, 15, 20 or 25 years, I should have thought that they would have just as much claim as after seven, eight or nine years. Therefore, one feels that this arbitrary choice of ten years is very unrealistic. It is not related to the knowledge we have, though I would once again emphasise that if I am misrepresenting the case in any way, I hope the noble Lord will correct me.
There is another group of changes which may occur as a result of an accident in an atomic reactor. At his Press

1031
Conference after the Windscale disaster, Sir Harold Himsworth, the Secretary of the Medical Research Council, mentioned particularly that they were looking for radio-cæsium. Happily, they did not find any. This material has a half-life of 33 years: it is even longer acting than radio-strontium, but it differs from radio-strontium in that whereas radio-strontium is picked up by the bones, radio-cæsium is picked up by the muscles. It is a water-soluble substance and it is concentrated principally in the muscles of the body. Whereas radio-strontium gives out very low penetrating rays, radiocæsium gives out gamma rays which can have the effect of irradiating the gonods or sex glands from a distance. The pioneers of radiology showed on autopsy an atrophy of the sex glands. But before this occurs there are other changes in the cellular structure of the sperm or ova. This is what has created so much discussion, the question of the congenital malformation of infants as a result of this long-continued irradiation of the sexual cells. This risk continues throughout the entire procreative life of the individual and I think that this again points to the need to abolish or at least to modify drastically the ten-year period.
The Medical Research Council's Report of June, 1956, and the United Nations Scientific Committee's Report this year—both really wonderful documents, exceedingly scientific, objective and tough—speak of a "thirty-year genetic dose." It is in these terms that they are thinking. We are not dealing here with the background doses from atomic bomb fall-out. These, so far, have made only a small contribution to the total amount of background radiation. Here we are dealing with major exposure following an atomic disaster in an atomic reactor. We know the immense care which is being taken by scientists to protect us from these effects. The Windscale filters are a case in point. Sir John Cockcroft insisted on having filters put in the top of the chimneys, which had the effect of bottling up both radio-strontium and radio-cæsium, with the result that there has been no loss through the chimneys, only a loss of radio-iodine.
I hope that the compensation provisions in this Bill may never have to be invoked, but accidents do happen. I
1032
was reading only to-day of the Chalk River accident in Canada, where engineers described it as a one-in-a-million chance that the accident occurred. Fortunately no one was hurt in this accident. But it involved the most extraordinary job of moving an enormous lead protective tank containing a mass of highly radio-active fluid. At one point it looked as though the bolt was slipping but, by the goodness of God, it did not. Had it done so, there is no knowing what would have happened. And we are dealing here with immensely complicated machines. Most of these machines have to depend on a great degree of automatic control and a great number of electrical switches and dials have to operate satisfactorily. There is the possibility of some small fault or some human error, and it is clearly our duty to make sure that in legislating for such a disaster, which we all hope will not happen, we are fully realistic and do not funk the possible consequences of something which we all agree to be inherently desirable—namely, the successful and fruitful use of atomic energy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out from the first ("time") to the end of line 5.—(Lord Taylor.)
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I am not currently informed about irradiation, but for some years I was a member of various hospital and other organisations which were concerned with the use of radium and power X-rays and I learned a great deal about the effects of radiation upon the tissues. It may be that the kind of radiation I am talking about is wholly and entirely different from that which is a danger in connection with the machines referred to in this Bill. However, I have another experience to present to your Lordships which of itself convinces me, by analogy, that this ten-year rule cannot stand and that the Government ought to take it back and reconsider it.
Some forty-two years ago, in 1916 and 1917, men were exposed to mustard gas. It may surprise your Lordships to know that this year no fewer than twenty men entered St. Dunstan's, now wholly blind as the delayed result of mustard gas affecting their eyes long ago. There is a continuous history of, at first, keratitis, or inflammation of the surface of the eyes. Over the period of the first ten years

1033
perhaps it did not affect their going to work: they hardly complained about it, though in the cold weather they had sore eyes. It continued to get a little worse in the second and third decades, and in the fourth they became much worse and eventually became blind because the tear ducts dried up, their eyes became dry and so acutely inflamed that no light could pass through them. This was wholly unexpected, wholly unknown before. It was not until some years after the First World War had finished that my advisers and I fought a battle with the then Minister of Pensions to claim that this mustard gas affection was due to war service. Your Lordships will be glad to know that we won that battle, and every case since—and there have been more than 100—has been fully recognised by the Ministry of Pensions and has received full and ample benefits in St. Dunstan's.
It may be said that there is no analogy between this and what we are talking about, bat I think it is up to the Government to prove that that is so. Who can tell what will be the effect of these radiations, any more than one could have told what would be the effect of mustard gas? I believe it is a canon in our sense of justice that we should rather see one guilty man escape than one innocent man hang. Surely we should err rather on the side of not leaving out of compensation some person who may be most gravely affected eleven, twenty-one or thirty-one years after the acquisition of this radiation. I cannot feel that the Government can place this time limit upon so grievous an affliction as may fall on our fellow citizens, and it ought always to be open to people to prove that any situation in which they find themselves is one which the community should compensate.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I should like to support the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend. I recall a case which is somewhat analogous to this. I have not refreshed my memory about the details of it, but I think that what I am going to say is correct. Many years ago, when not much was known about radio-activity, a number of women were employed in a watch factory in the United States painting the dials or hands of watches with radio-active material. The quantities involved were quite small, and in many cases I believe
1034
there were no ill effects until some twenty or thirty years had elapsed; and then, after that, the victims lingered on in ill-health for considerable periods. That is an illustration of the kind of danger which may arise from radio-activity after a long period of time and shows how extremely unwise and unfair it would be to insert the limit which is proposed in this Bill.
LORD MILLS: I am sure we should all agree that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, have made valuable contributions to our discussion. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was very learned, and, having listened to it and to what the other two noble Lords have said, I must say that I am not without sympathy for what they are seeking to do. But I have to take into account that by this Amendment they are seeking, so far as time is concerned, to put an unlimited liability on licensees and, of course, on insurance. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has made it clear that personal injury from exposure to radioactivity may not become manifest until years after. The three-year period of limitation provided under the existing law for claims on account of this kind of injury is therefore too short. On the other hand, I am advised that the longer the claim is delayed the more difficult it will be for medical evidence to establish whether, for example, the plaintiff's injury was caused by exposure to radio-activity from the licensee's reactor at a particular time or by something unconnected with the licensee's reactor.
Moreover, on the practical side, insurers, or any other financial guarantors of a licensee, need to know for how long reserves must be set aside to meet contingent liabilities, and it would be virtually impossible, without much more experience of this kind of risk, to calculate the rate at which reserves should be built up now to meet claims twenty or thirty years ahead. Unless some shorter period, is fixed, licensees would find it difficult and expensive, if not impossible, to obtain cover for their liability. A ten-year period—I think this is important—is favoured by other member countries of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and is likely to be adopted for the purpose of any European convention on the insurance of

