Lords Sitting of 9 February 1960

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich
The Lord Morris of Kenwood—Took the Oath.

NEW SYSTEM OF TRANSPORT
2.35 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords I beg leave 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 have received any report of the recent demonstration in Salisbury, Rhodesia, of a new system of transport invented by Rhodesian engineers, and whether they consider that this system has any application in this country.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has recently received some details about this demonstration and will make further inquiries about it.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of asking a supplementary question, as to whether the attention of the Colonial Office has been drawn to this remarkable new invention? I understand that patents have been taken out all over the world and that it has very considerable financial backing. Is the Colonial Office aware that at next year's Central African Fair a working model is going to be on show and visitors will be able to see the merits of it. In any case, are Her Majesty's Government aware that it appears to merit their early attention and the attention of that Department?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, I am not in a position to speak offhand for the Colonial Office, but I have no doubt that all these matters will become clear in the further inquiries to which I referred.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Would his right honourable friend particularly have in mind the possibility of using this system for transport between London and London Airport and the linking of overspill areas with their mother cities?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, my noble friend might like to know that my right honourable friend the Minister has sent to Rhodesia details of his requirements for any such link, and no doubt there will be further information in due course.

SIR ANTHONY EDEN'S MEMOIRS
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government:—

(1) Whether approval was sought by Sir Anthony Eden before quoting official unpublished documents in his memoirs now being produced in The Times; and

(2) Whether approval was given for the publication of all or some of the documents and by whom such approval was given.]

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, Sir Anthony Eden submitted the text of his book, through the Secretary of the Cabinet, to the Prime Minister, who authorised the publication of the official documents quoted in those memoirs.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, did the Prime Minister take into account the mischief that might be done in our relations with the United States in the course of such publication; and, if so, is it not rather surprising that he permitted the publication?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, he took into consideration, no doubt, all the considerations, political and otherwise, which were relevant.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, would the noble Earl the Leader of the House

1023
consider publishing in due course a general outline of the considerations and principles which govern Her Majesty's Government in reaching conclusions as to whether to allow one ex-Minister access to official papers and to deny that access to another?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, there has been considerable interest and some anxiety expressed, I think in both Houses of Parliament, lately about these matters, and therefore I think my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I will bring to the Prime Minister's attention when he returns the views expressed in both Houses, so that he may look at the situation.
LORD DALTON: My Lords, is it not the predominant public interest that the truth should be made known on these important public affairs without undue delay, and will the Government not consider speeding up their own publication of official documents, continuing, for instance, the very valuable series of documents on British foreign policy which stopped in 1939 and has never been resumed? As regards the Suez affair, will the Government reconsider their refusal in another place to hand over all the archives and documents to some historian who shall be charged with the duty of writing an official history of the whole business?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I regret that to the first question the noble Lord asks in this House I should have to give a negative reply, at least to the last part of it. So far as the first part of it is concerned, I agree with him that the sooner official histories are written and published the better, provided all the material is available to the official historian. But the noble Lord knows there are difficulties in getting the material and the people to write.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that since I raised the financial aspect of this subject not long ago my post bears witness to the fact that there is a considerable body of public opinion which
1024
feels that if some ex-Ministers are to receive vast sums of money by reason of the fact that they are able to draw upon official documents, it would be a fitting and generous thing on the part of the recipients of those vast sums to donate at least a certain portion of them to war charities or other worthy objects?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I did note what the noble Viscount said earlier, but I did not think it was relevant to the Question that day; nor do I think it is relevant to the Question to-day.

B.B.C. INVESTIGATIONS AND STATEMENTS
2.43 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I beg leave 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 statements made and investigations initiated by the British Broadcasting Corporation on subjects which are being dealt with by the Government have been submitted to the Ministries concerned.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am assuming that the noble Lord is referring to programmes in the Home Sound and Television Services of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Such programmes are not submitted to the Ministries concerned, and I would remind the noble Lord that successive Governments have endorsed the Corporation's independence in its day-to-day affairs, including programme matters.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this definitely means that no communication is made to the Ministries concerned on subjects of great importance to this country and abroad? Does it mean that no communication is made at all?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords it does. Any communication of that sort would surely form some kind of censorship, which I think would be abhorrent to all your Lordships and to the country as a whole.

ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR ROADS
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg leave 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 further steps have been taken to expedite the acquisition of land for road purposes in accordance with the statement made by the Minister of Transport on the 29th of April, 1959 (House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 128).]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend the present Minister of Defence made the statement to which the noble Lord refers when he was introducing special arrangements for the payment of compensation in advance. He said it was contemplated that proposals would be put forward to make it possible to complete the acquisition of land by a more expeditious procedure than at present. Legislation is being prepared and will be introduced in due course. I am glad of this opportunity to tell your Lordships that the scheme outlined by my right honourable friend last April has proved to be successful in practice.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Is it not a fact that the scheme that the then Minister of Transport outlined, which is referred to in my Question, has had the effect of giving the Treasury Solicitor longer time in which to do conveyancing, but has not speeded up the process of conveyancing by even a minute?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, perhaps I was at fault in referring to the scheme at all in my Answer, since it does not directly relate to the Question. But the scheme referred to was not intended to do that; it was intended to alleviate the position of people who were awaiting their compensation when their land was acquired; and that it has done. It was in the introduction of that scheme that other measures which are the subject of the Question were mentioned.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, in this matter of land acquisition for roads, do facilities exist or, if not, should they not exist, for co-ordinating between the two
1026
Ministries the interests of roads and the interests of the development and maintenance of good agriculture in this country?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think it is right to say that these interests are indeed closely pursued.
LORD AMWELL: Not always.

DERBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
METHODIST CHURCH FUNDS BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
2.49 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I should like to draw the attention of the House to what appears on the Order Paper—namely, an indication that I shall be making a statement to the House under Standing Order 91 relating to Private Bills. There are at least two reasons which would cause me, upon occasion, to make a statement on a Private Bill under this Standing Order. The first is a comparatively new development, which is the result of an unofficial meeting now held in the month of January, yearly, to discuss the Private Bills for the Session and to make suggestions as to on which Bills I should make a statement under this Standing Order, drawing the special attention of the House to the Bill concerned. This is a new arrangement, arising, as I think your Lordships will probably remember, out of the discussion on the South Wales Transport Bill in the last Session. As the result of that discussion it has now been

