Lords Sitting of 16 December 1958

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

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty The Queen, signed by her own hand. It is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the International Sugar Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1958, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. I will comply with your request."

AFFORESTATION IN WELSH COUNTIES
2.35 p.m.
LORD DYNEVOR: 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 what acreage of afforestation has taken place in the counties of Carmarthen, Cardigan and Breconshire up to the end of the last planting season; what further developments of their nature are contemplated; and how much land for the purpose has been acquired.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the area of plantations established by the Forestry Commission in Carmarthen, Cardigan and Breconshire up to the end of the last planting season is 60,908 acres. The approximate area to be planted in the next three seasons is 12,598 acres and the land in hand for planting is 32,865 acres.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply.

PICTORIAL STAMPS
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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, having regard to the fact that small regional stamps have been issued in which emblems of local interest appear, they will consider the advisability of issuing small stamps showing attractive pictorial subjects of national interest such as are issued in the Commonwealth and other countries.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have nothing to add to the information given in replies to the noble Viscount's many earlier Questions on this subject.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his Answer; but does he by any chance remember Goldsmith's maxim:
"Hope, like the glimmering taper's light, Adorns and cheers the way! "
That is my maxim in regard to my pictorial stamps.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am, of course, aware of that. In view of the fact that this is the noble Viscount's tenth Question on the subject, I am also reminded of the maxim that if you say something loud enough and often enough, everyone begins to believe it. But I would beg the noble Viscount to remember that that can be applied in both directions.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, whether he is aware that the noble Viscount opposite is not the only person in this House who is interested in this question, and that other countries have shown the way?
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why the Government are so blind in this matter? There is a great demand for these stamps. It would be of immense help to a branch of the arts which is in danger of extinction through lack of patronage; and since the Government alone can be the patron, it would be well to think this matter out again, and perhaps the next time the noble Viscount puts down his Question, which I hope will not be too long hence, he may get a more sensible Answer.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord has said. It seemed to me up till now that the interest in this matter had come from one particular quarter.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will inquire in other countries, particularly in France, where the stamps have reached a high artistic merit. They not only provide a helpful patronage of the arts but also render the Government a useful revenue from collectors all over the world.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to indulge all over again in the debate that we have had on more than one occasion in the past on this Question, but the noble Lord has no doubt noticed that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has, perhaps not surprisingly, a Motion down already on the Paper.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, could I put this point to the noble Lord with reference to what he has said, to show that the interest is by no means confined to one quarter? If he will consult the stamp magazines he will find that the demand comes from many quarters throughout the country.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, could the noble Lord refresh our memories as to what the reasons are against this proposal?
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if the Question is repeated when Parliament meets again, he will be prepared to consider it in the meantime?
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: We cannot wait all that time.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think I can do no better than to end as I began, by saying that I have nothing to add.

SMALL-COAL-BURNING STOVES
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider encouraging the use of enclosed stoves which will burn small coal et cetera, thus helping the mining industry and smoke abatement.]
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, my Department collaborates in the publication of a list of recommended solid fuel burning equipment. The design of grates and stoves capable of burning small coal with effective smoke reduction has had continuous attention in present circumstances. If a successful design is found it will be added to the list and suitably publicised.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will use some imagination in this matter, and whether he realises that if (shall I say?) 1 million or 5 million people were so far to change their habits as to use enclosed stoves like the Esse, the Cosy Stove and the Aga (and I may say that I have no interest in any of them), instead of open fires, which are quite out of date and most wasteful, then the problem of the mines would be largely solved, the air would be cleaner, the people would be warmer and a great contribution would be made towards the economy? May I ask the noble Lord whether he will set people to work on this problem?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I suggest that all that is perfectly obvious. The Government are using their imagination; the Government have people working on the problem and it will be pursued with all vigour.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, is it not true that all that the Government are doing is to recommend stoves to an old-fashioned people who will not change their habits? Would Her Majesty's Government consider, for example, making a gift of 5 million stoves to the people? May I ask him whether it would not pay handsomely by getting this small coal used? Or, alternatively, will he ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce a kind of personal investment allowance, so that when you put in a stove you get something off your tax?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I think it is rather too much to ask me whether I will give away 5 million stoves; or, rather, whether the Government will do so. I should like notice of that question. But I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are fully seized of the

323
importance of this matter, and are not just waiting to recommend a suitable stove.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister of Power whether more intensive directions could be given for the help of the mining industry in this matter? Is he going to review what is outstanding now for nuclear electric power stations? I believe that he still has outstanding a scheme to spend £750 million which will put coal out of use in all new power stations. I understand that there is no other country in the world with our own native resources of fuel which is adopting nuclear power for electric power stations at anything like that rate. Will he have that matter revised, and give some hope of using our own resources first and not second to oil and third to nuclear power?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, since the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has strayed a good deal from the Question which was asked, would it be out of order to ask the noble Lord whether he can assure us that consideration is being given to the, I believe, authorised statements in the Press with regard to the large stocks of small coal? It has been urged that the price should be reduced, so that sales of this commodity, as of other commodities in full supply, might begin to reduce the stocks and a lead could be given. Otherwise it would appear that the Government themselves discourage price reductions to encourage the flow of trade.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the Minister replies, may I ask him what rate of purchase tax these stoves carry? If they do carry purchase tax, would he draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the advisability of a reduction which would then increase the sale of these stoves?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, there is no purchase tax on these appliances. I have had no notice of a general debate on fuel, and I suggest that the questions of other noble Lords do not arise out of this Question.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Does that mean they are too difficult to answer?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask whether there is any known make of stove on the market which will burn these surplus stocks of coal without causing an inordinate amount of smoke?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's question, there are no inexpensive makes of stove on the market, but there are prototypes in existence which are now being fully tested. The importance of the matter is obvious.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, has the noble Lord observed that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, refers to
"thus helping the mining industry."
I put a question to the noble Lord which would perhaps lead to a policy which would help the mining industry. Why cannot he answer?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, if the noble Viscount the Leader of the Oppositoin would not mind my saying so, the reason my noble friend cannot answer is that it is not within the sphere of this Question.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I have just put the question.
THE EARL OF HOME: I know the noble Viscount has just put the question, but the Question on the Paper—and I think the whole House must stick to some rules in this matter—referred to stoves burning small coal. If the noble Viscount wishes to raise the whole question of oil versus coal, and the like, there are plenty of other opportunities.

RIGHTS OF LIGHT BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to rights of light, and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that the Bill he read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Chesham, I beg to move the Motions standing in his name.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Tenby, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Brierfield, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Newhaven, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Padiham, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Llantrisant and Llantwit Fardre, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motions agreed to.

PROMOTION OF PRIVATE BILLS
2.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this is the Motion which we postponed, at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, last week in order to adjust the wording to meet what we thought were legitimate points made by the noble Lord. I hope that in its new form this Resolution now covers the points made then, and that it will now be acceptable to both sides of the House. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider
326
the extent to which proposed Private Bill enactments which would alter the powers or duties of persons other than the promoter should be allowed; and to report what, if any, consequential changes should be made in the Standing Orders governing the practice and procedure of the two Houses of Parliament in regard to Private Bills.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for having taken the original Motion back. I am interested to hear that he thought the reasons we gave for asking the Government to reconsider it were good reasons, because he did not tell us so at the time; he merely agreed to take them back. But obviously they were good reasons, because the Motion has been entirely re-cast (and for that we are very grateful indeed) and now much more nearly meets the point we put from these Benches last time. It does not quite meet the case, but I should be content to let the matter go if I could have an assurance that the Committee, when set up, will in fact consider the problem as we see it. I do not want to be difficult about forms of words, and I do not think it is a very satisfying process to discuss exact forms of words across the Floor of the House. What I have in mind, however, is this. For thirty-seven years it has been the practice for one authority to introduce in its Bills legislation on behalf of another authority, and I do not want the whole question to go into the melting-pot. I should like that position to be accepted, so that authorities will not suffer; in other words, that this question will not be the subject of consideration by the Joint Select Committee.
The reason this matter has arisen at all is that, whereas in the past most bodies have been reasonable in introducing into their own Bills proposals on behalf of another authority, suddenly, as I understand it, several authorities developed this practice to an unreasonable extent with the result that very heavy burdens were placed on the Select Committees—burdens which they found it difficult to carry. The wording of this Motion as it stands could raise the whole question of one authority introducing powers on behalf of another. I want that question to be regarded as one that has been settled as a result of thirty-seven years practice; the only issue should be the extent to

327
which it should be allowed, not the general principle. If I could have an assurance on that, and I hope that I can, I should not quarrel with these words and I would suggest that the House might accept them.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I do not quite understand the noble Lord's point. Surely in a matter of this kind, which is of great importance, there can be no objection to the proposed Committee having wide powers. After all, it rests with another place and your Lordships' House whether or not their Report is accepted. Surely if we are going to examine the matter we should examine it thoroughly.
2.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have found it a little difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I am not sure that he is talking with the same voice as that with which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, was talking the other day. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Latham, aright, he was pressing me for a form of words which would show whether this process was desirable, and I did not like that because I thought that after thirty years of practice it opened up too wide a field. But the words we have chosen would allow the Committee to say whether these powers should be exercised to the full extent, to no extent or to some point half-way, or to some other point in between. I think that, if the noble Lord lets these words go and the Joint Committee get to work, they will interpret these words in a sensible way in the light of the existing practice.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Earl the Leader of the House has been very kind about all this, but there are noble Lords in all parts of the House who are still anxious. Some local authorities have suffered individually in the past, in quite a small way, when applications for legislation through this sort of channel have been rejected by the Treasury or by some other machinery. We are most anxious that the general principle should be settled once and for all, as a result of setting up this Joint Committee. Am I right in assuming that the practice, in the case of a Joint Committee of both Houses, is that there is never a Minority Report.
328
Would it not be possible, on a matter of this widespread importance to all local authorities, to allow anybody who has a different view from the Majority Report to submit a Minority Report to be included in the Report of the Joint Committee.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think it is the case that there have not in the past been Minority Reports. I should think that it is for the Committee themselves to decide, if there are dissenting members, how the dissent should be expressed.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this question? In the case of the last Bill, the Essex Bill, certain clauses were struck out. Would it have been competent for this House to overrule the decision of the Committee and demand that those clauses should be considered by the Whole House?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, if he would help us on that.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, the number of clauses struck out of the Essex Bill in this House was one, and the answer to the second part of the question is that it would be possible for the Whole House to reverse that decision by resolving that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I thank the noble Lord very much.
2.57 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, without wishing to appear excessively pernickety, I must say that I think that the words of this reference to the Joint Committee are less than satisfactory. My own view is that the Committee ought to proceed on the basis that for thirty-seven years it has been the practice to allow local authorities to promote legislation conferring powers upon other local authorities. That is the basis of the whole question. It was the doubt as to whether that was proper which led the Lord Chairman of Committees to make representations to this House. The question, therefore, as the order of reference is drafted, is not what should be allowed; the Committee should proceed from the basis that one authority is allowed to seek powers

329
on behalf of other authorities, and the Committee should then see in what respect and to what extent that authority and that power, which, as I say, has been operated for thirty-seven years, should be restricted.
Your Lordships will see that the proposed Motion on the Paper starts off with the assumption that certain things are disallowed, and then the Committee has to consider to what extent they should be allowed. My submission is that for thirty-seven years things have been allowed, and it is only where they should be disallowed that the Committee should be concerned. In those circumstances, with every respect, I do not think that the terms of the order of reference on the Paper are really appropriate to the situation that whereas, until the commencement, of this year, local authorities had certain powers, it is now proposed to say they shall not have them.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down could he explain one point. I do not quite follow him, because this Motion says:
"That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider the extent …"
Surely it is not considering the propriety; it is the extent. That is what it says.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, that is precisely the point that I was seeking to make—the extent to which the powers should be allowed. My submission is that it ought to be the extent to which the restrictions should be imposed, because until this year local authorities were without any restriction, other things being appropriate, as regards seeking powers for other authorities. That is essentially the point that I am making; the subject for inquiry should be not the degree of the powers allowed, but the extent of the powers disallowed. There is a very great difference. It is not a matter of semantics or of using phrases. In my submission, it is a most vital distinction.
3.2 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I suggest that the wording of this Motion is precisely and exactly right and is what the House wishes? If my memory is correct, the problem arose over a Bill of the Kent County Council for which,
330
if one looked at each individual clause, admittedly, as the noble Lord opposite has pointed out, some precedent could be found. That for which there was no precedent was the wholesale nature of the way this power had been used. It was that which was questioned by both Houses of Parliament—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No; by the Chairmen.
LORD CONESFORD: I admit different views were expressed as to what should be done about it. The propriety of what the Kent County Council was doing was questioned. I am not saying there was no difference of opinion, but both Houses of Parliament—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is where the noble Lord is wrong. It was not both Houses; it was both Chairmen.
LORD CONESFORD: I think both Houses. Certainly this House made it quite clear in debate that it agreed with the Lord Chairman of Committees that there was a problem as to how far this was proper.
It was urged in this House, and I think in another place, that the right way to resolve that problem and seek guidance, was to appoint a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to look into the whole question and to report. That is what it is now proposed to do by this Motion. I think that if those who have criticised the Motion had tried to draft any improvement of it they would almost certainly have found that the result of their suggested Amendment would have been to make the wording, even from their own point of view, less satisfactory than it is now. As my noble friend on these Benches has just pointed out, what the Committee are here asked to inquire into is
"the extent to which proposed Private Bill enactments which would alter the powers or duties of persons other than the promoter should be allowed."
It does not suggest that they should be wholly disallowed; it says that there should be an inquiry as to the extent to which they should be allowed. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, would have preferred some such wording as "the extent to which they should be restricted." But the power of the Committee in either case would have been the same: they could have made