1035
nuclear risks, which may result from dissions now in progress. It is also acceptable to the insurance market.
It can be argued, of course—and there is no doubt much to be said for it—that ten years is not long enough to cover all possible cases of injury. But it is felt that it should be long enough to cover those that are capable of proof. In view of the difficulties I have described, the Government could not agree to a longer period, and still less to an unlimited period, and for those reasons I would suggest—
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Before the noble Lord concludes his plea, may I ask him to take into account that no Government in the last forty years have been able to sustain the so-called seven-year time limit beyond which a claim for a war pension fell out of date? They have tried. Every argument used by the noble Lord has been used from the Front Bench in the other place, and doubtless here, to sustain this seven-year time limit, but a sense of natural justice in the other place, no matter which Government were in power, has made it impossible for any Government in this country to sustain it. I beg the noble Lord to take into account that it is wholly contrary to natural justice to leave the citizen undefended against an unknown horror like this. It may be said that insurers will not insure. Well, they would not insure the "Queen Mary" because it was too big for them. So what did we do? We passed an Act of Parliament whereby the Government took the balance of the risk. I think the noble Lord ought to take this matter back for further thought.
LORD SILKIN: I am sure your Lordships will remain unconvinced by the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, as to the reasons for not accepting this Amendment. He accepts the fact that this risk requires special treatment, because the ordinary law would provide that the claim must be made within three years and he has extended it to ten years. The ten-year period is wholly arbitrary. The noble Lord, apparently, does not dispute the fact that injury may manifest itself after the ten years, but he says that if that is so, it is hard luck on the injured person and he must remain
1036
without a remedy. Why? The noble Lord says it is because of the difficulty of insurance; that insurers will not come forward; and he has mentioned various other reasons. Can he really sustain the point of view that the general public—and there may not be many of them—must remain without any remedy if, unhappily, after ten years they suffer this injury, which nobody can foresee or foretell?
The noble Lord talks about the difficulty of proving a claim. Of course that is a natural risk that any claimant must take. But at least he ought to be in a position to make his claim: he ought not to be barred from that. If he is unable to get medical evidence to establish that his injury is caused by the nuclear incident, then he will be unfortunate; he will lose his claim. But to say to him after ten years: "We recognise the risk you may be running. We recognise that you may have a claim, but we are not going to let you make it, partly because you will be in a difficulty yourself in making a claim and partly because it would be difficult to get insurance", is contrary to natural justice. So I beg the noble Lord to think again about it, and not to give us a definite refusal.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I refer to the speech of my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, with which I am in complete agreement? In the 'twenties and 'thirties in another place he and I saw much of the harsh workings of the contributability regulation. It just does not work. The Executive said that it ought to work and must work; but the answer is that it did not. Parliament was supreme, and the regulation was amended. I am rather sorry that to-day we have not with us some of those noble Lords who are skilled physicians and surgeons who contribute much to your Lordships' House on these particular problems, because I feel it would have added to the value of the debate had they been present. Obviously, they were unable to be here.
I am not really convinced that, because the ten-year limit is acceptable to O.E.E.C., and because it is acceptable to the insurance world, it must necessarily be acceptable to Parliament. The argument that it would be impossible for an insurance company to allocate reserves indefinitely does not seem to me