1027
arranged that the Second Reading of Private Bills in the House is not taken until after the last day for the deposit of Petitions. The wish that that should be done was expressed by the House last year, and your Lordships have already agreed to an Amendment to the Standing Orders to give effect to that desire. As a result, we do not now take the Second Reading of Private Bills until after February 6 each year. That is the last date for petitioning, and it follows that when the Second Reading is moved all the Petitions that are going to be deposited have been put down.
The second reason for my making a statement will probably be that on my own initiative I have come to the conclusion that the attention of the House should be drawn to a particular Bill. I believe I can undertake not to do this more often than is necessary, for the obvious reason that the more often it is done the less attention may be paid to the Bill. But there may be occasions such as this when I have reason to know that some noble Lord desires to comment upon a Bill and to discuss one or more of its clauses, and possibly to oppose it. It is the second of those reasons which prompts me to make this statement to-day.
In this particular case I should not have done so upon by own initiative, but it came to my knowledge that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, wished to make comments on this Bill. May I say here that I am extremely grateful to the noble Viscount for letting me know that he wished to speak on this Bill; and, incidentally, may I say that any noble Lord who desires to speak on a Private Bill is doing me a great service (if I may so put it) by letting me know that he is interested in the Bill and wishes to say something about it. That all makes for smoothness and good order. I would add that, of course, nobody is bound to do so unless he thinks fit.
May I now turn to this Bill, the Cardiff Corporation Bill? I should like, extremely briefly, to say a few words about it without arguing the merits—for it is not for me to do that. This is a general powers Bill consisting of 107 clauses and 4 Schedules divided into 16 Parts, each Part relating to a different subject; and if I
1028
understand it correctly, the Parts on which the noble Viscount wished to comment are Part VII, which deals with food, and Part XII, which deals with mobile shops. At this stage perhaps I ought to tell the House that at a very late hour—actually I did not hear about it until this morning—it appeared that three clauses in Part VII (and I apprehend that, from the noble Viscount's point of view, they are the most important ones) have now been withdrawn by the Promoters; and that the whole of Part XII, except for one clause, has also been withdrawn by them, leaving only Clause 101 remaining in that Part of the Bill, that clause, however, being, as I see it, a contentious one.
I have to add only a few more details. There have been set down against this Bill 15 Petitions. Two of those deal with Part VII and seven of them deal with Part XII, so that it will readily be seen that Part XII is, to say the least, the controversial part of the Bill—or rather was, before most of it was withdrawn. So I believe your Lordships will be satisfied that these contentious matters will be fully argued by a Select Committee upstairs, and you may therefore think that it is not so necessary for the details of the Bill to be discussed fully this afternoon. I would add that, needless to say, there will be full opportunity given to all Government Departments who may be interested in the Bill to state their views on any part of it, and not only on those parts which are the subject of controversy or of Petitions.
I should like to add this: if the noble Viscount wishes to invite the House to reject the Bill, then I should ask leave to withdraw my Motion this afternoon and set it down for another day, so that there may be full opportunity for debate, which I understand would be easier than it would be to-day. If the noble Viscount does not wish to take that course, then I would ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading to-day and to send it upstairs to a Committee, which I am sure will deal fully with all the Petitions and controversial matters. I would suggest, therefore, subject to what the noble Viscount may have to say, that the House might be willing to give the Bill a Second Reading this afternoon.
Finally, may I ask for your Lordships' indulgence and hope that you will excuse

1029
my making this comparatively lengthy statement? As I have said, it is the first of this Session's statements, and I hope that it will not be necessary for me to speak at such length on any subsequent occasion.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord aright, he said in the earlier part of his remarks that after the due date for lodging objections had passed, no objection or Petition would be sustained.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, it is laid down by Standing Orders that all Petitions against Private Bills which begin in your Lordships' House must be deposited by February 6 unless the Standing Orders are, for some good reason suspended—which is possible though not usual. It is a fact that no Petition received after that date would be admissible so far as this House was concerned.
2.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be obliged for the clarity of the statement as to the procedure on this Bill given by the Lord Chairman of Committees. I have no intention of opposing the Second Reading to-day. I had thought of just rising to say that the very Parts of the Bill to which the Lord Chairman has referred are highly controversial, and that I should like to bring them to the attention of your Lordships in order that you might have an opportunity to look them up and study them, so that if there was to be a debate on Third Reading noble Lords would know about them. That is all I had intended to do.
A great deal of the controversial part has been removed from Part VII and most of it from Part XII, which is exceedingly helpful. The one part remaining in Part XII concerns a principle for which we should always be warned to watch; that is, whether it is right for a local authority, although there may be a precedent, to seek to upset a judgment of the High Court concerning the whole of the Realm by having a special clause in a Private Corporation Bill.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as I was one of those who on the South Wales Transport Bill referred to the matter of Petitions and pressed for reform of the kind that has now been introduced into this House, I want to say how grateful I am to the Lord Chairman of Committees and to other noble Lords who have brought about what I believe is a distinct reform in our procedure.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

FINES BILL [H.L.]
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to increase certain fines, and to move that it be read a first time.
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

WAGES ARRESTMENT LIMITATION (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
3.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill proposes to continue until the end of 1967 the quota provisions in the earlier Cinematograph Films Acts which would otherwise expire in September of this year. Under those provisions every cinema is required to devote a certain percentage of its screen time to British films. The percentage is fixed by Board of Trade regulation which is subject to an Affirmative Resolution in Parliament. Since 1950 the quota has been 30 per cent. for first-feature films and 25 per cent. for second features, shorts and documentaries. For more than 30 years since the first Act was introduced in 1927 it has been recognised that this quota is the only practical method of giving protection to the British film industry, which would otherwise be swamped by

1031
the dumping of films from the enormously more wealthy and powerful American film producers.
Since the war this quota protection has been supplemented by two other measures to help the development of the home industry. First, there was the setting up of the National Film Finance Corporation in 1949. That is a body which has power to issue loans guaranteed by the Treasury for the production of British films. Secondly, there was the establishment of the British Film Fund Agency which distributes the levy. The levy was at first a voluntary one, but since 1957 it has been statutory. It is collected from the exhibitors by Customs officials and distributed by the British Film Fund Agency among producers in proportion to their receipts, which may be either a proportion of box office takings or a fixed rent. In the case of first-feature films it is usually a proportion of box office takings; in the case of second-feature and short films it is usually a fixed rent. But when it is a fixed rent that rent is multiplied by 2½ for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the levy to which the producer is entitled—the"2½ times multiplier" it is called—to bring those films whose receipts are in that form more into line with the first features. Both these bodies—the National Film Finance Corporation and the British Film Fund Agency—come to an end in 1967, and the reason why the quota provisions in this Bill have been given a similar term of duration is to enable all these related matters to be reviewed and reconsidered together when the time comes.
My Lords, this Bill makes a number of changes—a number of improvements, I hope your Lordships will consider them to be, but certainly a number of changes—in the application of these quota provisions. None of them is a fundamental change. Two of them, I think, are of considerable importance, on which your Lordships would probably like me to say a word or two. There is the inclusion of newsreels in Clause 2; and there is the provision about co-production films in Clause 9. When the levy was first introduced newsreels were not included in it because they were doing so well and making so much money that it was considered they did not need it. Now newsreels are earning no money at
1032
all; they are, in fact, making a loss, and the number of them which are shown has of course fallen very heavily. It is proposed in the Bill that they shall now be introduced for purposes of quota into the quota legislation and therefore entitled to receive their share of the levy. But they will not benefit from the"2½ times multiplier" which is enjoyed by other features which are shown at a fixed rent; they will count only the actual figure of their rent for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the levy to which they are entitled. I think this is the only part of the Bill to which there has been any considerable opposition. A number of people are against bringing in newsreels for the benefits of the quota and the levy provisions; indeed, I think there was a Division on it in Committee in another place.
The arguments against bringing in newsreels are that they are a declining feature of cinema production; that the public do not want to see them; that the exhibitors do not want to show them. It is also said that the residue of British newsreels which are now being shown are very bad productions. It is therefore represented that it is mistaken and unfair that we should prop up this dying part of the industry which is soon going to expire by giving it a share in the screen quota and also a share in the proceeds of the levy at the expense of other features which might make better use of them and which would deserve them better.
It is certainly true that in recent years the number of newsreels shown in cinemas has greatly declined. That is no doubt partly, if not wholly, due to the great increase in television. I believe that within the last six or seven years the number of television sets in this country has increased from about 1 million to about 10 million—certainly a vast increase—and, of course, people who can see news on television every evening are much less inclined to want to see news which is not quite so up to date when they go to the cinema. That is no doubt the main reason why the exhibitors feel that the public do not want to see newsreels. Of the five companies which used to produce them, three have stopped doing so. Only two still produce them, and I understand that newsreels are shown now only at about one-third of the cinemas in the country. As for the