331
any recommendation they liked and, as my noble friend Lord Winterton has pointed out, it will be for Parliament to consider, in due course, what line it takes on the Report submitted by the Joint Select Committee. But I defy anybody to improve on the wording of the Motion as it stands, in so far as it defines the matter which everybody, I think, whatever his view on the merits, believes should be the subject of inquiry.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, as I said at the outset, I do not think it is very profitable to try to redraft across the Floor of the House a form of words. Speaking for myself, I should be most ready to accept the terms of the Motion coupled, if I may say this, with the statement of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who has told us that the Committee will consider this matter in a spirit of common sense and in the light of the practice that has prevailed for a great many years. I am content to accept that, and the short discussion we have had in this House, and to agree to the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Consolidation Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS (LICENSING AND INSURANCE) BILL [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Licensing of sites for nuclear installations]:
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "maintained" and insert "self sustained". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise both to the Minister and to your Lordships
332
for putting down this Amendment at such short notice. Although it is a small matter, none the less it has quite a profound significance from a research point of view. If your Lordships will look at Clause 1 of the Bill, at line 9, you will see that there is an obligation under the Bill for any nuclear installation:
"designed or adapted for the production of atomic energy by a maintained and controlled fission process "—
to be licensed. As I understand it, no discretion is given to the Minister to decide whether or not such a licence is necessary; nor is there in that case any discretion to avoid the ultimate obligation for insurance.
If I may detain your Lordships for one moment by explaining the precise significance of what my proposal represents, it is necessary briefly to recall that atomic energy is created from radio-active materials such as uranium. The normal process by which energy is produced, either for the bomb or for electricity, is by bringing this material in a large enough quantity and in a large enough mass in relation to the area of surface of the particular material, and at a certain point a chain reaction develops and this material becomes super-critical. At that stage there is what is known as a diverging reaction. This is a self-sustaining reaction: once it is started unless some artificial method of absorption of the neutrons takes place—for instance in cadmium—or the material is separated, that reaction continues. But it is also possible (and for this it is necessary to look back at the definition in the original 1946 Act) to produce a chain reaction which is sub-critical, where there is what is known as a diverging reaction. That means that the output of neutrons will never be large enough to produce a situation when more and more neutrons are produced and you get a super-critical state.
In order to carry out research and, furthermore, to train nuclear physicists, the scientists have to devise various instruments, devices and assemblies which will enable them to observe the performance of neutrons, and in particular a neutron flux of a kind that is produced at the Imperial College of Science with an apparatus (I apologise for having to use the name; I hope I shall get it right) called a sub-critical exponential assembly. This particular device operates in this

333
way. The usual basic material—I presume, uranium 235—is brought into close proximity or some juxtaposition to an irradiated material in the Imperial College of Science apparatus. It is, in fact, an alloy of antimony and beryllium which has been previously irradiated. This leads to an increase in the output of neutrons, but by its very nature it can never become super-critical; it can never become a reactor in the ordinary sense of the word. It is purely an instrument for research and for teaching. But under the definition in the original 1946 Act it is covered specifically in Clause 1 (1) (a), because the definition quite specifically refers to anything that leads to an output of energy.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give consideration, even if he cannot do it to-day, to a change which will restore to him the discretion as to whether or not it is necessary to license such a piece of equipment. At the moment, as I understand the Bill before us, he has no discretion. I am not saying that such apparatus ought not to be licensed; but if we are to see the development of research that is, I am sure, desired by everyone, clearly there must be reasonable freedom for researchers, whether they are in universities or in industry, to carry out such research without being faced with the obligation automatically to get the licence and face the problem of insurance.
The output of this particular assembly is one milliwatt, and it is negligible comparison to the ordinary atomic reactors. None the less, it is important; and I am quite sure that it was never the intention of those who drafted the Bill to bring this type of apparatus automatically within its scope, as is the case with the other items which are automatically within the scope of the Bill. If we alter this particular phrase from "maintained" to "self-sustained", it will have the effect of transferring the application of this Bill to such apparatus from subsection 1 (1) (a) to 1 (1) (b), where the Minister can still do it under the permissive powers which are laid down; because it is laid down "as may be prescribed". This is a quite simple Amendment. We are in a difficult field dealing with words and expressions which are obviously not very familiar to Parlia-
334
mentary draftsmen, but I am assured, I believe on the best scientific advice, that this is the best phrase. I hope very much that the Minister may see his way here and now to accept this Amendment. If he is not able to do so, I hope that he will have an opportunity to consider it and perhaps consider means of removing in another place what might be troublesome legislation requiring him or a successor to come to Parliament for an Amendment of the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("maintained") and insert ("self-sustained"). — (Lord Shackleton.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment would change the definition of "nuclear reactor" in Clause 1 (1) (a) of the Bill. Instead of referring to a plant for producing atomic energy by "a maintained and controlled fission process" the Amendment says by "a self-sustained and controlled fission process". The existing form of words originated from the Atomic Energy Authority and was designed to cover nuclear reactors. The noble Lord was good enough to say that I might find it desirable to take action at a later stage. I should like to bring to the notice of the Atomic Energy Authority what the noble Lord has said on this subject, and if necessary a Government Amendment will be put down at a later stage. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his very courteous and, if I may say so, quick reply, because he has not had long to look at the point. In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3:
Licensee's Liability
3.
(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.
3.15 p.m.
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words after "enactment" and to insert instead:
"an action to establish a claim by virtue of subsection (1) of this section may be commenced at any time before, but may not be commenced at any time after, the expiration of thirty years from the occurrence on, or in connection with the use of, the site in question which gave rise to the claim:
Provided that, where any such claim is duly established but is made in circumstances such that it is not one for the full satisfaction of which funds are required to be available by subsection (1) of section four of this Act or is made more than ten years after the occurrence aforesaid, the licensee shall not be required to make any payment in satisfaction of the claim unless or until Parliament has made provision such as to secure that the amount required to satisfy the claim, or, if the claim is made within ten years of the occurrence aforesaid, so much of that amount as is not payable out of the said funds, will, if the licensee so requires, be reimbursed to the licensee by such means as Parliament may determine; and after the making of such provision no payment by way of settlement of the claim by agreement between the licensee and the claimant shall be made unless the Minister has approved the settlement."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my purpose in moving this Amendment is to meet, so far as I can, anxieties expressed by noble Lords in Committee on two matters. First, it will be recalled that noble Lords opposite moved an Amendment to Clause 3 (4) of the Bill which would have enabled claims on account of radio-active injury or damage to be presented without any limit of time, and the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Shackleton, have now tabled another Amendment with the same purpose. Secondly, noble Lords opposite proposed to substitute for Clause 4 of the Bill a new clause which sought to provide that all duly established claims should be met in full from the Exchequer in the first instance, and that the Minister should have power to recoup the expenditure from the licensee in whole or in part. The anxiety of noble Lords opposite can, if I am not mistaken, be summed up in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 212 (No. 16), col. 1044]:
"that those who have been injured should be under no doubt whatever as to what will be the compensation they will get as a result of their injuries. It should not depend upon the insurance or the aggregate amount of the claim."
Let me now explain the effect of the Amendment which I am asking your Lordships to accept. It would make the time limit for the presentation of claims thirty years instead of ten years. Since, however, claims presented after ten years or in excess of £5 million for each occurrence will be an uninsurable risk, it is necessary to make special arrangements so that the licensee may be reimbursed when he has met them. Therefore, under the Amendment claims presented within ten years or which do not carry the total above £5 million will be dealt with by the licensee or his insurers in the ordinary way. Claims presented after ten years or carrying the total beyond £5 million are not to be paid unless or until Parliament has decided how the licensee is to be reimbursed for paying them. To enable Parliament to make provision in good time I shall be moving an Amendment to Clause 4 which we shall be discussing shortly. Once Parliament has decided how the licensee is to be reimbursed, claims are not to be settled out of court without the Minister's approval, because the licensee will not in the last resort be footing the bill, and some control is therefore necessary.
Your Lordships will, I hope, agree that this Amendment substantially meets the anxieties expressed in Committee. Under the existing law, the time limit for personal injury claims is three years and for property damage claims six years—twenty years in Scotland. Therefore, thirty years is, I suggest, a very liberal time limit for the presentation of claims under the Bill. At the same time I hope that it is now clear that the amount of a claimant's compensation will not in any way be reduced by reason of the £5 million ceiling on the insurance or other cover required to be held by the licensee. It would be contrary to all precedent to commit future Governments to an indefinite liability to meet from the Exchequer all claims presented after ten years or carrying the total beyond £5 million. Short of this, I submit that the arrangement for reimbursing the licensee by such means as Parliament may determine substantially assures what noble Lords opposite had in mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 44, leave out from ("enactment") to end of line 5 on page 5, and insert the said new words,—(Lord Mills.)
3.23 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in the first part, before the proviso, to leave out all words after "at any time." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to say, first of all, that I think the House is indebted to the noble Lord for the serious consideration which he has obviously given to the discussion that we had on the Committee stage, and for the fact that he has put down this Amendment, which goes a considerable way to meet the points that we then put forward. Indeed, if the issue were merely a time limit during which claims must be made, I should say that thirty years is a very generous period indeed and I should have no complaint whatsoever about it. But, for the reasons that I have given, I hope the noble Lord will understand that, as at present advised, we still find that any time limit is unacceptable.
We are dealing with a type of injury which none of us—most eminent scientists, as well as noble Lords in this House—really understands. We are at the beginning of something which may have enormous powers and enormous repercussions. We have had some slight experience as a result of the Hiroshima bombs, the effects of which are now about thirteen or fourteen years old, and we know that those effects are manifesting themselves to-day, even after that period. None of us knows how long it will be before further effects of radio-action will become manifest, but on the best advice we have it is quite conceivable that injuries will appear thirty or forty years—or even longer—after the occurrence which gives rise to the possibility of injury.
There may well be a child who has been present in the area at the time of an occurrence and who feels no particular after-effects for years to come, and then, perhaps, in middle life, finds itself suffering from the effects of this occurrence. What we are concerned with is that such a child, when grown up, and finding itself suffering from the effects of such an occurrence, should not be debarred from making a claim. Such a person is going to have very great difficulty, in any case, in establishing a claim. If the noble Lord had been willing to accept the Amendment we put
338
down on Committee stage, that the onus should be on the Government or on the licensee to disprove that the injury was caused as a result of the occurrence if certain facts were established by the injured person, the noble Lord might have had an easier passage. Admittedly, after thirty years—possibly after forty years—a person is going to be in great difficulty in establishing a claim. Nevertheless, we are anxious that such a person should not be debarred by the terms of this Bill from making the claim if he can establish it.
What is the case against us? I understood that there was a certain amount of logic in restricting it to ten years, which was the period during which the licensee could get cover. I accept from the noble Lord that aften ten years no insurance company would take the risk. That is understandable, and therefore the noble Lord said that ten years must be the limit. But as a result of the views that were expressed from all parts of the House, he has had to accept that in practice ten years is not long enough and that it would impose a great hardship on many people, particularly in view of the uncertainty of the effects of these occurrences. He has therefore generously extended the period to thirty years, but, as I say, nobody can say that even thirty years is sufficient. I should like to lay down the principle, and the House to accept it, that no person who suffers from the effects of such an occurrence as that which we have in mind should be debarred from making a claim whenever the injury occurs. I invite the noble Lord to say why he should want to limit or restrict that principle. It will be obvious that, so far as people who are grown up to-day are concerned, few will be in a position to make a claim in thirty years' time. It is the young person of to-day who is going to suffer and who ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of making his claim
In accordance with the terms of the Amendments which the noble Lord has put down to this clause and later clauses, the cost of compensating the injured will be on the Government or on other monies provided by Parliament, on the assumption that Parliament will be disposed to provide the monies, and there is no reason to suppose that Parliament will not be prepared so to do. Therefore