1037
a sound argument, in that the insurance company would know the number and the magnitude of any accidents for which there was a potential liability, and, in practice, there would only be a small residue of possible claims in later years for which the company would have to provide, and it would not require an enormous allocation of reserves to cover them. It seems to me, as one who speaks from these Benches—what I might call the Druids of this House, the Druids of Parliament, inhabiting the Stonehenge of this Bench—that the sense of the Committee is strongly against any request from the Government to-night that we should stand by this ten-year rule. I would appeal to the Minister, and ask him whether he would undertake to reconsider the matter between now and a later stage, so that perhaps on further consultations with those concerned there could be a new approach to this problem.
5.54 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): I should not have intervened at all, but for one thing. Of course, my noble friend will consider this matter again before the next stage of the Bill, because nobody would desire to close the door on a discussion which has obviously interested noble Lords, and about which so much that is valuable has been said. I would, however, put one or two arguments on the other side, which I hope noble Lords in their turn will take away with them and consider before the next stage takes place.
In the first place, this is not an isolated kind of problem at all. It is, of course, true that the medical effects of radiation can manifest themselves, in the case of certain types of radiation, after a number of years. But I must point out that there are a wide number of medical effects of various traumatic injuries which can manifest themselves after a number of years. These, in their turn, may give rise to civil liability of the kind we are discussing. Until two or three years ago—I cannot remember which—the period for limitation of all physical injuries was, broadly speaking, six years. I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I took part in those debates, and I remember that he discussed the matter with me then. Parliament then reduced the period to three years, and we had what was
1038
virtually the same discussion then on this subject—as to whether we should reduce the period from six to three years, knowing, as we did so, that there would be a residue of cases of people who had suffered genuine physical injuries due to causes which might be actionable in those cases, and who might be deprived of a remedy after the expiry of the period which we were deliberately shortening, and which we did after the most careful deliberation.
We did that for this reason. When you are dealing with two subjects, as distinct from the Government, where different considerations would arise, it is a question not of an insurance company but of the practical justice between two subjects, one, over whom an indefinite claim remains for an indefinite period of time, the means of rebutting which may have been taken away from him by the mere effluxion of time, and one who may be injured by a claim, the means of proof of which may be taken away from him by a period of limitation. In practice, of course, you cannot rule out the possibility in the courts of unsubstantiated claims of one sort or another being put forward; and it has been found by every successive Parliament since 1623 that an arbitrary period of some kind must be imposed on actions of personal injury, notwithstanding that it has been known, not only in this type of case, but in a large number of other cases, that the residual effects of accidents may not manifest themselves for many years. The reason is, of course, that when you are dealing with civil liability of individuals, you must draw the line somewhere; and, in the end, it you draw it at all, it will be an arbitrary line. It is a question of the balance of justice in each case, because in each case you may find an injustice has been imposed either on a plaintiff or a defendant.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, that, when you are dealing with actions for personal injury against a private defendant, rather a different kind of consideration arises from when you are dealing with cases of pension arising from injury either against an employer or against the State as the compensator, as in the case of war injury. A person who carries on his own business or leads his ordinary life ought not to be subjected for an indefinite period of

1039
time to the possibility of action. There must be some finality, otherwise unsubstantiated claims may be put forward and he may become the victim of a wide injustice; not the less so in this case, because, as we know, other Powers in other parts of the world are loosing into the stratosphere quantities of radioactive material any part of which may give rise to physical injuries which might provide an injured person with a possibility of a claim against an individual in this country, based upon a supposed connection with some emission of radioactive material by a private individual in this country.
There is, therefore, the practical argument, which I think the Committee should seriously consider, on the other side in this case. I think the Committee should remember that, ordinarily speaking, when we are dealing with actions for personal injuries (and we are dealing with such actions here) liability on the part of an individual is based, with certain well-defined exceptions, upon some fault on that individual's part—negligence or breach of statutory duty. We are here following one of the exceptional lines of Common Law cases of a Statute imposing an absolute liability on the individual. For that reason there is some ground for saying that there ought to be some limit in point of time on that absolute liability, because it is proposed to impose upon the individual a liability for the mere emission of this substance, in the absence of any fault whatever.
I would fully agree that this case, like the cases we discussed in much the same terms and in much the same way (though not in connection with radioactivity) two or three years ago, gives rise to interesting and, I think, important debates, because the suffering of individuals is necessarily involved and the compensation for the suffering of individuals is likewise involved. Whilst my noble friend would be willing to consider this matter again, I hope that, if he undertakes to do so, as he has authorised me to say he will, noble Lords will also take into account what I have sought to say, haltingly and to some extent impromptu, because I think there is a case on both sides. If we take it back, we take it back without any undertaking except to examine this matter on its merits.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am very glad the noble Viscount the Lord President has intervened in this debate, because we felt that the Minister in charge had met with a definite negative a very strong case. It was felt in all parts of the Committee that individuals were going to suffer very great hardship if there was no change in the exact text of the Bill. The noble Viscount the Lord President has, of course, pointed out that there are arguments on the opposite side which have to be taken into account. We all recognise that; but the arguments for doing something, and for altering the terms of the Bill, are so strong that we are quite sure we have the public opinion of the country behind us in desiring some change in the Bill. What precisely the change may be will be for the Minister and the Government to decide. They may decide merely to alter the number of years. They may decide to say that in certain exceptional cases on account of certain special diseases the period of claims might be extended. They might say that after a certain number of years the Government would take a share and provide for those exceptional cases. There are all kinds of ways in which the Government can act, and I hope one will be adopted by the Government. I am sure that unless they do there will be a great deal of feeling on this matter.
I should like to remind your Lordships of one incident that happened during the war. The opinion of the Government at the beginning was that where there was damage inflicted by the enemy during the war it should stay where it fell, and Mr. Winston Churchill (as he then was) went to Ramsgate and found such destruction and such feeling that he came back and immediately changed his mind; he decided to make the Government responsible and to have something in the nature of insurance which covered all cases of damage in the war. I am quite sure that on reconsideration the Government will feel that a real change in this matter in this Bill will be necessary.
LORD SHEPHERD: After the undertaking to reconsider this matter given to the Committee by the noble Viscount the Lord President on behalf of the Minister, may I make one small point? We are going to have a large number of reactors; we do not know how many. Accidents may occur. There may be two