1033
quality of newsreels, that is of course a matter for individual taste and judgment into which I do not want to enter.
What I feel, my Lords, is this. The reason why newsreels were originally excluded from the levy was that they were doing so well that they did not need it. Now that they are doing so badly that they are in danger of coming to an end it seems a little unfair that we should say to them,"We refused you the levy to begin with because you did not need it. Now we are going to refuse it because you do need it." It is rather as if a man were to come to you and ask to be given some food, and were refused because you saw that he was well-nourished and prosperous and did not need it. If the same man comes a year later, obviously in the last stages of starvation, it is perhaps a little unreasonable to say to him,"No. I refused to give you food before. I still refuse to give you any because I can see you are so under-nourished that you will soon die, which is probably the best thing that could happen to you."
I think, my Lords, that if British newsreels are going to disappear (which I should personally regret, though that is a matter of opinion), then at least we ought to allow them to disappear without suffering any adverse discrimination. What we are proposing to do here is to remove a discrimination against them; to give them a chance; not to put them on a par with other short features, because they do not get the benefit of the"2½ times multiplier", but to give them the levy on the basis of their actual rent. It is estimated that, out of a total levy of £3¾ million, the newsreels would be likely to receive about £150,000. We have made this proposal on the advice of the Cinematograph Films Council, and we think it is a reasonable proposal in accordance with natural fairness.
The other innovation which I thought your Lordships would like me to say a word about is in Clause 9, which deals with what are called"co-production films". It is becoming more and more usual now, owing to the difficulty of financing films, that they should be shown in as many countries as possible. Consequently, there has developed in Europe a great deal of co-operative film production from which British film producers have been excluded because our laws, as they have been up till now,
1034
would debar such co-production films from qualifying for the British quota. This clause, if it is passed, will enable the Sovereign, by Order in Council, to provide that films which are made in accordance with international agreement between Her Majesty's Government and any other Government may be treated as British for quota purposes, even although they do not conform to the strict requirements of an exhibitor's quota as laid down in the previous Act. Of course, at present there are no such international agreements: there cannot be until this Bill becomes law. But we think that this is a reasonable proposal which will help in the future development of our film industry, and I think it is generally acceptable to most sections of opinion. It has not, in fact, encountered any opposition.
My Lords, the other changes in the law made by this Bill are of a relatively minor character. I think that perhaps your Lordships would expect me merely to mention them very shortly. Clause 3 enables the Cinematograph Films Acts to be made to apply by regulations to films recorded by new techniques, such as on magnetic tape or wire, which did not exist at the time when this legislation was first passed. The definition of a film which is now proposed is:
"In this section 'film' includes any record, however made, of a sequence of visual images, which is a record capable of being used as a means of showing that sequence as a moving picture".
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will agree that that definition is better than those that we sometimes find in Acts of Parliament.
The clause goes on to define the meaning of a standard film. I should perhaps explain that a standard film automatically comes under the quota levy provisions; a non-standard film does not, but can be brought under them now under this clause by regulation of the Board of Trade. We consider that it is sometimes an advantage that a film which is not a standard film should be allowed to run, and should not be brought under the quota provisions. For example,"Cinerama" was not a standard type of film. I hope your Lordships will not ask me why it was not, because the answer is so intricate that, even if I succeeded in getting it right, I am afraid that it might only puzzle your Lordships.

1035
It is obvious, I think, that when a new three-dimensional innovation of this sort is introduced it costs an enormous amount of money to produce. It is therefore reasonable that it should have the longest possible run in order to recover its expenses; and it may be a good thing, although it is entirely an American production, that the British film industry here should be given every opportunity of learning the technique of a wonderful new invention like this. Therefore it may be desirable not to bring it under the quota regulations, at least for some time.
Clause 4 introduces a little flexibility about the length of time for which films may be shown. It allows the quota to be spread over two years instead of one. That is to make provision for exceptionally long runs, which may be very reasonable and desirable. Clause 5 introduces quite a different element of flexibility into the regulations. It is really intended to help small exhibitors in small country towns, who may have great difficulty in keeping going if they are obliged to adhere strictly to the quota regulations. It therefore enables those regulations to be relaxed in certain respects after consultation with the Cinematograph Films Council. The sixth clause, about labour costs, is designed to stop up certain loopholes, or to put an end to certain devices, which experience has shown can be used to evade the intentions of Parliament about the percentage of British labour (either 80 or 75 per cent., as the case may be) which must be used in the production of a film in order that it may rank as a British film.
Clause 7 brings in a provision that sound recordings as well as photographs taken in a foreign film studio will disqualify a film from British registration.
Clause 8 makes it obligatory for each long British film to include in the credit titles the name and address of either the maker of the film or the studio where it was made. The reason for that is that we have found that some of the best British films, which have the best runs abroad, are sometimes shown by foreign exhibitors under conditions which give the impression that they are American films and not British films. Now we can make sure, as we are doing by this Bill, that the name and address of the maker
1036
or studio shall be included in the credit title. Of course, we cannot make sure that the foreign exhibitor will not alter the title and leave that out; but at least we can make sure that he cannot give the impression that it is an American film unless he is guilty of an active piece of dishonesty and not merely a passive one.
Clause 9 about co-production films, I have already dealt with. Clause 10 defines the proportion of old material which may be used and brought again into a film without disqualifying it from being registered as a British film. The remaining clauses, from 11 to 17, are concerned almost entirely with registration and with licensing, except for Clause 15, which substitutes the playing time of the film instead of the actual physical length of the film itself for the purposes of determining how much of the quota it shall be deemed to have fulfilled.
The enormous growth not only of television but also of sound broadcasting since the war has had a continual adverse effect, both on the newsreels and cinema attendances as a whole. In 1946 the number of cinema attendances in Great Britain was no less than 1,635 million, which means that every man, woman and child in Great Britain, on an average, must have gone to the pictures 33 times in that year—and of course that included all the babies too small to go and all those who lived in places where there are no cinemas. In 1959 the figure had gone down to only 600 million attendances, a drop from an average of 33 attendances to about 12 for each person during the year.
In spite of that reduction, the production of British feature films has, in general, been maintained. It goes up and down; the lowest level actually was reached in 1952, when 64 films were made, and the highest peak was in 1958, with 105 films. In 1959, the figure was 80. But in general the number has been maintained. Moreover, British producers have taken advantage of the protection which Parliament has given to win foreign markets. At present, their earnings from overseas are about £5 million a year. At home, in the last year for which figures are available, they actually exceeded the quota by about 5½ per cent. in respect of first-feature films and by 4½ per cent. in