339
what we are talking about is the opportunity of any person who suffers injury as the result of an occurrence to make a claim against the Government, even if the injuries should break out more than thirty years after the date of the occurrence. I feel that there is no justification for drawing a line at thirty years or at any other period, having regard to our present-day experience and to the advice that we have that these injuries may show themselves at any time long after thirty years. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will be prepared to reconsider his view and to accept the Amendment in principle.
Now, I am not asking the noble Lord to accept the Amendment in the form in which it is put down. It is largely impressionist. I think it is good enough to argue about. If he is prepared to accept the principle, I imagine that the clause would need rather more drastic altering than the Amendment in the form in which I put it. In the hope that the noble Lord will show sympathy with the idea behind the Amendment, I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 4, leave out from first ("time") to end of line 6.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mills, not only for going a long way to meet us in this matter but for the generally receptive consideration he has given to suggestions that have been made to him on the Bill. I should feel that I was a super-critical reactor if I did not recognise the long way he has gone already to meet us on this matter. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Silkin that in the present state of our knowledge an arbitrary limit of time is not what is required. We do not know enough yet to write ten, twenty or thirty years into an Act of Parliament, which still would commit future Governments to the possibility of unlimited payments under the Bill as it now is. Since the noble Lord has found it necessary to do that, it seems to me that he might as well remove the thirty year limit and leave it open until we know more about it.
There is one other point I should like to make. Obviously this is a Bill which
340
has been difficult to draft. I am glad that the noble Lord has retained the requirement to bring the matter before Parliament in certain circumstances, but I find the wording of the middle part of this clause open to some objection. Beginning with "Provided" it reads:
"Provided that, where any such claim is duly established but is made in circumstances such that it is not one for the full satisfaction of which funds are required to be available by subsection (1) of section four of this Act…"
I gather that that is draftsman's way of saying "£5 million." Would it not be much simpler and clearer if the words "£5 million" were used instead of this jargon? This is a bad example of drafting by reference, because in Clause 4 we are referred to another section and it might mean a number of things besides £5 million. I would ask the noble Lord to look again at this clause and see whether some more straightforward and direct form of wording is possible. Once again I should like to thank the noble Lord.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, like my noble friends, Lord Silkin and Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for his substantial concession in proposing a 30-year instead of a 10-year limit. I am afraid that I made a rather technical speech on Committee stage and since then I have had the opportunity of considering it with one of the best experts in the medical field in this country. Though what I said was substantially correct, there are two small points where I feel that I might have misled the Committee, both of which have a bearing on this 30-year limit.
The first was when I suggested that radio-active iodine was not dangerous because it has a half-life of only eight days. I understand that this is not so, and that a large dose of radio-active iodine, getting into somebody immediately after an occurrence, despite its quick decay and its fairly rapid elimination from the body, could produce changes in the thyroid gland as much as thirty years later. Indeed there are cases that have occurred of people who have had thyroid glands treated with X-rays and who have developed cancer in the gland some thirty years later. This capacity of radio-active iodine to be concentrated in the thyroid gland is the reason for its danger, and in suggesting,

341
that it was harmless I was quite wrong. It could produce an effect thirty years later.
The second technical error I made was in referring to changes in the testes and ovaries simply as genetic changes. They are genetic changes which would occur very much later. When two people have both been exposed to radio-active damage, a subsequent generation might be affected. This is the appalling problem which radio-active activity presents. I think that it serves to reinforce once more the argument that any time limit is, technically and medically speaking, wrong and that the only right answer is to permit claims to continue so long as there is evidence of radio-active damage. I therefore support the Amendment to the Amendment.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, as one of those who ventured to say that the 10-year rule should not stand, I should like to thank the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for having substituted for it a 30-year period and also for having accepted the suggestion which I ventured to put forward, by analogy from the case of the "Queen Mary" and other large vessels for whom private insurers could not take the whole risk, where there might be public cause why the State should intervene and take the risk: beyond a certain point. The noble Lord has done exactly that.
The question before us now is whether there should be a 30-year limit or no limit. We are advised that we have to make a choice in this matter and Members of the Opposition may press it to a Division. If they do, I shall support the Minister, and I want to say why. First of all, as I think has been admitted by the Opposition, the noble Lord has gone a long way towards meeting us. Secondly, the art of politics is the art of practicability, and we cannot always have the ideal at which we aim. Thirdly, if a person can initiate a claim within thirty years, it seems to me extraordinarily likely that within that time a number of signs that something is coming to him will begin to show themselves. In the analogy which I ventured to put before your Lordships when last we discussed this matter, I spoke of a particular affection of the eyes which occurred after the First World War and did not become serious until ten, twenty, thirty or even
342
forty years afterwards; but it did begin to show itself even in the second decade and there was a continuous history which could be brought to prove that the condition was connected with the original application. In this instance, it was an application of mustard gas.
I find it hard to believe that no signs could possibly show themselves in a healthy person for some thirty years and that thereafter some affection might occur. Moreover, I feel convinced that, if it did, a Parliament that was already beginning to meet claims in respect of acidents, showing themselves in twenty-five or twenty-eight years' time—your Lordships will remember that after ten years it is Parliament which has to be consulted on the amount of compensation—would hardly allow the 30-year rule to stand when the end of the limit came. Therefore I am certain that the Government have done the best they can in this difficult matter and I am prepared to give them my support and my thanks.
LORD REA: My Lords, I apologise for not being in my place at the beginning of the discussion but I should like to align myself with the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, particularly in their tribute to the Minister in charge of the Bill, who always takes particular trouble when points of this nature are put to him. I ought to declare a personal interest of a kind, because the small amount of agricultural land which I own is near Calder Hall, where the outfall took place. The children in one farm there, a very healthy bunch of eight or nine children, all drank the forbidden milk right through the forbidden period and looked very healthy on it, but one does not know what may happen in the future. It seems to me that the Government's attitude (if I may put it in a nutshell and, I hope, quite inoffensively), in the original measure, was rather this: "If there is an element of doubt after five years, well, we would rather be protected and the sufferer must pay for it." They have now been generous enough to put the period at thirty years. But surely the thesis still remains, in that they cannot prove that it was due to this particular accident. But the Government are saying: "If there is any element of doubt, and it cannot be proved either way, we shall be the beneficiaries and the sufferers

343
shall not." For those reasons, I support this Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I intervene only briefly because of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, which I find a little puzzling and somewhat inconsistent. He reminded us that the art of politics is the art of the practicable. But surely there is nothing at all impracticable in the Government's accepting responsibility for a liability the extent of which cannot possibly be known at present. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, has given us, from his experience, an example of the way the Government have accepted a liability which, when it first arose, could not possibly be foreseen: he quoted the example of men who suffered from a dose of mustard gas in the First World War, and who claimed as much as forty-four years later and were granted pensions which were found to be attributable to that particular cause.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, because I am sure he does not wish to misquote me. If he reads what I said, he will find that I referred to a continuous medical history of trouble. I was citing it as sore eyes for ten years; more sore eyes for a second decade, then leading up to kerotitis which caused blindness. I oppose a short term, but I cannot believe that as long as thirty years can pass without some signs showing themselves on which the patient can rely for proof.
LORD STONHAM: I should not dream of attempting to misrepresent what the noble Lord said. I heard and was very much impressed, and indeed moved, by what he said in Committee on an earlier occasion, and I listened with the greatest attention to what he said just now. But I think it is the case that the people to whom he referred were not pensioned until some forty years, and even forty-four years, after the time when they first experienced the mustard gas which eventually gave rise to the cause of pension. I do not think that that is in any way misrepresenting the particular case. Obviously there would have been a progressive history of disease, but apparently it did not reach such acute form as to necessitate action on behalf of these
344
men, even by such experienced organisations as St. Dunstan's or the British Legion, until the point when the disease became sufficiently acute.
I think this analogy is a perfectly fair one. We are here discussing an extreme limit of thirty years or no limit at all; and a period of forty-four years is well in excess of thirty years. I feel, therefore, that in that particular case we have an example of a disability caused by physical causes of the likely consequences of which, although our knowledge was imperfect, we had much more knowledge than we could possibly claim to have about the effects of these nuclear reactors in the case of an accident. As my noble friend Lord Taylor has pointed out, these consequences may well affect the next generation. I should have thought that that fact was in itself conclusive as showing that no limit can possibly be regarded as fair or equitable, and that it is within the art of politics and practicable for the Government to say they will not impose a limit of years, but that, if it can be shown that any disability arises to any person as the result of a nuclear accident, such person will be compensated, whatever the period of years.
3.45 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that in these radio-active matters it is impossible to put any time limit on the period within which some bad effects may become apparent. That has been known for quite a long time, and often cases can be referred back to some accident that occurred in the past. It is not necessarily the same amount of time with different people. In the case of the same occurrence; one person may be affected ten years after, and others twenty, thirty, forty or fifty years after. Therefore, I think the Government should put their minds to this to see whether we can have no time limit, because we cannot be certain about it.
I do not think that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, is at all parallel here, because in the case of mustard gas people knew that something was wrong, whereas with these radio-active matters it is impossible to tell whether anything is wrong. I do not

345
think that one can detect this, with modern methods, although we may be able to do so in the future. It is therefore impossible to say to-day that there would be a long medical history leading up to the event. I support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has gone a long way to meet the points of view expressed from this side in Committee, and I hope that he will not stand too rigidly upon this thirty-year limit now. I hope he will apply the same consideration that he has given previously to the Amendment which has now been moved by my noble friend Lord Silkin. After all, it must be remembered that if anyone has suffered ionising radiation, and the effects do not manifest themselves until after a period of thirty years, then it is quite clear that he should be compensated in precisely the same way as those people who have been affected where the injuries manifested themselves within the thirty years. In principle, there is no difference; and since the noble Lord has gone as far as thirty years, surely it can make little difference if he makes the time limit unnecessary, because anyone who claims has, of course, to prove the case.
We had a discussion about this matter on some earlier Amendments, and there is no question—because, although we tried to get the onus of proof shifted on to the industrialist, this was resisted by the Government, and therefore the position remains—that anyone who is affected by ionising radiation, whether the effects manifest themselves within thirty years or after thirty years, the claimant has still to prove his case to the satisfaction of a court If a person is, in fact, affected in this way, and can prove to the satisfaction of the court that the injuries have manifested themselves after a period of thirty years, is there any reason why that person should not receive compensation? I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, in all earnestness not to stand too firmly upon this point of thirty years. It is surely reasonable that anyone who is injured in this way should have the right to receive compensation, provided the case can he established—and that is the whole point. I hope, therefore, that he will consider the Amendment of my noble friend and concede it.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I pose one question to noble Lords who want no time limit? I am asking for information, because I am trying to make up my mind on the point. If there is no time limit, what happens to the unborn generation that is affected by the occurrence? As I understand it, in this Bill, if I have read it aright, they would have a claim. Are they to have a claim, or a possible claim, for ever, going back to the original occurrence? This is a point which I think needs considering if you have no time limit at all, and I hope from one side of the House or the other I shall get an answer.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, may I say one word by leave of the House? Certainly the effect would be that persons unborn at the time of the occurrence would, under this Amendment, receive compensation if they could prove their case. But they are required to prove their case
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, does that apply to one generation? What about the succeeding generations?
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: It would be the same with the succeeding generations. If the horrors of this thing pass on from generation to generation, surely it is right that the community should be the sufferer and not the individual person who was unborn when it happened.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I think we are getting into very deep water when we begin to deal with the question of what will happen to succeeding generations, and I do not know that anybody has offered an authoritative opinion upon the Bill as it is drafted, so far as that is concerned. The succeeding generation might appear before the lapse of thirty years—very easily so. That is not really the point which is at issue upon the Amendment to the Government Amendment which the House is now considering. The issue is whether there should be a time limit of thirty years or not. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Mills has said, that there is no precedent for the assumption by a Government of liability unlimited in point of time. But we are dealing with an entirely novel situation, and precedents created in the past in

347
relation to different circumstances should not bind or fetter us in any way in considering the problem with which we are now confronted.
I do not believe the noble Lord or anybody could possibly say that it is at all certain that the evil results could and would necessarily manifest themselves within thirty years. The evidence is only too clear that they may not manifest themselves in a person who has been subjected to such radiation until more than thirty years has elapsed. If that is once admitted—and the noble Lord has not said anything to the contrary—then it seems to me that the case for a time limit entirely disappears.
Let us remember also that what we are considering here is a question of Government policy. It is the policy of the Government to develop nuclear energy as a source of power. This is a policy which has been embarked upon after, I have no doubt, profound consideration, as part of a far-reaching and extensive plan for substituting such power in a large part for existing sources of power, and for setting up at many points in this country nuclear installations for the purpose of generating power. If that is the policy of the Government of this country—and it is not disagreed with in any part of the House—surely the Government ought to take full responsibility for this act of policy, and not say that some people shall be compensated for evil results which may follow from it and others shall not. I cannot see any logical reason or any ground of equity upon which such a proposition can be sustained, and I beg the Government to accept this Amendment which would bring a great deal of reassurance to people in the country—and thinking people all over are beginning to worry quite considerably about this problem. It is an extremely serious one in a field in which we know there are great dangers and in which much more knowledge may yet be revealed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, two noble Lords opposite raised the point about the unborn child. I think my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston answered them, but may I refer them to a few words of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, speaking on the Com-
348
mittee stage? He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 212 (No. 16), col. 1035]:
"I beg the noble Lord"—
that was the Minister—
"to take into account that it is wholly contrary to natural justice to leave the citizen undefended against an unknown horror like this."
I should have thought the noble Lord would have agreed that "the citizen" would include the unborn citizen. I feel that my noble friends on this side of the House would have had some disappointment at the speech made this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. I personally believe that it was his speech on the Committee stage which finally persuaded the Minister that he should retreat from the position he took up when my noble friend Lord Taylor moved his Amendment.
We were all deeply conscious of the great problems involved, particularly when the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, dealt with the question of mustard gas poisoning which was arising forty-two years after the gas attack. The noble Lord stated that he would support the Government because we had to take a practical view. This afternoon the noble Lord, Lords Mills, said that it would be wrong for us to place an unlimited liability upon a future Government. We have already placed an unlimited liability upon any future Government: the Atomic Energy Authority has an unlimited liability for an unlimited period. Why do the Government insist on treating this section of the nuclear industry differently from the Government side of the industry, the Atomic Energy Authority?
We have heard time and time again from various noble Lords on all sides of the House that we know little about the possibilities of disease and sickness arising from radiation. We know very little. I believe that if we are to err we must err on the side of the community and the unborn community. I should like to read a few words from the report of a statement that was made last night at the Insurance Institute of London. The statement was made by Dr. W. E. Belser, the Swiss director of the Atomic Energy Commission of the European Insurance Committee. In the course of his remarks he said that since even the specialists did not yet know the extent of the