1041
or three accidents in the course of two or three years. Then when does the ten-year limit begin?
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to support the rather wider appeal which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, made in regard to this matter. I thought that the somewhat legalistic reply of the noble Viscount was on the verge of revolting, if not quite revolting when one considers that at the present time we are really unleashing a wild beast whose power is so enormous that it must be harnessed in the interests of the community. If it gets loose, so to speak, it may well wreak destruction far and wide, and surely to look at this matter from the point of view of the kind of accidents which are dealt with in the Limitation of Liabilities Bill which we were discussing in this House a few years ago is really the wrong approach altogether. In this Bill the community is taking on itself to license individuals in the community to work this beast, as it were, and it seems to me altogether wrong that if it escapes and causes death and destruction in the way it may well do it is to be judged in the terms of the ability of insurance companies to establish funds. I think the community itself must take on the responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, was absolutely right when he drew attention to the fact that when in the case of the "Queen Mary" the insurance market could not shoulder the risk, the Government took it. I hope the Government will look at this matter in the wide way and the wise way the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, suggested, and see whether the State cannot come in on behalf of the community and shoulder this responsibility which in the long run the community must take.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I take one small point? The noble Viscount said that this question might arise in regard to somebody who had only ten years' connection with an incident. I would draw his attention to Clause 5 of the Bill, which is most carefully and fully detailed in laying out the provisions for ensuring that when an incident actually happens it is properly recorded, and anybody associated with such an incident would have his name registered. There would, therefore, be some quite strong prima facie evidence which could clearly be brought
1042
into account at any time in the following thirty or forty years. I should like to draw the noble Viscount's attention to the dangerous paths into which his argument leads. It really strikes at the root of the Bill. I wish to make no Party political point when I say that the effect of his argument is to suggest that the Bill cannot provide under private enterprise what the Government can provide. I am sure that in practice we must accept that private enterprise will be in this field, but unless we can get over this difficulty it will raise a serious problem which in the end may give rise to very grave public anxiety. I can see in years to come public opinion taking over in the way it has in matters such as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, mentioned, and compelling the Government to do something which it would be so much better for them to face up to and do now. I hope that when the Minister considers this point he will take into account the fact that public opinion will be liable to assert itself in this matter.
LORD TAYLOR: I wish first to return for a moment to the question the noble Viscount raised of the difficulty of proof. It is going to be very difficult to prove these cases anyway, because the diseases are occurring naturally, and to prove after six or seven years, or whatever the period may be, that a particular case of leukæmia or aplastic anæmia is due to atomic radiation is going to be a very difficult task. I believe it will probably be necessary to prove a substantial concentration of radio-strontium in the bones to get this proof, and I do not think that the noble Viscount's argument that this could have come from ordinary outfall of experimental atomic explosions would be valid in that sort of case. It would have to be a very large concentration to make the case, far beyond background radiation or nuclear outfall. I think the number of cases is likely to be small. If experience today in the world with nuclear reactors is correct it will, thank goodness! be small where this can be proved.
Therefore, I am pleased that the Lord President and the Minister are going to look at this matter again. I hope that in so doing the Lord President will consult with his medical advisers about this matter—he does not need to consult his legal advisers; his legal authority

1043
is such that that is not necessary—and see whether the arguments which have been advanced are valid or invalid. If they are valid and if the problem is a small one, as I believe and hope it is likely to be in terms of numbers, then some major advance in the number of years covered may be possible. With the assurances that we have had, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MILLS: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, leave out ("such as are therein mentioned") and insert ("to which that subsection applies").—(Lord Mills.)
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Provision of cover for licensee's liability
4.—(1) Subject to the next following subsection, where a nuclear site licence has been granted in respect of any site, the licensee shall make such provision, either by insurance or by some other means, as the Minister may with the consent of the Treasury approve for sufficient funds to he available at all times to ensure that any claims in connection with the use of the site which have been or may be duly established against the licensee in respect of any hurt to any person or any damage to any property caused by such ionising radiations as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section three of this Act, whether made by virtue of the said subsection (1) or otherwise, including any claim under an agreement for indemnity by the licensee, are satisfied up to an aggregate amount of five million pounds in respect of each severally of the following periods, that is to say—

(a) the current cover period, if any;

(b) any cover period which ended less than ten years before the time in question;

(c) if an action in respect of any hurt to any person or any damage to any property which is attributable to ionising radiations emitted during any earlier cover period has been commenced within the period referred to in subsection (4) of the said section three but remains to be disposed of, that earlier cover period.

(2) Where in the case of any licensed site the provision required by subsection (1) of this section is to be made otherwise than by insurance and, apart from this subsection, provision would also fall to be so made by the same person in respect of two or more other sites, then, unless in any particular case the Minister otherwise directs, the requirements of that subsection shall be deemed to be satisfied in respect of each of those sites if funds
1044
are available to meet such claims as are mentioned in that subsection in respect of all the sites collectively, and those funds would for the time being be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of that subsection in respect of those two of the sites in respect of which those requirements are highest.
6.12 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new clause:
Provision of cover for licensee's liability
"4. All claims in connection with the use of the site which have been or may be duly established in respect of any hurt to any person or any damage to any property caused by such ionising radiations as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section three of this Act, whether made by virtue of the said subsection (1) or otherwise, shall be defrayed in full out of moneys provided by Parliament:
Provided that there shall be attached to all nuclear site licences granted by the Minister such provision for the indemnification of and the reimbursement by the licensee in whole or in part of any moneys so defrayed by Parliament and any costs and expenses incurred in connection therewith and for securing the payment thereof as he may think fit."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. Clause 4 provides that the licensees have to insure and determines their liability. Your Lordships who have studied the clause will appreciate the provisions that are contained in it: first, that the licensee has to provide insurance up to £5 million; and secondly, that if in the opinion of the Minister the claims are likely to exceed £5 million, then he is to present the facts to Parliament. The Bill is silent as to what happens once the facts have been presented to Parliament; it is even silent as to what is to happen to the claims.
We on this side think that this is an entirely unsatisfactory method of dealing with the question of liability. We think that those who have been injured should be under no doubt whatever as to what will be the compensation they will get as the result of their injuries. It should not depend upon the amount of the insurance or the aggregate amount of the claims. The heavier the claims the more risk the individual runs of not getting compensated for his injury. It should not depend upon that. Once an injured person is able to establish his injury and that it came as the result of the processes that we are discussing, then he ought to be quite certain that he is