1037
respect of second-feature films. That does not mean, of course, that the quota is no longer necessary. On the contrary, it has been and will continue to be the foundation of progress and of security in the British film industry.
My Lords, I think that the changes which this Bill makes, except for the provision about newsreels, on which there is a difference of opinion, are generally acceptable. I think that in general these changes bring our present legislation up to date and I hope that this Bill will be of some help to the film industry in improving both their fortunes and their reputation in this country and abroad.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
3.23 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have always admired the clarity of speech of the noble Earl, and I am sure that once again your Lordships will share with me my appreciation of the manner in which he has presented this complex Bill. Art, I suppose, plays as great a part in filmmaking as the vast sums of money required, and art, we all understand, is something that should be free. I doubt whether there is any industry in this country, or for that matter in Europe, that is bound by so many regulations and Acts of Parliament. The film industry can hardly be regarded as a basic industry, but it is of considerable importance, if only because it gives a pleasure to approximately 12 million people every week, as the noble Earl told us, and because it employs a considerable number of workers. Your Lordships will recall the full and interesting debate we had last Session, when we heard from a number of noble Lords of the great difficulties facing both producers and exhibitors in this industry. In some cases the difficulties stemmed from one cause, and in other cases they were peculiar to the particular section of the industry.
In dealing with the producers' difficulties, I think that we should first recall the achievements of the producing section of the industry. In recent years, they have made some notable films, which have received world-wide acclaim; and, as we heard from the noble Earl, they have increased their amount of screen time in this country
1038
to a figure of approximately 35 per cent. The difficulties of the producing side stem basically from the keen competition of American producers. The Americans are able to offer films at very low rates, principally because their type of films seems to appeal to a world-wide audience, while unfortunately our films, particularly our humorous films, seem to attract only a relatively small percentage.
I was in Washington recently and was told that Washington had only one cinema which showed British films. I was taken to it. The first thing that struck me, on entering the cinema, was the large Royal Coat of Arms displayed. I asked the manager whether Her Majesty the Queen had visited the cinema and given permission to put up the Coat of Arms. He said,"No, we are the only cinema in Washington that shows British films, and because of that we feel we are entitled to put up the Royal Coat of Arms." I hope that the fact that I have mentioned this in your Lordships' House will not result in efforts being made to bring it down, because it certainly attracts the attention of people who visit the cinema.
The difficulties of the exhibitors appear to be increasing. The figures that I have show that in 1946 over 1,600 million people attended cinemas; in 1958, the figure was 755 million. If the indications given are correct, the number is steadily falling. I do not wish to anticipate the speeches that will be made, but I am sure that the greatest handicap to the prosperity and development of the cinema industry lies in the Government entertainments tax. I understand that, taking both statutory levy and entertainments tax, approximately 22 to 30 per cent. of what the cinemagoer pays at the box office is received by the Government. This is a considerable sum of money.
I understand that the Treasury maintain that entertainments tax cannot be regarded as a reduction of revenue to the cinema and that it is a direct tax on the cinemagoer. In my view, this holds no water whatsoever. If the duty is on the ticket, that means either that the cinema-owner is charging a higher rate for the ticket than the public are prepared to pay or that you have a figure which the public are prepared to pay and you are denying that amount to an industry which is in most difficult circumstances. In view of the undoubted and well-known

1039
difficulties of the industry, I believe that there is a case for the scrapping of entertainments tax. So far as I know, the film industry is the only entertainment which has this tax. So far as my friends on this side of the House are concerned, it is our Party's policy to scrap entertainments tax because we believe it to be wrong. However, I propose to leave that point on one side for other noble Lords more connected with the industry to deal with.
I should like to say just a few words on the Bill itself. First of all, we shall not oppose the Bill, but on the Committee stage there will be one or two matters on which we shall need to move Amendments. I think it should be said that the Bill which comes to your Lordships' House is an infinitely better Bill than that which the Government presented to the other place, where, thanks to a considerable amount of work by Members, it was changed. It is recognised that the Government did give way, and I hope that when we move Amendments on the Committee stage they will continue to move in the right direction.
I feel that we should recognise that the Bill tries to maintain a delicate balance of conflicting interests, that is to say, those of the exhibitor and those of the producer, and there are highly technical points that have to be taken into account. As the noble Earl has said, the Bill broadly, extends the previous legislation. It includes, however, at least two new provisions, one of which we on this side of the House shall oppose as a matter of principle—and I refer to Clause 2 which brings newsreels within the scope of the Bill. We have heard from the noble Earl that in the past newsreels required no aids, but that, through the advent of television and the amount of news material that television puts across every evening, cinema news is no longer popular; that now we are back to two producers of newsreels, and that many of the leading circuits are not now showing news.
The noble Earl's case, as I understood it, was that because the newsreel section had fallen into bad times we should extend the benefits of the levy. I grant the noble Earl that point. But as I understood it, the reason why the Government felt that newsreels should
1040
continue was that they played a most important part in portraying what we call the British way of life to overseas countries. I think there is a good point there. I have lived for quite a number of years in an overseas country, and I always remember the joy I received in seeing news of the home country. But if the Government's case is that newsreels should continue, in spite of their unpopularity in this country, for national reasons, I personally should say that it would be unfair to put the burden on to part of an industry which is already struggling. I should have thought that the Government's case would be far better if they said that these newsreels are an important part of putting British news before overseas countries and that they would give them a subsidy from the information services. I would ask the Government whether they would reconsider this point.
We shall try to persuade your Lordships to delete this clause, but if it should remain, then I feel I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that newsreels have hardly any definition. We know that newsreels will be admitted to quota without having to present costs. It is possible that this arrangement will be open to abuse. It is possible for a newsreel, as I see it at the moment to be turned into a second feature. I have in mind the possibility that a newsreel of a world beauty competition, the Grand National, the Derby or riots in Algeria might be shown for, say, 30 or 35 minutes, and that these newsreels would receive the whole benefits of the levy. To my mind that would be completely wrong. Therefore, I ask the Government whether they will consider, assuming that they do not accept our Amendment on the Committee stage, to delete the clause, the definition of a newsreel as being of ten or fifteen minutes' duration. I do not ask the noble Lord who is to reply to give an answer on that point this afternoon, but perhaps he would bear it in mind for the Committee stage. I should also like to ask the noble Lord why it is that the Republic of Ireland are being specifically mentioned and included in this Bill. Perhaps he can give an answer to that question when he replies.
I would now draw the attention of your Lordships to Clause 9 of the Bill.