349
damage that could arise from the production of nuclear energy, and the liability of the reactor operators was absolute, there had to be limitations of insurable liability. Obviously, no insurance company will accept unlimited liability. But, my Lords, the risk which we are asked to protect the public from is something similar to a war risk; it is something that the nation must accept. I believe it can be done only if the insurance cover is taken out by the Government, and I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, whether he will take the Bill back and think about it and produce a measure which will give whole cover to the community and the unborn people yet to come.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I, too, find it rather difficult to understand the logic of the Government's present position about this matter. I can quite appreciate that the Bill in the first instance, which conferred upon the private entrepreneur the right to have considered his application for a licence to create nuclear power, looked at the problem of compensation in what one might term the orthodox outlook of the law; that is to say, to provide compensation in the ordinary way. That is, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, an intelligible outlook, but one which is based on the past and does not face up to this problem, which is a problem of the modern world, in the terms of the modern conditions which have been created by nuclear fission. The inadequacy of this attitude was, I think. brought home to the Government at the Committee stage of this Bill, and they have, I think very properly—and I join myself with the words of commendation which have been passed upon them—agreed that this is an obligation which must be placed upon the community as a whole.
I compared nuclear fission to a wild beast which we were trying to harness in the interests of the community, and we have taken the view that it is in the interests of the community that a certain number of entrepreneurs shall be licensed to help in the process of using this wild beast. But surely it is the community which is taking upon itself the responsibility of allowing this work to go on. and if something goes wrong with it as a result of which, possibly in the distant future, men and women citizens in the
350
community suffer harm, surely the duty is on the community to compensate them. Surely thirty years is neither here nor there in respect of this matter, except in so far as problems of proof are concerned, which, after all, should not be regarded as the main element in the situation. I would, therefore, also ask the Government to look at this matter again and see whether they cannot, in a very much simpler clause that this, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmestor, emphasised, try to establish a responsibility on the community, acting through the Government, to face up to these risks which are so problematical but which are obviously so real.
This would have advantages in a number of other ways. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has drawn attention to one aspect of this matter, which is that the experimental work is to a considerable extent carried on in the universities. We do not know what is going to happen if an incident occurs in one of the universities. How is the insurance for that going to be provided for? I think that is one example of the sort of problems which have not been properly looked at and which, in my view, can be handled only on the basis that the Government will accept responsibility in this type of case. Therefore I suggest that this matter should be taken back; it should be looked at in much more comprehensive terms, and much more comprehensive responsibility should be established.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I want to support the Minister in his Amendment for three reasons. First of all, I am convinced that we must at this stage—and I emphasise at this stage—put a limit somewhere. After all, thirty years is a very generous time. Thirty years ago we had scarcely flown the Atlantic—indeed, I am not sure that we had. I think that in thirty years from now some of us may know what we are talking about in this matter—I am sure that we do not to-day. What is to prevent somebody present at an incident in this country being affected between now and thirty years from now by an incident in Europe? All that would be needed would be to have the wind coming from Europe. Europe is playing around with, and carrying out for America her experimental reactor programme, a far less

351
safe programme than ours. How are we going to cater for damage done by actions in Europe? Surely this is a matter for international consideration, and if the Amendment which the noble Lord the Minister proposes goes through, we shall have security for thirty years. Surely thirty years is a reasonable time to think it over. This Bill can always be amended. We have led so far in atomic energy; we should continue to do so. At the present moment the Euratom countries are busily engaged in trying to work out their own insurance schemes. I think we should not ignore that, and I think this thirty-year limit is a very generous one and, in our present knowledge, one to which we should all subscribe.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords opposite, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Silkin, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston and Lord Taylor, and to the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, for their help to me in this difficult matter. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his reference to me.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said the difference between noble Lords opposite and myself in this matter is one of principle. The time limit of three years under the existing law for presenting claims on account of personal injury is admittedly not suitable for the kind of claims dealt with in this Bill. It is accepted that symptoms of radio-active injury may not appear for many years after the exposure which caused them. The difference between us is that noble Lords opposite regard this as justifying the unprecedented step of abolishing the time limit altogether in such cases. In moving my own Amendment I hope I made it clear that I am
very conscious of the anxieties which were expressed in Committee on both sides of the House. The time limit of thirty years which my Amendment would provide, although described by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, as neither here nor there, is three times as long as the limit originally provided in the Bill, and ten times as long as the limit provided in the existing law for personal injury claims. I will now explain why, in my view, there must be some time limit.
I am sure that we listened with great interest to what was said on this subject in Committee by my noble and learned friend the Lord President of the Council. As he then indicated, ever since 1623 it has been found necessary to impose some arbitrary limit on the time within which claims must be presented. We have conceded a thirty-year period for claims against licensees under this Bill, not only because of the long time which symptoms may take to appear, but also because of the large scale upon which licensees will be handling radio-active material. What we cannot agree to is that for any particular class of claims a time limit can be dispensed with altogether. I have still to answer the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, who drew my attention to a description in the Bill of the £5 million limit. I find it perfectly satisfactory, and therefore I do not propose that we should alter it. With regard to this Amendment, for the reasons I have given your Lordships, and because it is quite impracticable, I must ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment to my Amendment.
On Question, Whether the Amendment to the Amendment should be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Darwen, L.

Rea, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Shackleton, L.

Elton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Addison, V.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Silkin, L.

Stansgate, V.

Granville-West, L.

Stonham, L.

Greenhill, L.

Taylor, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Terrington, L.

Airedale, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L

Uvedale of North End, L.

Amulree, L.

Kershaw, L.

Williams, L.

Amwell, L.

Latham, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Windlesham, L.

Chorley, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Winster, L.

Crook, L.

Quibell, L.

Wise, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Cilcennin, V.

Gifford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Grenfell, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Mersey, V.

Hampton, L.

Soulbury, V.

Hastings, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Stonehaven, V.

Hawke, L.

Ailsa, M.

Hayter, L.

Salisbury, M.

Aberdare, L.

Killearn, L.

Willingdon, M.

Abinger, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bathurst, E

Birdwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Chesham, L.

Merthyr, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Conesford, L.

Middleton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Mills, L.

Dundee, E.

Croft, L.

Newall, L.

Gosford, F

Denham, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Home, E

Derwent, L.

Ravensdale of Kedleston, Baroness.

Malmesbury, E.

Digby, L.

Munster, E.

Dovercourt, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Ebury, L.

Saltoun, L.

Poulett, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Baroness.

Sandford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Ennisdale, L.

Sandys, L.

Selkirk, E.

Erskine, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Winterton, E.

Ferrier, L.

Teviot, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Teynham, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Geddes, L.

Waleran, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.25 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, whether any, and if so what, significance is to be attached to the fact that the Amendment in his name refers to a period of
"thirty years from the occurrence on, or in connection with the use of, the site in question which gave rise to the claim",
whereas the original wording of the Bill was:
"…the period of ten years "—
and I am not now questioning the number of years—
"commencing with the last date on which any ionising radiations to which the hurt or damage is wholly or partly attributable were emitted."
I should like to be assured that the change of wording does not mean that the date of the thirty years runs from a later or an earlier date than that of the emanation of the ionising radiation, and on why it was thought necessary to change the wording in this particular respect.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I wonder whether, when the noble Lord answers that question, he would also answer this further question. The noble Lord will remember that during the Committee stage I put to him the question as to whether Clause 3 (1) (b) referred also
354
to isotopes, in addition to irradiated nuclear fuel. His answer, if I remember aright, was that it did not apply to isotopes. Then when I asked why it did not, the noble Lord, I believe, asked for time in which to consider his reply. I should be very glad, for two reasons, if he would give me his reply to-clay. One reason, as he well knows, is that last week there was an occurrence when a radio-active isotope being transported by an aeroplane was found to be radiating energy and there was some apprehension as to the possible effect of this escape of radiation. Fortunately, no serious harm was done, but the man who handled the stuff had to be examined, and some delay was occasioned before he could be given the "all clear". I hope that he has suffered no injury on any account at all, either immediate or even remote but the fact is that there was that mild occurrence.
Then to-day, strangely enough, one reads of a position in West Ham where some developer had bought a factory on a site. The factory had been used for the purpose of chemical manufacturing. The chemical manufacturing firm had gone bankrupt, and this developer had bought it: and it was then discovered that the site was highly radio-active. I believe that the chairman of the West Ham Council said they would not allow that site to be developed and that it would become what he called a "reserved area"—in other words, we may describe it as an area sterilised because of the danger of

355
using it. One reads in an account of the matter that some forty tons of this chemical stuff, a good deal of which was radio-active, had been dug up. Here was an instance where danger from a radioactive emanation might do harm and give rise to injury.
The noble Lord may reply, with some justification, that this Bill is limited in its application, in the sense that only licensed sites for the purpose of erecting reactors are under consideration, and that here we are dealing purely with the question of insurance against anything happening. But if one may refer to the talk given last night, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred, I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the final senence in a newspaper report of Dr. Belser's remarks. It is this:
"Nuclear risks, Dr. Belser concluded, were insurable, but to satisfy all interests internationally the legislator and insurer would have to co-ordinate their technique."
That suggests to me that here we have an almost unknown kind of risk which we are all anxious to have covered; yet for the reasons I have already given, it is precluded from this Bill. One wonders, therefore, if the noble Lord would be kind enough to indicate to us whether that kind of risk also could be included in this Bill.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, asked if the alteration in wording which appears in my Amendment as compared with that in the original Bill had any significance. Its only significance is to make sure that the period, which is now thirty years, goes back to the earliest possible date. Therefore the date of the occurrence is taken to cover that.
LORD LATHAM: That is to say, it runs from the earliest possible date?
LORD MILLS: That is it precisely.
LORD LATHAM: Which may be to the disadvantage of the claimant.
LORD MILLS: I cannot see how that calculation is made. If it runs from the earliest possible date, it must be to the advantage of the claimant and not to his disadvantage.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: If the noble Lord will forgive me, if the
356
time limit is taken from the earliest occurrence it will run out earlier than it would do if it was taken from a later occurrence.
LORD MILLS: I am grateful for the correction. What I meant to say was that we have chosen a phrase which means that the earliest possible date that there could be any radio-activity was the date which we thought more suitable. In regard to Lord Greenhill's question about isotopes—
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Lord leaves the first point, that does mean that the injured person is going to be at a disadvantage—it may be a slight one—as compared with the position as it was before on this point.
LORD MILLS: I have already thanked the noble Lord for the correction. If he calls taking the first date on which the radio-activity could occur a disadvantage, then I accept it.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but, if I may be permitted, the point is this. In the Bill the date taken was the date when the ionising radiations were emitted. I am not a scientist and I do not know, but it might be that there would be a period between the occurrence and the emission of these radiations. If that be the case, then if the period of claim is to date from the occurrence, as distinct from the date of irradiation, as was the case under the Bill, then the claimant is put to that time disadvantage. I should like the Minister to say why that should be so.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, perhaps the House will forgive me for speaking again, but this is a very important point that my noble friend is on, because there may indeed be long periods between the original occurrence and the emissions which cause the damage. For instance, there might be a continuing effluent which is found later on to have given rise to such a condition. In regard to the Windscale disaster, it was feared at one time that the effluents into the sea would irradiate fish and that the eating of the fish—not only those fish, but their heirs and successors—might give rise to trouble in the people who ate them. These time limits are terribly important, because one has got an elastic series of emanations. My