1045
going to get the proper amount of compensation. We think the most satisfactory way of dealing with that is to provide that the Government themselves should undertake the liability, and that they should be in a position to reimbuse themselves from the licensees. They should make their own arrangements for getting reimbursement from the licensees, but the injured person should be entitled to make his claim against the Government. I think the purpose of the Amendment is perfectly simple; I do not think I need elaborate it at this stage, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 4 and insert clause.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I think that the intervention of the Lord President of the Council and the views which have been expressed by certain noble Lords opposite really bring us to regard this sort of alteration to the Bill as inevitable. In the present state of our knowledge, these risks cannot be regarded as ordinary commercial, citizen-to-citizen risks and liabilities. In the nature of the residual risk, this must be a responsibility of the community to such individuals as may be injured or damaged by the beginnings of the development of this new source of power. If we were talking some half century hence we might take quite a different view, but at present we do not know enough to regard this new and unmeasured risk as something which can be properly covered by ordinary commercial insurance. The Minister recognises that, because he has powers under the Bill to bring in the community when the private insurer is inadequate to cover the risks. I am glad that the Minister and the Government are willing to think again about this big subject, which is not a Party matter at all, and I hope that upon consideration they will come to the conclusion, without any kind of ideological points at all, that here it is best, for the time being, that the community should shoulder this risk for such unfortunate members as might be injured.
6.18 p.m.
LORD MILLS: The purpose of this Amendment to which the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, have spoken, is of course, fundamental. It is not a question of wording; it is a fundamental idea. It
1046
is to leave out Clause 4, which requires, among other things, that a licensee shall take out approved cover against his liability for radio-active injury or, damage. In its place the Amendment seeks to substitute a new clause providing that all claims on account of such injury or damage which have been duly established shall be met in full from the Exchequer. At the same time the Minister would be required to attach to each licence such conditions as he thought fit for requiring reimbursement from the licensee in whole or in part.
It may well be asked why the taxpayer should have to shoulder the burden of meeting in full claims of this kind. Industrial injuries and sickness benefits already exist, and insurance against injury by radio-active exposure will still be available in the insurance market's ordinary life, accident and sickness policies. The provision in the Amendment for recovery from the licensee gives no indication of what he may expect to be his financial liability. The Minister would have an unfettered discretion to require him to pay the full amount of the claims or only a small fraction of the amount. Even if it permitted the Minister to require the licensee to take out cover, no indication is provided of how the cover is to be related to particular nuclear occurrences. I personally feel—and it is the view of Her Majesty's Government—that such an arrangement, disregarding the financial obligations to be placed upon licensees, would be quite impracticable and quite opposed to the intention of this Bill. As I have said, this is a fundamental matter and I have no option but to suggest to your Lordships that it should be rejected.
LORD SHEPHERD: Are we not faced with a rather fantastic position in which the statutory undertaker—the Atomic Energy Authority—has unlimited liability for an unlimited period, and yet this new body who will enjoy a licence is to have a limited liability for a limited period? Quite honestly I fail to understand the principle. The noble Lord, in his speech on Second Reading, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 212 (No. 9), col. 519]:
"The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 made the Atomic Energy Authority completely and absolutely liable to an unlimited extent for the result of any of its operations and for any period of time. I do not think that one can

1047
expect a business which has to balance its accounts, taking one year with another, to operate under such conditions."
Is it not a fact that the Atomic Energy Authority has to produce books year by year? That was my understanding of the Act. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain the position when he answers. I have one question which I should like to put to the noble Lord in regard to the research reactor at Aldermaston. I now understand that this reactor has been erected and operated without a licence, since a licence is not required. May I ask: how has the insurance for that reactor been covered? I must say that I feel the answer we have been given on this Amendment is quite unsatisfactory, and I would ask the noble Lord the Minister to think once again and to treat this Amendment, or his own clause, in the same manner as he undertook to treat the previous Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: It appears that the noble Lord the Minister intends to be firm on this as he has been on every other Amendment we have put forward. I will say only one thing to him: it does not look as though one can make much impression upon him on this. As the Amendment stands, the intention is that Her Majesty's Government should themselves be responsible for compensation in respect of injuries; and we believe it is right that the injured person should be in no uncertainty that he is going to get compensation. This clause leaves him in uncertainty. The argument which the noble Lord puts forward is that it would be quite wrong to leave insurance companies in uncertainty, but apparently it does not matter about the injured person. We think that that is looking at it from entirely the wrong angle.
If Her Majesty's Government feel that it would be unfair to the licensee to present him with the complete bill for compensation in respect of injuries, the Amendment itself provides that the Minister may require reimbursement in whole or in part. He therefore has complete discretion as to whether he will ask the licensee to pay the whole of the compensation, or up to such figure as he (the Minister) chooses. There is not a great deal of difference between us, and I do not see why the noble Lord is so inflexible about it. It is not really a question of principle.
1048
Our Amendment seeks to make quite certain that the injured person will get his compensation. If the noble Lord wants to limit the liability of the licensee to £5 million he can still do that under our Amendment, by not requiring the full reimbursement from the licensee. But the one thing that would be certain is that, whatever might be the amount of compensation involved, the injured person would not suffer; and I am sure that it would not be the desire of anybody in this House that people injured as a result of an occurrence over which they have no possible control should not be properly compensated. Although the noble Lord has made up his mind and is going to fight this at all costs, I still think, therefore, that it is something to which he should give further consideration.
LORD SALTOUN: I apologise for entering into this discussion at such a late hour but I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, whether, if his Government comes in, he will be prepared to amend, in the same sense, the Merchant Shipping Act, which carries precisely the same provision?—as I know because I have suffered under it myself.
LORD SILKIN: I should want notice of that question.
LORD MILLS: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has put two questions to me. The first was with regard to the Atomic Energy Authority. The noble Lord asks how I discriminate between their case and that of the licensed industries. There is a very great difference. The Atomic Energy Authority is financed from voted monies. It does not have to balance its books, taking one year with another, as nationalised industries do. The other question asked by the noble Lord was: how is the reactor put up by Associated Electrical Industries covered? It is obviously just covered by insurance, so far as any risks are insurable. What this Bill seeks to do is to put upon the licensee an absolute liability limited only in time and amount, but if the accident occurs—
LORD LATHAM: Can the noble Lord say what will happen to claims beyond £5 million? Where is the money coming from to pay those?
LORD MILLS: That is already provided in the Bill. If a claim exceeds