1041
That clause is completely new, and it was well described by the President of the Board of Trade in another place on November 5. Speaking of the intention of this clause, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 612 (No. 11) col. 1218]:
"We have in mind co-operation with some other European film makers. No country in Europe can provide a market on its own adequate enough to sustain more than a very small number of highly successful productions. There is a growing practice in Europe for producers in two countries to collaborate on a film which is then shown in either country and given national treatment…"
This, to my mind, is a very good suggestion, but I have two points to make on it. First of all, I would stress that, having made these agreements, we should watch carefully to see that we get the same treatment as we extend to other countries. When one sees certain trade agreements, how often do we come out rather unfairly? My second point is to ask the Government that, before they finally make agreements with other countries, they will consult with the Cinematograph Film Council. At the present moment I understand that the Board of Trade would consult the various sections of the industry; but here we have a statutory body, and I should like to see it included in the Bill that before an agreement is made the Cinematograph Film Council should be consulted. If possible, I will put down an Amendment to that effect.
That is all I have to say on this Bill. I have one great regret—namely, that the Bill contains no provision in respect of the sale to the television contractors of films for which levy has been received. I am sure the House is aware that television is a direct, if not mortal, competitor with the cinema industry. The cinemas pay a statutory levy to the producing side of the industry for the sole purpose of giving help and encouragement, and particularly for making first-class feature films. It is therefore hard that films on which payment has been levied at the box office can be sold, as they are at present, to television contractors. Recently 53 films were sold. I understand that these films were comparatively new, and had all received levy contributions. There was nothing wrong in law. I wonder whether the Government would consider making provision whereby a film that has received a levy shall not be sold to outside television interests for a period of five years, and that when a sale
1042
is made the levy that that film has received shall be paid back to the general pool? I am raising this point now in the hope that the noble Lord can tell us the Government's views.
In conclusion, may I say that we shall not oppose this Bill; we shall try to improve it at the Committee stage. We recognise that the provisions in the Bill give safeguards to the industry, but we also recognise that, although in the main the provisions of this Bill have been in existence for a number of years, the difficulties of the industry remain. I personally believe that the abolition of entertainments tax would have the greatest effect on the industry. In closing, I should like once again to compliment the producers upon their notable productions in recent years, and sincerely trust, as did the noble Earl, that these may long continue.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask what I think is rather an important point? The Opposition seems to accept the statement that newsreels are unpopular. Has the noble Lord any information as to what has determined that unpopularity? I have in my district one cinema on the A.B.C. circuit which still goes on with the newsreels. I have not noticed the slightest objection to them. The cinema is as full as any other cinema, and the newsreels seem to be quite as popular. What is the principle which determines it?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not in the industry, but I understand that the exhibitors have undoubted proof that newsreels are no longer popular. As the noble Earl said, the news that can be seen in a cinema to-day is a week old, whereas if you look at your television set you have your news very well portrayed in a matter of hours.
LORD AMWELL: That does not answer my question.
3.45 p.m.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, as is the usual custom in your Lordships' House, I have to declare an interest in this afternoon's debate by telling you that I am a national officer of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association and, like the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, I have had many years' experience in the film industry. When this Bill was debated

1043
in another place it was described by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade as a modest but important measure to continue to improve the protection given to the British film industry. I agree that it is an important measure, and I can say in general terms that the whole of the industry gives it support, but there are one or two points about which I should like to say something. I may say that the points I make are the considered views, not only of myself, but of most of the leading people in the film industry.
Let us take Clause 2, which has been mentioned this afternoon. That is the clause which relates to newsreels. It is suggested that newsreels should rank as quota films. With that I have no quarrel, but I object to the participation by newsreels in the production fund levy which, as your Lordships have been told, is now a statutory levy on all cinema exhibitors with the exception of the few who are exempted by reason of the fact that their receipts do not reach a certain figure each week. I agree that newsreels used to be a vital and important part of a cinema programme, but with the advent of B.B.C. television and then, at a later date, commercial television, I submit that the cinema newsreels are no longer news. In some of the smaller cinemas which showed newsreels a few years ago—and this will answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Amwell—it was quite a common sight to witness the departure of a well-known public figure leaving London Airport some five or six days after he had returned.
I venture to say that any news item which is more than 24 hours' old is now classified as history, and not news. The majority of cinema exhibitors do not show newsreels, and it appears to me that if the newsreels are to receive any payments from the production fund then it will mean that there will be that amount of money less available for the making of feature films, which every cinema shows, and for the making of which the production fund was created, first as a trade-operated scheme, and then subsequently as a Government levy.
It was said in another place during the debate on this Bill that it is in the national interest, both at home and abroad, that the production of newsreels should continue, and it was felt
1044
that it was right that they should receive quota protection and a share from the levy. If it is the Government's view that it is essential that British newsreels should be shown overseas to let the world see our way of life, then, surely, the Government should subsidise the making of these newsreels through the Central Office of Information or some similar body. Why should a cinema exhibitor have to pay a compulsory levy into the production fund to assist in the making of newsreels which he does not show? Surely, if it is in the Government's view essential that the newsreels should be retained, then it is only fair and logical that the Government should find the money, and not the cinema exhibitors who do not or cannot afford to show newsreels on their programmes.
My noble friend said that the newsreels were at starvation point. I should like to point out and to emphasise to him that there are over 2,000 cinema exhibitors in this country who are in exactly the same condition. I would ask my right honourable friend if he would look into the matter to ascertain whether it is not possible for the newsreels to rank as quota films, but that they be financed from Government funds, and not out of the production levy.
When the Cinematograph Films Bill was being debated in your Lordships' House in December, 1956, I used these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 200, col. 1353]:
"I sincerely trust that financial help will not be given to a British film producer who makes films for the television media, and I would therefore ask that some form of wording be inserted whereby financial aid would be given only to films exclusively made for commercial cinemas."
It is only a few weeks ago that no fewer than 55 (not 53 as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said) feature length films which were originally made for the cinema were sold to a large television company for screening on television screens. Those were films which had received levy payments from the fund which is financed by cinema exhibitors, and now the very films which the exhibitors have helped to make are being shown against them free on the television screens of this country. This is indeed a serious matter, and I would urge my noble friend to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to it so that the matter can be fully investigated.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment and say, as he is aware with his knowledge of the industry, that this particular deal was done not with the assent of other producers, who were very much opposed to it.
LORD WESTWOOD: I agree with the noble Earl; that is right. But other film producers may be contemplating similar steps and selling their films to television contractors, and in all fairness to the cinema industry steps should be taken to stop the screening of these old films on television or, alternatively, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has suggested, for the moneys which they have received from the production fund to be repaid by them.
In the debate in 1956 on the Cinematograph Films Bill every speaker in your Lordships' House who took part expressed the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would abolish the entertainments tax in his 1957 Budget and thus help the industry to re-equip its theatres and to fight back at television on equal terms. Alleviation was given by the Chancellor in order to help the smaller cinemas, but the owners of the medium and large theatres are still carrying the load of this tax and it is still in being. The film industry now call it the cinema tax and not entertainment duty, as the cinema, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, is now the only form of entertainment which bears the tax. It is illogical; it is discriminatory and it is grossly unfair. If the film industry is to survive in this country it is imperative that this tax be abolished by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his next Budget. I know that we cannot anticipate the Budget, but I am happy to say that this very day a deputation was met by Treasury officials and I am hopeful that their mission will be successful in convincing the Treasury of the justice of their cause.
During the last four years some 900 cinemas have had to shut down. In the year 1959 374 theatres in this country closed their doors. In many instances the closing of these cinemas left a town or a village without any form of entertainment. If the closing of cinemas continues at the same alarming rate and in the same proportion, by the end of the present Government's period of office in-
1046
stead of there being some 3,300 cinemas in Great Britain there will be approximately 2,000 cinemas. It is impossible to sustain a healthy British film industry on 2,000 cinemas. If this state of affairs does come about, there will be no home market for British films, and without a home market there will be no British films to be shown in the Commonwealth and in other countries abroad.
The Government just cannot stand and watch a once prosperous industry go out of existence, but that is what is happening. Every week a few more cinemas go out of existence and some poor fellow loses his business and in many cases his life's savings. Most of the trouble in the film industry to-day stems from the tax. It was imposed upon it in 1916 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a war-time measure, and a promise was given that it would be removed at the end of the war. Well, here we are to-day in 1960, 44 years later, and the tax is still imposed on the cinemas. What a shameful way to honour a promise, my Lords!
Clause 9 in the Bill is a very welcome one to all sections of the industry, and the Government are to be congratulated upon encouraging co-production with other countries. I was informed recently that continental producers are very interested in such co-production and already are asking when they can make a start on this type of film. There is just one other point I would touch upon, and that refers to Clause 14, which deals with licence fees. It is the intention that these fees should be increased to meet higher costs. Let me take an example. The annual fee which a cinema exhibitor will pay for his licence, it is suggested, should be a maximum of 8 guineas. In 1928 it was 1 guinea, in 1938 it was 30s., in 1952 it went up to 2 guineas and in 1957 it was increased again to 4 guineas. It is now suggested in Clause 14 that it can go up to 8 guineas, and in the first quota period of the Act to 10 guineas. It is said that it is not the intention to increase the fees at the moment, but the Government are taking this power because costs of administration tend to rise and the fees must cover the costs. The costs of the exhibitors and the producers have also risen very steeply, but, alas! they cannot recoup those costs by playing that well-known quiz game"Double your