357
friend is on such an important point that I hope the Minister will give it very serious consideration.
LORD MILLS: I personally fail to see the importance of this point. I think the right thing is to establish the date from which the liability could occur, and that the Bill does. In regard to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, as to isotopes, I propose to deal with that in my speech on the Third Reading, if he will permit me to do so.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I am sorry that I do not find the answer which the noble Lord has given to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and others of my noble friends, at all satisfactory. However, so far as I ant able to gather from what he said—and it was by no means clear—his Amendment has the result, as compared with what now stands in the Bill as amended in Committee, of making the time limit run from an earlier date—in sonic cases, at any rate—than it would otherwise have run from. This can conceivably happen where there has been more than one incident, and in that case, apparently, under the Amendment we are now considering, the time limit will run from the earlier of those incidents. Surely that is riot reasonable. It might make a very considerable difference to the position of the claimant. I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack will be fully seized of this point, and I would ask the Government to think about this matter again. Surely we do not want to be niggardly in dealing with a question of this kind, and try to devise ways and means of reducing the claims and of limiting them as much as possible. In dealing with such an extremely serious matter as this, we ought to adopt the more generous view and allow the time limit to run from the latest possible date, not from the earliest possible date.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will reply to that point. If there is another incident, then of course the limitation period does run from the latest occurrence on the site which causes a claimant to be exposed to radio-activity, so I do not think the noble Lord's point has anything in it.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: With all respect, that seems to me to be
358
an entirely different answer from that which the noble Lord gave before.
LORD LATHAM: May I put it in this plain and simple way? What were the reasons for altering the wording as it appeared in the Bill to the wording as it appears in the Amendment? That is the issue. What were the reasons?
4.37 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 3 (4) which has just been agreed. Its effect is that the Common-Law liability of the licensee continues to be extinguished even though the payment of claims made after ten years, or carrying the total over £5 million, may be temporarily held up pending Parliament's decision on how the licensee is to be reimbursed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, leave out from ("notwithstanding") to end of line 25 and insert ("that by reason of the proviso to subsection (4) of this section the licensee is not for the time being required to make any payment in satisfaction of the claim").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for this Amendment, which I think helps us a good deal. I would, however, ask him just one small point, because this is the first time we have seen this Amendment on paper. When is he going to lay this report before Parliament? I am thinking more of his successors than of the present Minister. Is there some time limit? It is very important. Let us remember that in such circumstances as these the normal compensation machinery is suspended, and it is not until Parliament has taken action on the report which the Minister brings to Parliament that matters begin to move. Is that not so? It is therefore rather important to know that the Minister will come before Parliament with his report within a reasonable time. Could we have a word on that matter?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will have a little patience until we come to Amendment No. 5. I think that he will find that his question is answered.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I thank the noble Lord.
Clause 4 [Provision of cover for licensee's liability]:
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this is another Amendment which is consequential on my Amendment to Clause 3 (4). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 43, leave out from "if" to "remains" in line 1 on page 6, and insert "a claim in respect of any earlier cover period made within ten years of the occurrence on, or in connection with the use of, the site which gave rise to the claim".—(Lord Mills.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what is the significance of having a period of ten years in this connection?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this deals with insurance cover, which is limited to ten years, and that is the reason for having ten years in this place.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment though not connected with the Amendment to Clause 3 (4). Its purpose is to bring the definition of "cover period" at the end of Clause 4 (1) into line with Clause 3 (1) (b), in so far as it relates to the licensee's liability for radio-active injury or damage from fuel in transit in the United Kingdom after being irradiated at the licensed site. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 19, leave out from "carriage" to end of line 21 and insert "on behalf of the licensee within, or between places within, the United Kingdom of nuclear fuel irradiated in the course of its use at the site under his licence."—(Lord Mills.)
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved to leave out subsection (3) and insert:
"(3) In the case of each licensed site, the licensee—

(a)shall give notice in writing to the Minister forthwith—

(i) upon its appearing to the licensee that the aggregate amount of any claims such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section made in respect of any cover period falling within the period of the licensee's responsibility has reached three million pounds; and

(ii) of the receipt by the licensee of any claim more than ten years after the occurrence on, or in connection with the use of, the site which gave rise thereto; and

360

(b) if any cover period falling within the period of the licensee's responsibility has ended, shall not later than the thirty-first day of January in each year send to the Minister in writing a statement in respect of the last preceding calendar year showing the date when that cover period ended and the following particulars of any claims in respect of that period as at the beginning and end respectively of the year to which the statement relates, that is to say—

(i) the aggregate number of claims received;

(ii) the aggregate number of claims established; and

(iii) the aggregate number and aggregate amount of claims satisfied;

and the Minister shall as soon as may be lay before each House of Parliament a copy of any notice received by him under paragraph (a) of this subsection and a report (in such form as, having regard to the proviso to subsection (4) of section three of this Act, he may consider appropriate) with respect to any statements received by him under paragraph (b) of this subsection".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we were debating just now the Amendment which I proposed in Clause 3 (4), I mentioned that I should be moving another Amendment to ensure that Parliament was able to take action in good time on claims which carried the total beyond the £5 million of the licensee's cover or were presented after more than ten years. This Amendment substitutes a new subsection (3) in Clause 4. It requires the licensee to inform the Minister immediately it appears that claims arising out of any occurrence have reached £3 million—I repeat, £3 million. In other words, he must notify the Minister when the rate at which claims are coming in suggests that the £5 million cover may possibly be exceeded. The licensee must also inform the Minister immediately he receives any claim relating to an occurrence which happened more than ten years before. As soon as he receives a notice of either description the Minister must lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament. The object, of course, is to enable Parliament to take action in good time to lay down how the licensee is to be reimbursed for established claims in excess of £5 million or for claims presented after ten years. By this means the disposal of claims will be expedited and consequent hardship to claimants avoided.
The Amendment also requires the I Minister to make an annual report to Parliament on the disposal of claims

361
arising out of any occurrence. Thus at regular intervals Parliament will be able to form an idea of the extent of the problem and the rate at which claims are being received and disposed of. I am satisfied that this Amendment will greatly facilitate the arrangements provided in my Amendment to Clause 3 (4), and I therefore commend it for your Lordships' acceptance. I beg to move,
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Mills.)
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, in this case the Minister has met all the points we made on the earlier stage, and we are very much obliged to him.
4.47 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST LORD GRANVILLE-WEST 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: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friends and myself. It is a very simple one. It seeks to extend Parliamentary responsibility with regard to claimants who have established their claims beyond the amount set out in the amended Clause 3 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to-day. The object of the clause is to bring the responsibility to Parliament for the payment of compensation for persons who are injured and who have established their claims.
Under the amended Clause 3, an injured person may fall into one of two categories. if he establishes his claim
362
either by action in court or by agreement, it may well be that, if he is among a limited number of claimants where the aggregate claims do not exceed £5 million, he will receive his compensation in the ordinary way. But if he is unfortunate enough to have been involved in a specially dangerous occurrence where the claims exceed £5 million, although he brings an action in court, establishes his claim and obtains judgment in respect of compensation, he is not entitled to receive payment of that compensation or enforce the judgment of the court until there has been a report to Parliament and Parliament has decided in what way the licensee is to be reimbursed for the excess of his liability.
Similarly, a member of the public who has been injured by the emission of nuclear ionising radiations and the effects of that radiation do not manifest themselves within a period of ten years but after that period, and who brings an action, establishes his claim, satisfies the court that he is entitled to judgment and is awarded compensation, is not entitled to enforce his claim until Parliament considers the matter and decides what contribution should be made to the licensee or in what way the licensee should be reimbursed to meet the claims for compensation.
There seems to have been an endeavour in this Bill to make the provisions as complicated as they possibly could be. This Amendment will tend to simplify the procedure. All that the claimant has to do is to prove his case to the satisfaction of the court. Having done that, then Parliament, which already is accepting responsibility for the excess of £5 million and far the satisfaction of claims which arise after ten years, can in the first instance pay the compensation and then recoup itself for such amount as may be necessary from the licensee whose nuclear reactor or installations cause the damage complained of. It would therefore seem to me to be highly desirable that this rather simpler procedure should be adopted. Parliament is accepting the responsibility, and although the noble Lord, Lord Mills, said on the earlier Amendment that we cannot bind succeeding Parliaments, what he has done in his own Amendment in Clause 3 is either to bind succeeding

363
Parliaments (because Parliament will have to decide in the future how the excess payments shall be reimbursed to the licensee) or, if future Parliaments are not bound, to lay down that a person who has established a claim may receive no compensation whatever. In those circumstances I would ask the noble Lord to view sympathetically the object of this Amendment and to concede it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 4 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Granville-West).
4.52 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, as I understand it, the main object of this Amendment is to ensure that established claims for radio-active injury or damage are paid in full out of monies provided by Parliament. My Amendment to Clause 3 (4) in fact ensures that such claims are met in full without the fundamental objections inherent in the present Amendment. In the main, the nuclear reactors with which we are concerned in this Bill will be run by commercial undertakings—mainly the nationalised Electricity Boards and, in a few cases, presumably, by private enterprise. The reactors will be operated by these bodies in the ordinary course of their commercial business, and the Government see no reason why they should not be required to insure in the ordinary commercial way against the risks involved.
Furthermore, we regard it as advisable that the long-established organisation of the British insurance companies should be available for settling claims against those licensees who choose to cover their liability by insurance. The insurance companies' organisation has long experience of settling claims of all kinds. It is, therefore, the agency most likely to settle expeditiously the kind of claim which might arise under the Bill; and more so if such claims should arise in any volume. In so far as claims arise beyond the insurable limit, these will be taken care of by the Amendments that I have moved this afternoon. The taxpayer should not be committed without Parliament having had an opportunity of reviewing the situation in the light of the circumstances arising at the time. I therefore submit to your Lordships that this Amendment should be rejected.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I was a little disturbed by what the noble Lord just said about reactors being mainly operated by industry, and I should like to return to a point that I touched on earlier; that is, the position of the research reactor. There are a number of different kinds of reactor. There is the large 5-megawatt reactor which might be operated by a power station; and then there could be the small 100-kilowatt reactor, which would be a sort of middle-scale reactor which might be operated by the university. If the Government took on this general responsibility, they would remove from a university carrying out research work a burden which, unless I have misunderstood the Bill, is likely to be quite serious. I do not know how far the university, faced with the upkeep of a research reactor, is going to find the large amount, of possibly several thousand pounds a year that would be necessary.
Whilst it is not strictly relevant to the Amendment as drafted, I am wondering whether, in considering this matter, the Minister could consider how such universities are to carry on their operations, and whether we may not be in danger of driving out of this country the type of research reactor which is absolutely essential for the further advance of nuclear energy. I appreciate that those reactors which are controlled, say, by the Atomic Energy Authority are already dealt with. The position, however, of the independent research reactor in the university, which cannot by any stretch of imagination, except possibly through the medium of a body which the National Research Development Corporation might take up, expect to recoup themselves, is different and this is likely to add seriously to the expenses. All these problems, as I understand it, would disappear if the Government were willing to accept this Amendment. I should be grateful if the Minister could deal with that particular point.
4.57 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has not really dealt with the case made by my noble friend Lord Granville-West. My noble friend put forward a proposal which, in his view—and I think he made the case—would simplify the procedure by which claims would be paid without involving the Exchequer in one penny piece extra

365
expense. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, did not attempt to suggest that it would be more expensive to accept this Amendment; and I do not think he could have made out such a case. It is going to cost the country no more to do it in the way my noble friend Lord Granville-West has suggested than to do it in the way proposed in the Bill. On the other hand, the advantage of the Amendment is that it is simple. The claimant knows exactly where he stands: his claim is against the Government. The Amendment has not the disadvantage of having two different methods of payment, one if the claims exceed £5 million, and another if they do not exceed £5 million, with one method of payment if the claim is made after ten years, and another method if the claim is made before ten years. The Amendment eliminates all those uncertainties and complexities, and the claim is made against one body—the Government.
What are the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Mills, gave for not accepting the Amendment? He said, first of all, that he saw no reason why the licensee should not be required to insure. I see no reason for that either. But this Amendment does not excuse licensees from insuring. As the Bill now stands, they will still be liable for the first £5 million, or whatever sum is agreed upon, and the Amendment itself requires that the licensee should recoup the Government, in whole or in part, for any moneys they expend. As the Bill stands, the licensee would be required to insure up to £5 million, and the Government would find the rest. The recoupment would come out of the insurance, and the wise licensee would, of course, insure, and he would not be excused from insuring if it were made one of the conditions of the grant of the licence. So I could not follow what the noble Lord meant by saying that under the Amendment the licensee would be excused from insuring. I hope he will agree that that is a misrepresentation—not a deliberate one, of course—or a misunderstanding of the intentions of the Amendment which says, quite clearly, that there must be recoupment.
The noble Lord's next point was that insurance companies had an organisation which was accustomed to dealing with claims, and therefore they, rather than the Government, were the more suitable bodies to deal with claims. I would say two things to the noble Lord in answer
366
to that. In the first place, the Government have a great many claims made against them, as the noble Lord will know. The Government are constantly having to meet claims, and in my own experience as a lawyer I should say that the Government are quite as efficient in resisting claims and have as good an organisation as any insurance company. Indeed, acting for claimants I would rather deal with an insurance company than I would with the Government. I find that the Government are much tougher and much better at resisting claims than insurance companies are.
Apart from that, let us suppose that one is as good as the other. The fact remains that the Government must still have an organisation in respect of claims over £5 million, and in respect of claims that are made after ten years. Those will be dealt with, not by insurance companies but by the Government. Indeed, the noble Lord's clause provides that there must be no settlement after ten years except with the approval of the Government. The Government will be required to have an organisation to deal with claims, and would it not be much simpler that there should be one organisation dealing with all the claims rather than two separate organisations, one dealing with claims in one set of circumstances and one dealing with claims in another. For these reasons, I would ask the noble Lord to think about this point again. I can promise him that if he does not he will be hearing about it again in another place. There is no money involved in this matter, and there is no particular advantage in resisting this Amendment, which would make it simpler for the claimant to establish his case and, I think, simpler for all parties. I suggest that this is an Amendment which is well worthy of the most serious consideration.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord rises, I think the House would agree that, throughout the course of debates on this Bill, none of us has any real idea of the magnitude of the problem. We may have only a few nuclear reactors to-day, but in the course of years we may have them spread throughout the country in much the same number as the oil power stations which are such a prominent part of our life to-day. If we have this large number of