1049
£5 million for any occurrence the Minister will take action and the whole matter will be reported to Parliament.
LORD SILKIN: What action?
LORD LATHAM: There is no indication of whether claims will be paid, by whom, or from what funds.
LORD MILLS: That will be a matter for Parliament to decide at that time.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: What a position to put a claimant in!
LORD LATHAM: Does that mean that if the total claims do not exceed £5 million the claimant will be in one position, but if the aggregate claims exceed £5 million he will be in another position?
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Every claimant will be affected.
LORD MILLS: That is precisely what it does mean. The claimant lodges his claim and if the claims exceed £5 million it will be reported to Parliament to decide what action will be taken.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am sorry to come back yet again but how is the Minister to know at any given time whether the claims will or will not exceed £5 million? It will take a long time for claims to be noticed and met. Are all the claimants to await the ultimate before they know whether or not they are to be paid?
LORD MILLS: That is obviously not the case.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Why not?
LORD MILLS: The case would be that when the claims resulting from the accident reached £5 million, the matter would then be reported to Parliament, as provided for in the Bill.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Will the people affected have been paid meanwhile?
LORD MILLS: Some will.
LORD LATHAM: May I press that further? It seems to us to be fundamental. It seems to me that the situation could be that a claimant would have put his claim to the licensee, and the licensee his to the insurance company, on the basis that at that stage the total claim did not exceed
1050
£5 million. Then it is discovered, in the mind of the Minister, that the total claims are likely to exceed £5 million, whereupon the claimant must do nothing more—
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: The matter is arrested.
LORD LATHAM: —until there is a report to Parliament. That could mean the earlier the claimant the better the treatment. Whether or not this Amendment is accepted, clearly this clause cannot stand as drafted.
LORD MILLS: This Amendment deals merely with the question of whether or not there should be a limit of £5 million, and it seeks to put upon the Exchequer the cost of meeting the claims whatever they amount to. As I said at the beginning, that is quite fundamental.
LORD SILKIN: With the right of recoupment against the licensee.
LORD MILLS: Yes, I understand that perfectly; and it is just that right of recoupment which I think is quite ineffective unless the amount is limited to an insurable amount.
LORD SILKIN: Under the Amendment, the noble Lord can fix the amount. If he reads the Amendment again, I believe he will agree that it is for him to decide to get the recoupment, either wholly or in part.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: May I beg the Minister to think again about this? I wonder whether what he is doing is realised. He is protecting the licensee against a situation which could be only at the expense of the injured persons who have suffered injury through no fault of their own but as a result of the development of this science, and I believe that that is really unthinkable. Surely the Minister ought to say, "I will guarantee that insured persons shall be compensated. I will recoup myself as best I can."
LORD MILLS: The noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, is ignoring the fact that we are advised that £5 million is a practical limit, and it is most unlikely that anything will happen to exceed that figure. However, I am prepared, without raising undue hopes, to have a look at this matter again between now and the Report stage, because I am always anxious to take

1051
into consideration what noble Lords opposite or on this side of the House have to say on these matters.
LORD SILKIN: In view of that assurance I certainly shall not press this Amendment, but certainly this clause cannot stand as it is. We believe this Amendment is right. But may I make this suggestion? There are a number of undertakings which the noble Lord has now given. It would be a good thing if, somehow, we could fix a mutually convenient time and have a talk about them to find out how far we can convince one another. My noble Leader says that we tried to do so previously and we could not arrange a mutually convenient time. But I hope sufficient time will elapse between now and the next stage of the Bill to enable such discussions, because they would save a good deal of noble Lords' time.
LORD MILLS: I should be only too happy to do that. We did fix a mutually convenient time previously, but it proved not to be mutually convenient.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether, in view of the slow progress we are making with this Bill and the rather unsatisfactory position we have reached from our point of view, it would not be wise now to adjourn the debate and have a further talk about the remaining clauses. The other Amendments will take some time to discuss. We all want to do the best we can with this Bill; it is a very important Bill, and I suggest that it might be worth while to adjourn the debate now or at a fixed time—say, seven o'clock—and meet again on it on another occasion, perhaps having had some conversations in the meantime.
THE EARL OF HOME: I believe that the noble Viscount knows that we are in some little difficulty next week with the Deer (Scotland) Bill and a number of other items on which I believe we are going to meet his convenience by certain adjustments. Perhaps if we could go on until seven o'clock and then adjourn, it might suit the convenience of the House to come back to the Committee stage after further discussion. Perhaps there could be further discussion before the next Committee stage and then further discussion before the Report stage.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for that suggestion, but there is this point to be considered. The Minister has been kind enough to say that he will give consideration to two most fundamental matters that have been raised on Amendments from this side. It would really affect the whole of the rest of the proceedings. Because we should know what his decisions are after a reconsideration, it would be very much easier to conduct the rest of this debate at another date than it would be to do so to-day.
LORD SILKIN: Perhaps we could continue until seven o'clock.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.37 p.m.
LORD MILLS: This is a drafting Amendment only. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, leave out from ("by") to ("whether") in line 35 and insert ("ionising radiations to which subsection (1) of section three of this Act applies").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, in subsection (2), to omit "then, unless in any particular case the Minister otherwise directs". The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, it will be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 together. The purpose of these Amendments is to clarify the meaning of subsection (2) of Clause 4. This subsection deals with the case of a licensee who is licensed in respect of three or more nuclear sites and whose cover against claims for radio-active injury or damage is in the form of liquid assets instead of insurance. The subsection permits such a licensee to hold cover for two sites only, subject, of course, to the Minister's approval of the nature of the liquid assets under subsection (1). If a licensee, like the Generating Board who will by 1965 have half-a-dozen nuclear power stations, had to cover his risk by holding £30 million of liquid assets, the immobilisation of resources would be excessive. No insurance company would set aside a comparable sum to cover the same risk.
Hence the subsection permits such a licensee to hold assets for all his sites—to cover all his sites—of an amount not less than would in the ordinary course be permissible for two sites. This would