1047
Money". It must be obvious that with the number of cinemas falling each year, the remaining cinemas which manage to keep open will be faced with ever-increasing costs of licences. It would be very interesting indeed if we could know just what the costs of administration are and what revenue the fees bring in every year. Perhaps my noble friend who is to reply can give me that information.
Why is it necessary for fees to be paid to the Board of Trade? Do the Board of Trade charge other industries and trades for their services? For example, does the cotton industry pay fees; does the television industry pay the Board of Trade; does the motor-car industry, or the shipbuilding industry? I do not know whether they do or not, but I should like to know whether we—and when I say"we" I mean the cinema industry—are the only people who pay fees. In my opinion these fees should be scrapped altogether. The cinema industry has had a very raw deal from successive Governments since 1916, and it is time that some help and assistance were given to it. Is there any other business or trade which is so tied down by regulations, restrictions, taxes and licences? I will give an example. If you own a cinema to-day you need (1) a licence from the local authority; (2) a licence from the Board of Trade; (3) a Sunday licence from the local authority to open on Sunday; (4) a licence from the Performing Right Society to cover the copyright material; (5) a licence from Phonographic Performance, Limited, to enable gramophone records to be played; (6) a special licence to open on Christmas day; (7) a special licence to open on Good Friday; and (8) a tobacco licence to enable you to sell cigarettes to your patrons—eight licences in all to conduct your business, whether it is a small village cinema or a big super cinema in the West End of London. We are certainly living in days of freedom, but I suggest that the poor fellow who is trying to run a cinema would disagree with that statement.
The main purpose of this Bill is to protect the British film industry. When one considers the first-class productions to which Lord Shepherd referred, which have come out of British film studios during the past few years, I do not think
1048
that the industry needs much protection. Every exhibitor in this country is only too eager and proud to screen British films to his patrons these days, and from the recent polls which have taken place within the trade all the leading awards have been won by British films. Given freedom of action, given tax abolition and given some encouragement from the Government, British producers can, and will, beat the world.
The first thing that has to go is the cinema tax. I fervently hope that it will go soon. Next, I would ask the Government to meet all sections of the film industry to examine the operation of the production fund and make some much-needed adjustments to it. The Sunday Entertainments Act should be scrapped, as it is now archaic and out of date. These are all important matters and should be tackled by the Government without delay. The year 1959 was certainly a bad year for the film industry of this country; but, like many others in your Lordships' House, I look forward to the future and hope that the present Government is going to help the British film industry with all its power and, more important still, with its fullest sympathy and understanding.
4.2 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, in a debate on a subject like this I have to declare an interest, because I am chairman of a federation of British film producers, mainly independent producers. It was in that capacity that I took part this morning in a deputation representing the whole of the industry, producers, exhibitors, distributors and trade unions, to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to plead with him for the abolition of the entertainments tax. And I shall further be understood to agree with what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Westwood, with regard to the need for that tax to be abolished.
I find myself in the position that most of the points to which I had wished to refer this afternoon have already been covered by the two preceding speakers, and I can assure your Lordships that I shall try very hard to limit myself to indicating my agreement and to avoid repeating the arguments which have already been so cogently put before you.

1049
I may say that the Federation of Which I have the honour to be chairman, in making its submissions to the Board of Trade, now nearly two years ago, about amendment of existing film legislation, took the view that on the whole the Cinematograph Films Acts have proved satisfactory and require no fundamental amendment. And on the whole, I think the view which we expressed has been largely accepted by the Government, because there is no fundamental amendment embodied in the present Bill, although there are one or two new points. As has been said, the Bill was greatly improved in the Committee stage in another place, and I believe that if the Government are as reasonable in the Committee stage in your Lordships' House as they were in the Committee stage in another place, the improved Bill may well leave this House a well-nigh perfect Bill.
Considerable reference has been made to Clause 2. I am not going again over the arguments against admitting the newsreels to levy. It is interesting to recall that there has been quota legislation in effect in this country for 33 years, and this is the first occasion upon which it has been suggested that newsreels should be admitted to quota. That change requires, I think, considerably greater justification than has yet been forthcoming from the Government spokesman. Like the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, I do not much object to the newsreels being admitted to quota, but I do object to their being admitted to participation in the levy. The two companies which still produce and distribute newsreels are not exactly in a starving condition. They are two extremely wealthy and prosperous companies. If for their own reasons they prefer to continue to produce newsreels, that is their concern. If the newsreels are to be justified because of their overseas importance, then it is a matter for getting funds through the Central Office of Information or otherwise.
May I remind your Lordships that the money which is being disposed of here is not Government money; it is industry money—not, as has been said, entirely provided by the exhibitors. The machinery of payment is through the exhibitor, but all sides of the industry pay their share in proportion to the sharing of the box office receipts. But it
1050
is industry money, raised within the industry for the purpose of benefiting production; and I think it requires a great deal of justification to take away even £150,000 of that levy from its prime purpose of supporting feature film production, and to give it to newsreels, unless it can be shown that there is unanimity in the industry for such a change, which there most certainly is not.
I come now to Clause 5, which deals with reliefs to exhibitors in respect of quota. I readily recognise, as the noble Earl said, that much of Clause 5 is necessary. I would, however, simply note at this stage that when we come to Committee I will point out that there is still room for further improvement in that connection. The noble Earl seemed to be very pleased with Clause 8. I want to suggest to him that Clause 8 is not nearly so important as he represented it to be. All that it provides is that there shall be a credit title giving the name and address of the maker of the film or of the studio in which the film was made. So far as this country is concerned, that provision is entirely unnecessary, because British audiences know when they are seeing a British film. When it comes to overseas territories there are many cases, as the noble Earl indicated, where the scissors will be brought out and that particular credit title will be eliminated. So that this clause does not really serve any good purpose. I think that, as it stands, it is rather a silly clause and might well be eliminated.
On Clause 9, I would merely join with the previous speakers in welcoming the provision for co-production. Co-production between France and Italy, France and Germany, and Germany and Italy has been under way now with quite considerable success for a number of years, and on practically every occasion when I have met producers from these countries they have indicated their great desire to be in a position to enter into co-production agreements with our producers. I am very glad that that is now to be made possible. But I must say that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that these co-production treaties, as they will be, should in any way come under the advice of the Cinematograph Films Council, which seems to me to be a quite inappropriate organisation to advise on what is, in fact, a highly technical matter.