367
reactors held in the hands of private industry, how are they going to be insured? With what insurance company? Are they going to be insured with individual insurance companies, or are they to be insured with a combination of some of the biggest insurance companies? If they are to be insured with quite a number of insurance companies, what is the position of a youth who has contracted a disease? His parents may be dead, and there may be little written evidence as to how that child contracted that disease. During the youth's life there may be a number of explosions. How does the youth go about making his claim? Has he to go from one insurance company to another making a claim and having it rejected? If that is the situation, it is quite intolerable, and should not be permitted by this House.
I believe that the safeguard lies in the Amendment which has been moved this afternoon by my noble friend. There would be one body, the Government, to whom a legitimate claim would be made, and then it would be up to the Government to obtain repayment from the licensee. If they were unable to put the blame on to any particular licensee, then they would have to accept the obligations. I think it would be intolerable that any person, for ten, fifteen or twenty years, should have to go round from one insurance company to another lodging a claim and having it rejected. The only people who would gain by it would be the legal profession.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I rise, with the leave of the House, mainly to say to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that he should read this Amendment again and the original Clause 4. He will find that the system of insurance which was provided in the Bill is wiped away by this Amendment. I would also remind the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the conditions of insurance are to be to the satisfaction of the Minister; there is that safeguard in the Bill. So far as research is concerned—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton referred—of course the Government are anxious to promote research and to do everything they can to facilitate it. But this Bill places a duty upon the Minister to lay down conditions under which certain
368
reactors shall be operated and certain materials shall be transported.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? He said "certain reactors". Does he in fact mean all reactors other than Government-owned ones?
LORD MILLS: It does in fact mean all reactors, and there is power in Clause 1 (1) (b) to bring other matters within the ambit of the Bill. But it is the Minister's duty to lay down the conditions, for safety reasons, under which they shall be operated, and also to arrange for compensation if anyone should suffer injury.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord said that there was nothing in this Amendment about insurance. If he reads the Amendment he will see that it says:
"… that there shall be attached to all nuclear site licences … such provision for the indemnification of and the reimbursement by the licensee … as he may think fit."
Surely, that implies insurance—I agree that it does not say so in actual words. But if the noble Lord, Lord Mills, does not like the actual wording of the Amendment I am sure that my noble friend Lord Granville-West will take it back like a shot if Lord Mills will undertake to put it in a form he would like. This Amendment certainly would enable the Minister to require that an insurance should be taken out to cover the indemnification. It does not preclude the insurance at all.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 [Dangerous occurrences in connection with licensed sites]:
LORD MILLS: My Lords, Clause 5 (2) requires a licensee to report at once to the Minister (but to no one else) occurrences which may be listed in regulations as capable, directly or indirectly, of affecting public safety. There may be some kinds of occurrence which might require immediate action by local services such as, for example, the police. Consequently it is desirable that the Minister should be able to require a licensee to report occurrences of those kinds direct to the local service concerned, or to the authority responsible for it, as well as to the Minister himself. The present Amendment would enable

369
the Minister to place this obligation on the licensee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 24, after ("Minister") to insert ("and to such other persons, if any, as may be prescribed in relation to occurrences of that class or description").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, moved an Amendment in Committee with the object of making it clear that if a person does not register his presence in the vicinity of a nuclear occurrence under Clause 5 (5), he is not thereby debarred from making a claim for injury or damage later. Though I thought the Amendment unnecessary I promised to consider the noble Lord's proposal further. I am still not entirely convinced that an Amendment is needed here, but I am anxious to set the noble Lord's mind at rest if I can, and therefore hope that the present Amendment will be acceptable to him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 1, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to any right of any person to claim against the licensee by virtue of subsection (1) of section three of this Act").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the Amendment that he has moved. It seems to me fully to meat the case and settle any dubiety there might have been as it was originally, and of course we support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord.
Clause 8 [Liability of Government Departments and Atomic Energy Authority in respect of nuclear installations]:
LORD MILLS: My Lords, this Amendment applies the thirty-year time limit to the presentation of claims for radioactive injury or damage against a Government Department. But there is no question of having to seek further legislation where a claim is presented after ten years or carries the total above £5 million, as there will be in the case of licensees. The reason for this is that Government Departments do not normally insure and it does not therefore matter whether the risk is insurable or not. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 5 after ("(1)") insert ("and the proviso to subsection (4)").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to deal with Amendment No. 10 and Amendment No. 11 together. These Amendments apply the 30-year time limit to the presentation of claims for radioactive injury or damage against the Atomic Energy Authority. I should remind your Lordships again that the time limits under the existing law are not as the noble Lord. Lord Shepherd, presumed, but are three years for personal injury and six years for damage to property (for damage to property in Scotland, twenty years). The Amendment therefore provides a very substantial extension. Like Government Departments, the Atomic Energy Authority do not normally insure, and therefore there will be no need for further legislation if claims are presented after ten years or if they carry the total to more than £5 million. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 2, leave out ("and").—(Lord Mills.)
LORD MILLS: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 30, at end insert—
("(d) in subsection (4) of the said section three, the proviso shall be omitted, and for the words 'the occurrence on, or in connection with the use of, the site in question which gave rise to the claim' there shall be substituted the words the occurrence which gave rise to the claim being an occurrence on, or in connection with the use of, premises occupied by the Authority or an occurrence (whether or not in connection with the use of such premises) in the course of any carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel on behalf of the Authority within, or between places within, the United Kingdom.'")—(Lord Mills.)
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 11):
5.18 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Bill, has consented to place

371
Her Majesty's interest, so far at it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mills.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord was going to say a few words on the Third Reading.
LORD MILLS: I am going to say them on proposing the passing of the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: This Bill has occupied a good deal of time of the House, and I think quite rightly. The noble Lord, in introducing this measure—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand it, the noble Lord is taking the Third Reading formally, because he was then going to move the privilege Amendments, and, having moved the privilege Amendments, then move that the Bill do now pass and have a discussion on that. I only wanted the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to know what the procedure was.
LORD SILKIN: I should much prefer to follow the noble Lord and allow him to make his speech.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD MILLS: I beg to move that the privilege Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That the privilege Amendments be agreed to.—(Lord Mills.)
5.20 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. Let me first of all remind your Lordships why this Bill is necessary. The Electricity Boards will before long have in operation or under construction half a dozen nuclear power stations and more will be constructed later. One private firm is already operating a research reactor. The majority of these installations will be handling radio-active materials on a large scale. It is necessary, first, to protect the public, so far as is reasonably possible, by imposing under licence safety controls on the design, construction, operation and maintenance of these installations, thus ensuring that the best current practice is observed and the risk of radio-active
372
injury or damage is reduced to the minimum.
Secondly, it is necessary to ensure that if anyone suffers radio-active injury or damage from such an installation, he may be able to obtain compensation. At present a claim on account of injury or damage by radio-activity against an Electricity Board cannot succeed unless negligence is proved. Since the risks arising from the licensee's operations will be comparable with those from the operation of the Atomic Energy Authority, licensees. whether Electricity Boards or private firms, should be required like the Authority under the 1954 Act to pay compensation in such cases, whether they have been negligent or not otherwise claims might be difficult, if not impossible, of proof.
To ensure that claimants who establish their claims will be compensated, it is provided that licensees should be required to take out cover in the form of insurance or liquid assets. Since the licensee will be liable, whether negligent or not, the cover is limited to £5 million, and if established claims carry the total beyond that sum, the Amendments which pour Lordships have accepted this afternoon should secure that they are paid and the licensee reimbursed by such means as Parliament may determine. The Amendments will also enable claims to be presented within thirty years not only against licensees but also against the Atomic Energy Authority and Government Departments. These requirements cannot be secured under existing legislation. In case noble Lords opposite are under any misapprehension that this Bill worsens the position of the ordinary citizen vis-à-vis the operator of a nuclear installation, let me say at once that this is not so. There was, moreover, some suggestion that the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, gave the Government all the necessary powers of control, and that this Bill was therefore unnecessary. I must try to remove this impression also.
Under the law as it stands, no claim for personal injury by radio-activity is admissible unless it is presented within three years, whether it be against the Atomic Energy Authority or anyone else. Under the Bill as drafted, the time limit was to be ten years and, as amended by your Lordships, it is to be thirty years

373
for claims against licensees, the Authority or a Government Department. Under the Atomic Energy Authority Act the Authority are liable for radio-active injury or damage regardless of whether they have been negligent, but in the case of Electricity Boards to which that Act does riot apply, negligence would have to be proved were it not for this Bill.
Finally, the Bill enables the Minister to impose statutorily the safety conditions under which licensees must construct, operate and maintain their installations and for rendering safe installations no longer in use. These objects cannot be secured at all under the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, and cannot he effectively secured under the Atomic Energy Act, 1946. I hope, therefore, that on reflection your Lordships will agree that this Bill would confer on the ordinary citizen greater protection against radioactive risks and better facilities for obtaining compensation than he at present enjoys.
I promised in Committee to think again about the proposal of the noble Lords., Lord Shepherd, Lord Silkin and Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, that the Minister should revoke a nuclear site licence if, without his consent, the constitution or control of the licensed body were materially changed. I have attentively considered this suggestion and have come to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to include such a provision. Safety, together with compensation for radio-active injury or damage, is the object of the Bill. The interests which control the affairs of a licensed body are only relevant in so far as they affect the safety of the installation or the licensee's capacity to pay compensation. The Minister will have means of knowing through his inspectorate whether the licensee's installations are being operated in accordance with the conditions of the licence—that is, in accordance with the best safety standards. It would be alien to the objects of the Bill to provide specifically for revocation on change of ownership.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, asked me in Committee whether it would be desirable to include the transport of isotopes in the Bill and I promised to consider the matter. Isotopes are normally transported in small quantities, and, although they might be dangerous
374
if carelessly handled, the risk is similar to the risk in transporting many other substances, such as acids, and far less than the risk in transporting irradiated nuclear fuel. The Bill imposes on the licensee an absolute liability, irrespective of negligence on his part, for injury or damage from irradiated fuel elements in transit, because the material is highly radio-active and the quantities comparatively large. It would not be appropriate to impose the same liability in respect of relatively small quantities of radioactive materials. (Besides the substances which are commonly know as isotopes, other radio-active substances are frequently required to be transported.) Regulations and a code of practice for the transport of all radio-active materials are under consideration by the Ministry of Transport, and the necessary statutory powers exist in section 5 of the Radioactive Substances Act, 1948.
My Lords, before I sit down—
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that subject, would he mind if I ask this question? Do I understand that the present law is that they are liable in the case of negligence? Is that the position?
LORD MILLS: I am sorry I did not quite catch the point of the noble Lord's question.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: understood the noble Lord to say that he was not going to make a licensee liable in all cases for isotopes in transit. I understood him to say that without the Bill a great many people would be liable for negligence when there was damage caused, if they were negligent. All I am asking is: under the present law, without any alteration, before the passage of this Bill and before any results of any consideration that the Government are making, am I right in thinking that for negligence a firm would be liable?
LORD MILLS: Yes, my Lords, I think I said on that question that radioactive substances frequently required to be transported, and that the risk is similar to that in transporting many other substances, such as acids; and of course the person transporting those materials is liable at Common Law for any damage. I also said that regulations and the code of practice for the transport of all radio-