1053
ordinarily ensure that, if there is a nuclear occurrence, there is £5 million available for meeting claims at once and another £5 million in reserve in case there should be another occurrence at any of the licensee's sites soon after, before the Minister has had time to direct the licensee to take out fresh cover of £5 million under Clause 5 (6). The effect of the Amendment is to give the Minister discretion, should he think the protection of the public demands it, to require the licensee to hold liquid assets totalling more than what would be required in the ordinary course for two sites, but less than what would be so required for all the sites (that is to say, in the example already cited, something more than £10 million but less than £30 million); or the Minister may require the licensee to hold the full amount for all his sites by excluding the operation of the subsection altogether.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 26, leave out from ("sites") to ("the") in line 27.—(Lord Mills.)
LORD SILKIN: We have no objection to the Minister's having this Amendment. I think I understand what he has said in support of it, but most of us would like to read it in print, and we may have to come back to this point at a later stage. Furthermore, it may well be coloured by the discussions we have. For instance, if the Minister were to accept our point of view on the Amendment to Clause 4, this Amendment may itself need some modification. With that proviso to his proviso, we provisionally accept this Amendment.
LORD MILLS: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 33, at end insert—
("Provided that the Minister may in any particular case at any time direct either that this subsection shall not apply or that the funds available as aforesaid shall be of such amount higher than that provided for by the foregoing provisions of this subsection, but lower than that necessary to satisfy the requirements of the said subsection (1) in respect of all the sites severally, as may be requited by the direction.")—(Lord Mills.)
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Dangerous occurrences in connection with licensed sites
(5) The Minister may by order make provision for enabling such particulars of any person shown to have been within such area during such period (being the period during which the occurrence took place) as may be specified in the order to be registered by or on behalf of that person in such manner as may be so specified, and any such registration in respect of any person shall be sufficient evidence of his presence within that area during that period unless the contrary is proved; and any such order shall be made by statutory instrument and he laid before Parliament after being made.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: This is a very simple Amendment, as you see. A person who has a claim may have his claim contested by the Government. We regard it as important that there should be some time limit after which that claim cannot be challenged. I am sure the Minister will see the justice of this proposal, and I hope he will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In subsection (5) after ("unless") to insert ("within twelve months from the date of registration").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD MILLS: I am afraid that this is another Amendment which I must ask your Lordships to reject. Clause 5 (5) enables the Minister to provide for the registration of persons shown to have been in the vicinity when a nuclear occurrence happens. Registration is to raise a rebuttable presumption of the person's presence in the area at the relevant time. The effect of the Amendment would be to make registration conclusive proof of the person's presence—
THE EARL OF LUCAN: After twelve months.
LORD MILLS: —unless the contrary were proved within twelve months. The arrangements for registration will certainly require applicants to furnish particulars which are capable of being checked, but if the number of applicants were large it would be impossible to check fully all the particulars in all the applications without an entirely disproportionate staff. Perhaps only a small fraction of the number of applicants would ever make a claim. If the Amendment were accepted, either a detailed check of every application would have to be made within twelve months, with

1055
unnecessary expense and effort, or the applicants' statements at the time of registration could never be challenged again. The reasonable course is, as Clause 5 (5) already provides, to create a rebuttable presumption of the applicants' presence from the fact of registration. By this means the burden of proof is transferred from the claimant to the defendant, and this surely represents a substantial concession to the interests of potential sufferers. I submit to your Lordships that this Amendment should be rejected.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think that the Minister has given an entirely good reason for rejecting this Amendment. I can well understand his point that there may be a large number of registrations and that if the licensee had only twelve months in which to rebut the presumption that the person who claimed to be present was there it would make it very difficult for him from an administrative point of view. But that is only a reason for saying that twelve months is not long enough and that it ought to be a little longer: it is not a reason for saying that it should be open to rebuttal at any time. A person may say: "Here was an occurrence, and I was there". He may have suffered no injury. Then, nine years later, he may suffer an injury. In spite of the registration it remains open to the licensee to say that he was not there at the time and to try to establish that, and by that time the injured person may have lost all the evidence that he had of his presence there. It is putting the injured person in a great difficulty. I would suggest that if the noble Lord does not like twelve months he should accept two years or three years, but let there be some period after which the registration really is conclusive. I am reluctant to add to the noble Lord's burden of matters which he is going to consider, but I hope that this is a matter which he will reconsider. I do not think there is a lot between us, but I feel that a time should come when a person who has registered and who is liable to suffer from injury can feel that his registration is conclusive.
LORD MILLS: I am sorry I cannot take the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The burden of proof becomes the burden of the defendant,
1056
and that surely is sufficient. He has to prove that the man was not there: it is not for the man to prove that he was there. The assumption is that he was there unless and until it can be proved that he was not. I think that this clause as it stands makes this matter easily workable, without asking for a great deal of work and trouble which is quite unnecessary.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.48 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE moved to add to subsection (5):
"Provided that a person who has not so registered shall not be debarred from making a claim."
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple Amendment, and I suggest that the Minister might concede it without putting obstacles in the way. As I understand it, the position is this. The purpose of registration at the time is in order that a person may be able to prove his presence in the neighbourhood of the explosion (or whatever it is called) before the question of damage to himself or his property becomes apparent. That is the object of the previous sentence. Now we come to this question: suppose a man has not secured registration along those lines; is he, in consequence of that, to be debarred for all time? As I understand it, according to the Bill he is, and I suggest to the noble Lord that that is an unreasonable position. Of course, if he does not register at the time the person will have on a later occasion to prove that he was there. It will be difficult enough for him to prove that; but, if he can prove it, surely he ought not to be debarred from making a claim merely because he has not registered in time. If the noble Lord rejects this Amendment, we shall have the position that everybody within thirty or forty miles of an occurrence will insist upon registering because that will be their only chance of getting any compensation if damage should come. I hope that the noble Lord will make an exception in this case and will accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 4, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
LORD MILLS: I am glad to assure the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, that this clause contains nothing which could