1051
May I refer for a moment to Clause 12, which lays certain restrictions on the renter with regard to advising exhibitors of any change in the title or playing time of a film. By and large, the provisions of this clause are good, but I feel that in one respect, perhaps, they are a little too restrictive. May I give the illustration of a British producer, particularly the producer of a comedy who registers the film at the Board of Trade? It starts to run in the West End of London. The producer is very anxious to see the reactions of the audience to his film, and after attending several sessions he finds that the film tends to sag in one place or another and that a little judicious cutting would speed it up and make it a better film. Within a few weeks he does that cutting, and as a result there is an improvement in the film. I would suggest that changes of that type, which are only changes in running time and which would be of a minor nature, which take place within, say, one month of the first registration of the film, might be ignored so far as the effect of this clause is concerned.
I want to refer to one other point which has not been touched upon: it concerns the composition of the Cinematograph Films Council. It is within the knowledge of all noble Lords that the Cinematograph Films Acts, from 1927 on, have been designed to encourage, protect and build up a British film production industry; and the functions of the Cinematograph Films Council are laid down as including:
"To keep under review the progress of the cinematograph film industry in Great Britain, with particular reference to the development of that branch of the said industry which is engaged in the making of films."
In view of that statement I find it rather anomalous that on a Council of 22 members there should be only four representatives of producers, and I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they might look at this point again. I believe I am right in saying that the present composition of the Council is seven independent members, five exhibitors, four producers, four employees in the industry and two representatives of renters—a total of 22. Of those, only four are producers, in a
1052
body whose chief job it is to look after the wellbeing of the production side of the industry. Subject to those comments, I join my noble friend Lord Shepherd in saying that we welcome this Bill. We do not oppose it and we hope, with the co-operation of Her Majesty's Government, to improve it in Committee. We shall not be at all difficult, I think, if we are met with anything like reason in the Amendments we put forward.
4.14 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I do not class myself in the category of those noble Lords who declare an interest in this debate in connection with the cinematograph industry, but, like the vast majority of people in this country, I feel that the industry is giving rise to ever-growing concern and I hope that the points which I am going to make this afternoon will explain why. Several noble Lords have dealt with the matter of the cinema tax. Perhaps, strictly speaking, it does not come within the scope of this Bill, but I would say that unless the tax is removed very soon the Bill itself will be rendered null and void because the industry will just be unable to carry on.
On Sunday night I spoke to the manager of our local Rank circuit cinema in Epsom. He has been in the cinema industry for 40 years, abroad and in this country, in London and in the provinces. He told me that entertainments tax is causing him more worry than anything else. The arts, music, the theatre and ballet receive grants from the Arts Council—and rightly so; but the help which the cinema industry gets from the Government is indeed parsimonious. Clause 2 of this Bill has been widely mentioned and I certainly do not intend to go into the technicalities of it, but I feel that there is some reason for applying the quota system to newsreels, provided that feature films, which are frequently shown as newsreels, are also included there. On the Rank circuit there is a particularly interesting series of feature films called Looking at Life. I have seen two of these recently, one a particularly interesting film of the shipbuilding industry and the other of the Army in action at Aldershot. As has been rightly said, newsreels tend to reach the cinemas in a very stale condition, whereas they can be shown on television while they are relatively fresh

1053
news. But the newsreel is still a very important part of our way of life as depicted in the medium of cinematograph entertainment, and I feel that steps should be taken to ensure that there is a speed-up in the delivery of newsreels.
Another problem is the very tight hold which circuits have over the release of films. For example, when a film is showing in the north and west regions of the London area it has to be shown, as I understand it, at practically every cinema of that particular designation in the area—be it Epsom, or, say, Mitcham. The people in Epsom may like British films and those in Mitcham may prefer the cowboy film from America. I feel, therefore, that some relaxation within circuits could be of some help.
Something has been said of television and its effect on cinema audiences. I often feel that that is something of an alibi and excuse for those who fail to produce good quality films. I went to see that very good and oft-quoted film, I'm All Right, Jack, in my local cinema the other week. There were long queues every night, and that film could have run for two, and possibly for three, weeks. After all, Epsom is a town of perhaps 20,000 people. So I do not think that the excuse of television can always hold good.
I would say this, however, and I would ask the Government to consider this point very carefully. Have not the television circuits too great a power to show what one might call"canned" films? We have the anomaly, particularly on a Sunday afternoon, where there have been instances of both channels showing films, and on Saturday evenings of both channels showing a film. It is true that old films such as Rembrandt and The Stars Look Down, for example, old British films of excellent character, can perhaps gain tremendous benefit by being shown on television. But I think that perhaps a time limit could be imposed before a film might be shown on television. It is, perhaps, arguable that a film less than five years old should be precluded from being shown on the television circuits. That would give it a far better chance in the cinema, particularly since, as I understand it, the quota system does not apply to films over five years old. I may be wrong there, and if I am I hope that some noble Lord who has experience of the cinema industry will correct me. My
1054
Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said (if I quote him rightly) that British films in America were not a great success.
LORD SHEPHERD: I did not say they were not a great success. I said they were not widely distributed.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for misquoting him on that point. But it is, I think, true to say that only a limited type of British films really succeeds in America, as it is perhaps fair to say that only certain types of American films succeed here. But I feel that the Government might help here, as they have done in other fields, and sponsor a British Film Week or a British Film Month in America. Commerce has done it with a good deal of success. Lloyd's had a recent exhibition in America, which was a resounding success. It gave a revealing and interesting indication of how British insurance works, and it was widely acclaimed in San Francisco. I am sure the Government would be well advised to try an experiment like that with public funds. It would not be particularly costly, and it might well bring in a quite considerable revenue.
This month's magazine, Films and Filming contains a very interesting article about the German cinema. The article is by a man named Karlheinz Böhm. He is the son of the famous Viennese conductor, and he is appealing for more actors and more British producers to go to Germany. He says:
"For instance, artists such as Dirk Bogarde and Trevor Howard, who is one of my favourite actors, would, I am sure, be in even greater demand in Germany if they were willing to do German films."
My Lords, I feel that that is something which we want to avoid. We do not want to grant Herr Böhm's wishes.
British film producers and actors are going through a particularly difficult time at the present, and, as has been said earlier, the entertainments tax is largely responsible for this. So I feel that the tax must be removed. The Government can surely afford it in these times of relative prosperity, because the film industry in this country is not merely a source of entertainment but has considerable educational value. I hope that the pleas which have gone from this House