375
active materials are at present under consideration.
Before I sit down, may I thank my noble and learned friends the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Council and my other noble friends for their assistance. I should also like to repeat my appreciation, which I have already voiced, to the noble Lords, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, Lord Silkin, Lord Taylor and other noble Lords opposite for their helpful contributions to our discussions. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mills.)
5.31 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, since we are in a thanksgiving mood I should like to express my appreciation of the friendly words of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and to express my appreciation of the great help that some of my noble friends and I have received from the new accessions to this House. We have already welcomed those concerned to this House, but this is the first measure in which they have participated. I think that noble Lords on all sides of the House will recognise that a change has taken place in the atmosphere of this House, and I am sure that most noble Lords will agree it has been a change for the better.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Hear, hear!
LORD SILKIN: Every speech made has been a reasoned speech. I will not say for a moment that all the right has been on one side or the other, but every new noble Lord who has spoken has expressed himself clearly and succinctly and stated a point of view which he genuinely believed; and I believe this House has been immeasurably strengthened by the new noble Lords who have taken part in this debate to say nothing of other noble Lords.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mills—and I am sure he will understand that I say it in the friendliest possible way—that he would have saved himself a good deal of trouble if he had only been a little more explanatory at the outset as to the purposes of this Bill. I found myself puzzled for a long time as to what this Bill was all about. I am not a scientific person, and therefore I found it more difficult than many people would. I knew
376
that the Bill was stated to be for the purpose of enabling the Minister to make conditions as regards safety and for the granting of licences, but I could never quite make out to whom these licences were to be granted and what was their purpose. As the discussions developed I realised that the noble Lord was apparently disguising what I think is the beginning of a new Industrial Revolution. This seems to me to be a far bigger thing than he ever led us to believe, from the way in which he introduced the Bill and from some of his early speeches. I now find that this is an introductory stage to a complete revolution in forms of energy and power, and that this initiation of the principle of the granting of licences is one of the big things of the present century. The noble Lord has been unduly modest in not claiming for this Bill the importance it deserves. I hope he will be able to say that my view of the importance of this Bill is justified by what has taken place through its various stages.
I am glad that the noble Lord feels that he has been assisted in the passage of this Bill, not only by his noble friends but from all parts of the House. We believe that this Bill is to-day a much better Bill than it was when it first appeared; and this is due in large measure to the hard work which a great many noble Lords have put in in dealing with it. And I believe the end is not yet in sight. The noble Lord has some more hurdles to go through in another place, and I do not suppose for a moment that the Bill is today in its final form. But I feel that in this particular case your Lordships' House has justified itself and that we have played a good part, an important part, in dealing with a measure which, as I have said, is of such far-reaching importance.
I want to say just one or two words about the matters which, in my view, are still in dispute. There are really two broad matters of policy which are still in dispute and which the noble Lord will have to think about in the further stages in another place. The first is whether there should be unlimited liability or liability for a period; and I feel sure that on this point he is going to be pressed further. Certainly, with every desire to look at this matter objectively, I remain completely unconvinced by the case that has been made against unlimited liability. I think it only right that, with this unknown

377
peril from which we are suffering, but which may, at the same time, be connected with something which is a tremendous boon to mankind, we should not be niggardly about compensating people who are its victims.
One rather tends to be carried away by the use of words. When we say "The Government should pay" or "Parliament should pay", what we are really meaning is that we—all of us; the nation; every individual—should feel a responsibility towards the unfortunate individuals concerned—who might be ourselves. Noble Lords on that side of the House and noble Lords on this side of the House are just as liable to be victims of "an occurrence" as the people whom we are talking about. What we are saying is that whoever is injured, at whatever time, should be compensated by the community. And is there any one of us, individually, who would grudge the necessary payment? I am sure there is not, because we should feel that the injury was sustained in the public interest, just as that was the case with people who were the victims of war damage.
We had no difficulty about that, my Lords. I see in the House the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton. He and I were associated during the war on questions of war damage and matters of that kind. Nobody grudged the payment of war-damage compensation to people who were the innocent victims of enemy attack; and this is just the same sort of thing. There is no question of negligence; there is no question of people getting in the way of radio-activity. People contract the disability through no fault of their own, and it should undoubtedly be a national responsibility. The Government acquired a good deal of experience in dealing with war-damage claims. The noble Lord spoke about insurance companies having experience. But the Government acquired a tremendous amount of experience in dealing with such claims, and they have been doing so every day—not only in dealing with war-damage claims but in dealing with all sorts of other claims against the Government. However, I do not want to pursue this point. I want to express, finally, the gratitude of myself and my noble friends for such advances as the noble Lord has been able to make in this
378
Bill, and to give him the assurance that he will be pressed for more.
5.40 p.m.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I have not taken part in the discussions on the details of this measure, but I wonder whether I may say one thing. I have for many years past been pressing the opinion that Parliamentary draftsmen should be instructed by their Ministers on all occasions to make their Bills as simple as possible and to make it as easy as possible for them to be understood by ordinary people. This Bill is a technical Bill, and is bound to be complicated, but the idea behind it is a perfectly simple one, and one that anybody can understand if it is put into simple language. I should have thought that it should not have been beyond the wit of man to design a simpler vehicle than this rather cumbrous coach (if I might put it in that way) to bring this idea into effect. I beg your Lordships' pardon, but I could not resist raising this as another peg on which to hang my plea for simplicity of language in Acts of Parliament.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, may I add one word to that which has already been said in appreciation of the noble Lord, Lord Mills? My noble friend Lord Silkin very properly stressed the great assistance that we on this side of the House have received from the new Members. As one of the older Members, I should like to say a word in order to provide a peg on which to hang this particular plea of mine. It is this. When the noble Lord, Lord Mills, referred to the danger of transporting isotopes as being no greater than, or comparable with, the transport of acids, I could not help feeling that perhaps he was overlooking the enormous increase that has taken place in recent times in the business of selling isotopes. It is not only that isotopes are now being used greatly and increasingly in medicine: they are also being used not only in research work but in the everyday processes of ordinary industrial production. The risk of possible injury from ionising radiation is therefore very great. While thanking the noble Lord, Lord Mills, as is undoubtedly his due, for his very kind attention to the points that we raised, I feel that the time is ripe for considering the dangers which are being run

379
by the increasing, daily use of this highly toxic product.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

GAMBLING AND BETTING LAWS
5.44 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what legislation they intend to introduce to give effect to the recommendations of the report of the Royal Commission on Gambling debated in this House in February, 1956 (Lord Silkin's Motion), and subsequently referred to in the course of debates on 27th June, 1956 (Viscount Astor's Motion), and on 6th May, 1958. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ask leave to put the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. However, before doing so, perhaps I may keep you for a few moments briefly to run over the reasons why I put this Question down on the Paper. In the last few minutes your Lordships have heard a plea from the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, for plain language—and I can assure your Lordships that for the next few moments you will get it.
My Lords, the story behind this Question is as follows. In April, 1949, a Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gambling was set up by the Government. The Final Report of that Commission was presented about two years later, after some forty meetings had been held and the best part of £12,000 had been spent in producing the Report. At the end of the period of five years from the presentation of the Report, nothing whatever had happened. At this point the Chairman, Mr. Henry Willink, wrote a letter to The Times complaining that the distinguished people who had given up so much time to it, and the money which had been spent, appeared to have produced no reaction from the Government. As a result of this, in February, 1956—to be exact, on February 8—Lord Silkin put down a Motion calling attention to the Report, and an exhaustive debate ensued on the subject of betting and gambling generally. At the end of that date Lord Silkin withdrew his Motion, intimating his clear intention of pursuing the matter further. I am a little sorry that the noble Lord has just left the Chamber, but perhaps he will be back in
380
a minute or two and will say a few words. I hope he will.
In the debate of February, 1956, it was generally felt that gambling in some form or another is inevitable, whether one approves of it or not, and that to stamp it out in every form would be quite impracticable, even it that were desirable. I do not propose to take up the time of the House this evening by going over all that ground again. We all have feelings about it, and it would be quite a waste of time—and not the object of my Question—again to go over the pros and cons and the dangers of different forms of betting or gambling. However, I would remind your Lordships of the words used by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle in the course of that debate of nearly three years ago. During what was, in my opinion, a remarkable speech, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 195, col. 823]:
"The laws…regarding betting and gambling are so chaotic that the time has come for a radical investigation and reformation of them. They are so chaotic that I believe it will be the height of folly to engage in any more patchwork legislation. Patchwork legislation will only confuse more and more the existing conditions."
Replying to that debate on behalf of the Government, Lord Mancroft—who I am delighted to see in the Chamber this evening: he will be able to see that I do not put words into his mouth which he did not speak, which I shall be extremely careful not to do—said [col. 833]:
"There is no dust on my copy of the Report. It is dog-eared and well thumbed, and not all the thumb marks are my own."
He went on to claim shortage of Parliamentary time—even after five years, my Lords! And he added [col. 834]:
"With a crowded legislative programme before Parliament, with a large number of important topics to be dealt with, I ask your Lordships' sympathetic consideration of the difficulty of fitting in a topic such as this."
I feel that any fair-minded person hearing those words must have formed the conclusion that the Government did not, in fact, look upon this as a particularly important matter. I really think that that is the implication, though it may not have been intended.
Later on in his speech Lord Mancroft said this [col. 837]:
"The Government believe that a satisfactory basis for legislation…would be roughly

381
along these lines: first, there should be a strict control over the provision, on a commercial basis. of all major forms of gambling facilities, including the licensing or registration of all those who provide such facilities; secondly, the law should apply fairly to all sections of the community.…Thirdly, as much information as is practicable should be made available to the public about the extent of gambling and, wherever possible, about the conduct of the various forms of gambling. These seem to me to be a satisfactory basis for tackling this question of legislation."
Finally, he said [col. 841]:
"I hope I have expressed the views of the Government in general as clearly as I possibly can. I cannot…give an undertaking that legislation will be introduced to-morrow. I can only repeat as firmly as possible that the Government have no intention of neglecting this Report. I promise the House that the strong and carefully expressed feelings that have been put forward in this debate will be taken into account by the Government. This is a problem that has to be tackled; the Government means to tackle it…"
That statement must have given considerable pleasure to those who feel that something should he done, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in withdrawing his Motion, indicated that he was glad to hear that the Government took the matter seriously and had outlined in general terms what they intended to do, though to be quite fair the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, had indicated that it could not be done "tomorrow". Precisely what the noble Lord meant by that expression I do not know.
Five months later, in the course of a further debate, the matter of gambling came up again. I remember it well, because I brought up the question of boxing and got into extremely hot water as a result. Replying for the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 198, col. 119]:
"As to gambling, the law on which is in a state of unparalleled confusion, Her Majesty's Government propose to start again with legislation designed to bring the law into line with present practice and opinion. This will be carried out by legalising those forms of gambling which are at present tolerated, and at the same time prohibiting the conduct of privately organised gambling…"
"…When I last spoke to your Lordships on this subject, I said it would not be possible to introduce this legislation to-morrow. Having now gone into the matter in more detail, I must warn the House that it will not now he possible to introduce this legislation the day after tomorrow. It has proved much more complicated than we thought."
Time rolled on, and in May, 1958, as a result of a Question on the unsuccessful prosecution of Mr. John Aspinall, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, entered the lists. In his reply for the Government, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 209, col. 22]:
"I regret that I cannot give any undertaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that legislation will he introduced at any particular time to give effect to these recommendations and the other recommendations of the Royal Commission"—
By that time it was eight years old—
"What prospects future Sessions may hold is something which your Lordships would not expect me to be able to foresee."
If the noble Lord, answering for the Government, with a Government Department briefing, could not say, I do not see who could.
"We should, I think, bear in mind that while nobody will dispute the social importance of the subject of gambling, it is one which gives rise to a good deal of difficulty and a great deal of controversy."
My Lords, I shall quote no more. I have quoted enough, I hope, to convince your Lordships that the "soft soap" stage has now been passed. Is any progress being made in this matter? If so, may we be given some indication of what it is? Is it that the Government find this thing too difficult? Is it that they cannot introduce legislation, or that they do not want to do so? That is what I am asking. If it is too complicated, then I must say that I am disappointed in the ability of a Government Department to find some solution. They have had time enough. Or is it because they feel that, generally speaking, any legislation they may introduce will lose them far more friends than they will make, which, in my opinion, is highly probable? Is that the explanation? If so, I think that is a deplorable attitude to adopt.
This is a social menace—not the gambling, but the fact that nobody knows what is legal and what is illegal. That is a bad thing. The Government were informed by this Report nearly eight years ago, and nothing whatever has emerged. If, indeed, anything can be done, the noble and learned Viscount who, I understand, is to reply, will be in the happy position of being able to tell us, but it is a pity that up to now we have heard nothing. Meanwhile, the situation gets worse. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said that he had no