1057
be construed as debarring a person who had failed to register under the subsection from claiming compensation for radio-active injuries or damage. That is the situation. In my own view the Amendment is an unnecessary one. However, if the noble Lord feels that clarification is desirable, I am ready to consider the matter further. I am not sure whether the Amendment as drafted would be technically correct, but if I come to the conclusion that an Amendment should be made, I suggest that I put one down on Report stage.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.51 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had given notice of his intention to move as an Amendment, after subsection (5), to insert the following new subsection:
"(6) Where a person has so registered as is provided in the preceding subsection or not having so registered establishes his presence within the area and during the period referred to in the preceding subsection and such person has suffered hurt or damage to property of such character as gives rise to the presumption that such hurt or damage is attributable to ionising radiations as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section three of this Act then such person shall be deemed to have suffered such hurt or damage in consequence of such ionising radiations aforesaid unless the contrary is proved."
The noble Lord said: In view of the more flexible attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, I feel that it might have been desirable to strike while the iron is hot and move this Amendment now. On the other hand, it is an Amendment which may take some considerable time, and I will not disguise from the Committee that it may be controversial, even in the Minister's present attitude. Therefore, I think it might be more convenient to adjourn the Committee stage rather than begin the discussion of this Amendment and leave off in the middle. I would suggest, if the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, would agree, that at this stage I might move that the proceedings be adjourned.
LORD MILLS: I should be quite agreeable to the Amendment being considered on Report stage, if that would meet the case, but I suggest that we take Amendments 18 and 19, which are formal, to-day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should have thought this Amendment far too important to be simply postponed to one discussion on Report. I should certainly think that it is the kind of Amendment that an Opposition have a right to have debated in detail, then have an answer from the Government with a chance for them to think about it before Report. Simply to postpone the Amendment to Report stage, as the noble Lord suggests, would not suit us at all. We must have a debate, and as we should go very late if we did, it might be better to adjourn the Committee now, as my noble friend Lord Silkin suggested.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I hope that the noble Lord will agree to that course, because this is an important matter concerning the whole question of the onus of proof, and on this difficult matter I am sure that many noble Lords will wish to speak. There could not be more difficult circumstances affecting the onus of proof because of the physical build-up of the effects of radiation, as my noble friend Lord Taylor pointed out from his medical knowledge of the question. As the Government have agreed that we should finish at seven o'clock, and since this is bound to be a major part of our consideration of the Bill, I think that that would be the best course.
LORD SALTOUN: Is not the proper course to recommit the clause?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I wonder whether it would be convenient to postpone this Amendment to a further stage of the Committee, and take this evening the two formal Amendments in the name of my noble friend so that we have just the one Amendment to deal with next time.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not mind that.
Clause 5 negatived.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Liability of Government departments and Atomic Energy Authority in respect of nuclear installations.]:
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, in subsection (2), after "1954" to insert "but subject to the next following subsection". The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission I will deal with this Amendment and No. 19 together. Subsection (2) of Clause 8 is designed to fill a gap in the

1059
Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954. Under the Act as it now is, the Authority is under a duty to prevent injury or damage by radio-activity given off from its installations. But the Act says nothing about irradiated nuclear fuel in the course of carriage from or to the Authority's installations. This subsection places the Authority under a liability to prevent any injury or damage by radio-activity from fuel which it is transporting on its own behalf. Under the subsection as it now stands, however, there is doubt whether the Authority would be under an absolute duty to prevent damage by irradiated fuel imported from abroad which it was transporting from a United Kingdom port to one of its own establishments. The Amendments are designed to remove that doubt and make it clear that the Authority has the same absolute duty to prevent injury by the escape of radio-activity in the United Kingdom whether the fuel it is transporting was irradiated in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 7, after ("1954") insert ("but subject to the next following subsection").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD GREENHILL: I should like to ask the noble Lord the question that I asked earlier. In addition to the transport of irradiated fuel in the United Kingdom, does this include the transport of radioactive isotopes?
LORD MILLS: I must give the noble Lord the same answer as I gave to his previous question.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 10, leave out from ("Authority") to ("cause") in line 11 and insert ("within, or between places within, the United Kingdom").—(Lord Mills.)
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be recommitted at a date to be agreed later.

MANŒUVRES BILL [H.L.]
7.2 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
NATIONAL DEBT BILL [H.L.]
House adjourned at eight minutes past seven o'clock.