383
evidence that the acquittal of Mr. Aspinall was causing activities of the kind in which he indulged to become widespread. The expression "wide-spread" means different things to different people. My information on the subject is quite different from that of the noble Lord.
There are other questions. If I may quote one or two lines from the Daily Mail of only a fortnight ago, a reporter describing a game called "Bingo", of which your Lordships may have heard—it is the same as "Housey-Housey" which we played in the Army—said:
"It is a highly organised affair which is drawing terrific crowds to halls and concert rooms all along Merseyside. The prizes are big and the craze has really got a hold."
That is the sort of thing that is happening. This question may be considered unimportant compared with other issues that come before your Lordships' House, but I beg to differ. I believe that it is a moral disease, which not only contaminates a lot of people but also brings the law into disrepute, and that is much worse.
So long as there is doubt whether a person who indulges in gambling will be prosecuted or not, the spread of gambling is bound to go on. For instance, I have seen mentioned the possibility that promoters may try to start a casino near Dublin. It has not happened yet, so far as I know, but I know one promoter quite well. He asked for £4 million to start it and got £3 million in three days. So it shows that somebody thinks that there is something in it. I asked this man what was the state of the law in the Republic of Ireland with regard to the project, and he said that if the Government decided that it was a good thing, they would pass an Act in a day or two. So it will be. What I am trying to point out by this is that the position of gambling is not static. It is not only a question of people having a few shillings on the dogs or horses, or on the pools. It goes much wider than that. And I believe that it should be got under control at the earliest possible moment.
I did not get up to speak on the pros and cons of gambling but to ask what the Government propose to do about the Royal Commission's Report, and when they propose to do it. I hope that in his reply the noble and learned Viscount will
384
not bring forward a large number of legal reasons, which are only confusing to the ordinary layman. I also hope that, with the sad story of the first Test Match at Brisbane before us, the Government will not steadily play back our bawling, but rather, as your Lordships' House is led by an eminent cricketer, go for the runs. What I really ask them for is a straight answer to a straight question.
5.49 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question and the whole tenor of the speech which he has made imply severe criticism of the Government for the long delay that has occurred between the receipt of this Report and the taking of any action on it. I have noticed that there has been similar criticism in regard to the Reports of other Commissions which have reported in recent years. Having in mind the very large number of Reports that have been received during the lifetime of the present Government, I believe that, by and large, the criticism is unjustified. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack could tell us, when he comes to reply, just how many Reports have been received by the Government from Commissions such as this and what has happened to these Reports in the interval. I believe that that would be helpful to your Lordships in coming to a conclusion on the matter which has been raised in this Question by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
6.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for raising the point in his Question, and I shall try to deal with it. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for raising a wider issue, because it is important at the present time that those who are asked to deal with problems by way of Royal Commissons and Departmental Committees should have an accurate picture of what happens as a result of their labours. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, tried to approach me in cricketing guise. I I am afraid that I do not compare with my noble Leader in that field, but it may be some consolation to the noble Lord to know that I do claim this: that I am the only Lord Chancellor who, when in office as Lord Chancellor, has hit an England bowler for four—and I can also

385
tell the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that I have not the slightest hope of doing the same with him to-night.
I do not think the noble Lord has any doubt, because he has not only listened to but has read the speeches of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, that the Government are conscious of the importance of the subject; and he need not be in any doubt that we shall pay attention (and I shall personally convey it to Mr. Butler) to what he has said to-day. I think it may be convenient if, first of all, I deal with what is in the Question, if I may put it in that way—that is, give the Government's views on the point—and then deal with its other aspect. May I take gaming first? The Government do not disagree with the Commission's proposals, which were to legalise those forms of gaming which are in practice tolerated despite their illegality, while continuing to prohibit the conduct of commercially organised gaming. That is the view we have taken, and, if I understood the noble Lord correctly. I do not think he differs from that view.
The main problem which the Royal Commission had to face was that of illegal street betting, and their solution was that licensed betting shops should be established. Again I do not think the noble Lord disagreed—he impliedly said so in one part of his speech—that that is a solution which has never commanded universal support. But, in spite of the difficulties—again I want to put it quite clearly to the noble Lord—the Government agree, in principle, that the present law is unsatisfactory and ought to be amended.
I want to say a word or two to the noble Lord about the question of amending legislation on so controversial a subject. My experience of this building goes back for something like a quarter of a century; that is not so long as that of some of those I see here, but it is now getting to be quite a long time. Just before I came there had been a particular example of the difficulty which I am just_ going to state. I do not think that anyone can say that there has been agreement with regard to betting shops. I think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, would agree with me in this: that a number of people accepted that betting shops were better than street betting and the illegality, but when they had to face up to the number of betting shops in Lon-
386
don running into more than four figures, they got rather a shock. I think it is fair to say that in regard to betting shops there was rather a revulsion when the extent to which they would be necessary was realised.
But even if, in regard to legislation which concerns gambling, one could get broad agreement on that, so that there would not be great offence given to many people, the experience I have always had in regard to this field is that the details themselves are liable to give rise to tension and to much prolonged argument. I turn round and see my noble friend Lord Margesson, and he will remember exactly what I mean; it was just before I came into the House. but the thunder was still reverberating in another place. I think it is a fair point that, even when you get the measure of agreement to which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, drew attention as to its being better to risk a new difficulty than to keep the law as it is, there is an immense potential field of trouble with regard to the details.
Now may I raise another point which the noble Lord mentioned; that is, the intervention of my noble friend, Lord Astor, who unfortunately is not here to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will remember that it was in a debate which my noble friend Lord Astor introduced, if my memory serves me, in June, 1956, and again during the discussion on the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, last May, that my noble friend Lord Astor pleaded for the reorientation of the scheme for the licensing of bookmakers and betting shops so as to bring in money to help horse-racing. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will know that that has introduced a factor which was not in actuality considered by the Royal Commission. I appreciate the point of view of my noble friend Lord Astor, and I understand the point of view of racing interests in general in supporting this idea; but I am by no means convinced and ready to agree with that reorientation.
It would be idle to pretend that this has not introduced a further complicating matter to a most controversial plan. I say that, not as a excuse but as an illustration, which we have actually seen in this House, of the way complications come into this subject, though introduced

387
with the best of motives. Nobody questions that my noble friend Lord Astor desires to improve horse-racing and horse breeding and all the things that mean so much to him, but he has undoubtedly, by that suggestion of a new orientation to the general proposal, if I may say so without offence, bedevilled our subject which was difficult enough already.
Now I come to the second point, because I think it is an answer to my noble friend Lord Windlesham as well as to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. It is irritating I know—and I apologise in advance—when Members talk about the competition for the Parliamentary programme, because every one of us thinks: "That is all very well for the other subjects, but not the subjects in which I am profoundly interested." I hope my noble friend Lord Windlesham will not think that I am being cynical about his own views. I would not be prepared to pronounce on his views with regard to gambling generally, but I would be prepared to endorse every word he has said about the undesirability of bringing the law into disrepute. I assure him that that is the only legalistic thing I am going to say to-night, but as it is a repetition of his words perhaps he will not hold it hardly against me.
I should like to deal for a moment—and I hope the House will not be too bored—with the other side of the problem. because I think it should be said. Since we became a Government—I am going to deal only with really important Commissions and bodies of that sort—we have had thirty-four major Reports. We have completely, or substantially, implemented eighteen; we have, as I will show in a moment, considerably implemented another nine, and seven have not yet been carried into effect; but again when I refer to them shortly I think everyone will agree that a great deal of work has been done upon them.
It is important in this matter, in answering both noble Lords, to see the sort of subject and the difficulty and importance of the subject on which we have had reports. We had the Tucker Committee on Taxation and Trading Profits—the first Committee under my friend Sir James Millard Tucker. Taxation is a vitally important subject. All the practicable recommendations were imple-
388
mented in the Finance Acts of 1952, 1953 and 1954. We had a Committee on Copyright. I will not detain your Lordships, but you may remember the days—I see a noble Lord who remembers very well—we spent in this House after I introduced the Bill, not merely to give effect to the intention, but to revise the whole law of copyright because we had had that Report. Your Lordships, if I may say so, did an immense job in regard to that technical subject.
We had the Royal Commission on University Education in Dundee and St. Andrews. I mention the importance of that subject only because I was Rector of the University myself, otherwise perhaps it is not on the same scale. Then we had the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Crook—he was here a moment ago—which propounded the scheme with regard to the registration of opticians. That became a law in a Private Member's Bill in which we were able to help. We had the Report of my noble friend Lord Ridley on the Use of Fuel and Power Resources, of which the Government accepted the recommendations which could be dealt with administratively. We had the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, which reported to me. I broadly answered that Report with the Homicide Bill. which your Lordships discussed very fully. There were Royal Commissions on Scottish Affairs and on the Army and Air Force Acts; the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, knows how vital it was to get these antiquated measures brought up to date. The Reports were implemented after a great deal of work in both Houses. The noble, Lord. Lord Strathclyde, knows how difficult was the Scottish rating system and how complex were Lord Sorn's Reports. That was implemented in the Scottish Valuation Acts.
Sir Hugh Beaver's Committee's Report on Air Pollution was implemented in the Clean Air Bill, and there was the Hurst Committee on the Adoption of Children; your Lordships will remember that I had the honour of moving in your Lordships' House the Bill which dealt with that subject. When Sir James Grigg reported on the Preservation of Government Records, I again moved a Bill last Session on that subject. The Priestley Committee's Report on the Civil Service was a matter which was dealt with

389
administratively; the same with the Report of the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors; and the Report of the very important Committee on the Regional Organisation of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Arson Wilson Committee, was also dealt with administratively. The Sir Edwin Herbert's Committee's Report on the Electricity Supply Industry became the Electricity Act of last Session. I pass over pigs and bacon, and the security question which was considered by the Committee of Privy Counsellors before which I gave evidence, and the other Committee of which I was Chairman. These have been dealt with administratively. I want to put two points to my noble friend Lord Windlesham. Broadly, we do not ignore Reports, but, secondly, these are matters of vital importance to the economic, social and political life of the people.
Now I want shortly to deal—because I want to show I have not made a false claim—with the ones we have put into effect to some extent. First, there was the Evershed Report on Legal Procedure. I apologise to my noble friend for pausing for a moment on a legal subject, but your Lordships will remember that I introduced into this House a Bill for increasing the jurisdiction of the county courts, the Administration of Justice Bill, in order to clean up many of the old procedures, to modernise them, and in addition I have carried out a great deal of administrative reforms which I have reported to your Lordships at times. The Boundary Commissions' Reports have been dealt with. The Report of the Guillebaud Committee on the Medical Services is again a matter for implementation by administration, as is that of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. A number of their suggestions were introduced into the Finance Acts of the last five years. The Report of the Committee of Crown Lands became the Crown Estates Act.
I want to deal with one other subject, which again happens to be in my own particular sphere of duty, and that is the Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Moreton of Henryton. There we made a three pronged attack. We brought in a Government Bill (which your Lordships may remember I introduced here) the Maintenance Orders Bill. We have
390
helped with Private Members' Bills—that is, we have given them the help and the Government have found the time. In addition,. I have, by administration and rules of court, implemented a considerable number of the recommendations. I do not want to put it too high. Your Lordships will remember that we debated here, in a fascinating debate, if I may say so, apart from my own speech, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Feversharm, the Piercy Committee's Report on Mental Health. There again, the Mental Health Bill is one of the measures referred to in the gracious Speech which we are determined to get through this Session.
With regard to the Franks Committee, I am not going to go through that matter again, but we got the Report in August; in October we approved, I think it was, 91 out of 96 recommendations, in full or in part. We introduced a Bill early in the New Year, and long before that I had announced to this House that a number of administrative reforms were going to be introduced at once, and the Bill that comes now on that subject matter reflects in some way the spirit or recommendations of Franks. Those are the Reports on which we have acted.
I want to be fair to the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham. I should like to deal with the Reports on which we have not produced something. There are two which are concerned with more or less routine matters—two out of seven. One is weights and measures. There the Board of Trade have done a great deal of work but there has not been an absolute clamour for that work to be hastened on. The same applies to the Report on the bankruptcy procedure, which I am glad to think has not had an immediate appeal at the moment. Apart from that there is the Report by Lord Nathan's Committee on Charitable Trusts. There we introduced the White Paper declaring the Government's attitude. There was the Phillips Report on the Provision for Old Age—I give the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham this one, because he could make the reply rather in the style of his speech. On that matter the majority of the Committee reported that we should put the pensionable age up to 68. for men, and 63 for women. The two trade union members of the Committee dissented from that view. You can attack us; you may say that the fact that we

391
have not implemented that Report shows a certain fear, but I think that to rush into that field at a difficult time like this, in the face of the minority consisting of the trade union members, at a time when it is very important to get co-operation in combating inflation, is something not to be desired. I do not want to put my case any higher than it need be put.
There is one other case—the Runciman Committee on Horticultural Marketing. I can assure the House that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has that subject very well in mind. Then there is the Wolfenden Report. Your Lordships heard me on one side of that Report. You will know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has also dealt with the matter. I do not think anyone can say that we have ignored that Report. I think there is a field of disagreement and a field of difficulty in public opinion, which I ventured to put before your Lordships.
I have now dealt with the position of this Government with regard to Reports, and I think it is fair to say that, of the 34, 27 have been implemented in full or very considerably. On the others a great deal of work has been done, but we are faced with the very real competition for the legislative programme. I can only tell the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that I have now considered for quite a number of years—although to nothing like the same extent as my noble friend Lord Margesson—the difficulties of legislative programmes and the competition of the various Bills. It is not an easy matter, and I should like to assure the noble Lord that we are determined to
392
continue our study. We shall consider the new difficulties that have been raised, and we still hold the view that there should be these changes. We still believe that a suitable time will come for them to be introduced. I am sorry that I cannot give him any more, but I have tried to answer his Question clearly as to what are our views. I am sorry to leave the other indefinite.
I have also tried to give the general picture. I think I have made it clear—I hope that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will agree, after my analysis—that, when one is considering the immense variety and complexity of Reports we have received, the suggestion that they are pigeon-holed is entirely false, and the achievement of this Government in bringing them into operation in these varied fields is something of which no one need be ashamed.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as you may imagine, I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD WINDLESHAM: I was merely going to thank him.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that it has been arranged through the usual channels that the House will meet at 2.15 p.m. on Thursday.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past six o'clock.