1055
and from another place will receive sympathetic consideration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would conclude by saying that this is a good Bill, and an intelligent Bill. The removal of the entertainments tax will help to make it an outstanding Bill.
4.27 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and especially the noble Lords, Lord Westwood and Lord Archibald, who provided their own specialised knowledge in contributing to this debate and so enriched it. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Auckland for the very thoughtful speech he has just delivered, and I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for summarising in a very reasonable way the faults, or what they look upon as faults, which the Opposition find in the Bill as it stands now. I hope that noble Lords will not expect me to deal with every point raised, because some of the points went by so fast that it was quite beyond my mental powers to catch them in mid-air and hope to deal with them so shortly after. Those points I try to deal with I shall deal with not necessarily in the order in which they were made, and I hope I shall be forgiven for that.
I should like to give an assurance to my noble friend, Lord Auckland, on his worry over the changing programmes. He found that programmes changed in his cinema before he was ready to see the film or was able to see the film, and I should like to tell him that there is nothing in film legislation which prevents a film from being played for as long as the exhibitor wishes it to play or considers it desirable from a box office point of view; and I do not imagine that my noble friend would wish for legislation which would oblige him to do so. There is one matter which was raised by a number of noble Lords, I think perhaps by all those who spoke after my noble friend who opened the debate, and that was the entertainments tax or, as it is called by many of your Lordships, cinema tax. Although I am not evasive by nature, I think that that is one point they will not expect me to take up and that they will be forgiving if I use the
1056
time-honoured phrase that I cannot anticipate Budget proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Archibald, found fault with the present composition of the Cinematograph Films Council. He quoted the words in the establishment of the Films Council which I will quote back at him. It is laid down that the Council
"shall have the function of keeping under review progress of the film industry with particular reference to the development of that branch of the said industry which is engaged in the making of films."
That he quoted, and the fact that the Council is made up of 7 independents, including the chairman, 4 representatives of British film makers, 2 representatives of the renters, 5 from the exhibitors, and 4 employees in the film industry.
Now the suggestion that the makers are under-represented on this Council is, at first sight and on paper, apparently valid, but I suggest—and I suggest it humbly, because the noble Lord knows so much more than I do about it—that in practice the balance works out differently. The chairman and the six other independent members must be completely and permanently aware that the Council's task, as I quoted before, is to have particular reference to the development of the production end of the industry. Taking this into account, they know that they must remain particularly alive to its interests. They number seven, which is the largest single group on the Council and only just under a half of the whole Council itself.
Then there are the four representatives of film makers and the two representatives of film renters. I take those together because my information leads me to think that in practice the film renters and the film makers operate very much together. I understand that the normal procedure of making a film is for the producer to go to a film renter and ask him to cover as much as 70 per cent. of the cost of making the picture, in return for the distribution rights once it is made. This implies, I should have thought, that renters and producers are very closely dependent upon each other, and that their interests are closely entwined. They are therefore unlikely to speak with different voices at the meetings of the Council. So that on the Council so far we have

1057
seven independents pledged to give particular attention to the makers' interests and six representatives of makers and renters—two elements of the industry whose practice it is to work closely together.
Out of the present five members representing the exhibitors, at least one to-day is connected with a large organisation making films, and it seems unlikely that he would reach or approve any conclusion prejudicial to British film production. There remain the four representatives of the employees in the film industry. These come from various branches of the industry; but, here again at least one of the present body represents workers on the production end. It is therefore, as I see it, the exhibitors who have the minority representation on the Council, and I should not have thought that it was necessary to emphasise this by increasing the producers' representation. After careful thought—and it was given very careful thought—it was decided to leave the Council as it stood.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned his anxiety about the shape that the co-production agreements might take, and said that he was anxious that reciprocal benefits should be obtained for British films to those given away under such agreements. In order to ensure this, he wished that the Board of Trade should bind themselves to consult the Films Council before finalising an international agreement. In fact he is asking the Government to do something which has never been done before by any Government. The reaching and the implementation of international agreements are the function of Government, and it would be something entirely new, and some might even say quite inappropriate, for the Government to bind itself to consult a body—even a statutory body, as the noble Lord pointed out—before reaching a decision and putting through that agreement. But that is not to say that they do not intend to consult the Films Council. In fact, they have said that they will, and they always do consult the Films Council as closely as possible; and in particular in the reaching of international agreements it is their intention—and there is no reason to suppose that that intention would ever change to keep in the
1058
closest touch with the Films Council on whose advice they in fact depend.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if that is the case, why cannot they bind themselves to consult this statutory authority?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I do not know how much one should rest on precedent, but it is something which has never been done by any Government, and the noble Lord in putting the proposal forward must appreciate that. Obviously his proposal will be looked at, but the objection to it would be that this is something entirely new and might set very awkward precedents for the future.
He also asked me a question about why the Republic of Ireland was specifically mentioned in the Bill. This, I am afraid, is an example of legislation by reference, and by reference to Bills which in fact have nothing to do with any Films Bill. Under the Ireland Act of 1949 the Republic of Ireland ceased to be a part of Her Majesty's Dominions, but under Section 3 of that Act it is provided that, until some provision to the contrary is made, any Act of Parliament passed before the Ireland Act and containing a reference to Her Majesty's Dominions continues to relate to the Republic of Ireland as if it were one of those Dominions. I cannot put it any more lucidly than that. That was in harmony with the British Nationality Act, 1948; and because both the 1938 and the 1948 Cinematograph Acts were passed before these two nationality Acts, citizens of Eire continue now to be included under the provisions of those two cinema Acts. The new Bill is being presented after the two nationality Acts and therefore in order that the provisions should not conflict with the position under the two Cinematograph Acts it has been necessary to mention specifically citizens of the Republic of Ireland. That is rather lengthy, I am afraid, but that is the reason.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if that is the case—and I certainly do not dispute it—does that mean that if a film was made in Burma, which is in rather a similar position to the Republic of Ireland, it would come under the quota and levy?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not want to stick my neck out over Burma. I checked up on Ireland because

1059
it is mentioned. Ireland is mentioned in the Bill: Burma is not. I think I had better be on the safe side and not try to answer that from this Despatch Box now.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, when they were speaking on the question of television and the threat that television represented to the cinema—the"legitimate" cinema. The fact is that television films do not obtain the benefit of the levy, and for this purpose the definition of a television film has been fixed—not fixed under this Bill but fixed under another regulation—as a film shown on television within a year of its registration. It seems regrettable, but perhaps inevitable, that the film industry should regard the television industry not simply with suspicion but with hostility. There is very little thought at the moment of peaceful co-existence between them.
LORD LATHAM: There should be a summit conference.
LORD ST. OSWALD: That hostility is implicit in the name of the body which it has now set up—the Film Industry Defence Organisation, better known as F.I.D.O. Under the F.I.D.O. plan the industry imposes upon itself a voluntary and additional attendance levy, and with the proceeds of this levy it buys up the television rights of films as they appear, with the express object of freezing these rights and therefore of withholding those films from the television screen. Under existing regulations it gets a year's respite in any case—a year's respite from the date of registration of a film. But there is reason to think that the film industry do not regard this as enough. In fact the life of a film in the cinema is about four years and during those four years it can draw much better money than the television authorities can afford to pay for it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the real fear of the cinema industry, particularly the exhibitors, is surely this. Television is going to show on a particular night, with wide advertisement, a film that was popular some two, three or five years ago, and the exhibitors fear that on that night the cinemas will be basically empty. Their real worry is
1060
not the age of the film, but the fact that the films are going to be shown on television.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I did realise that that was the specific point the noble Lord was raising, and I hope that in the course of what I have to say I can give him a satisfactory answer; but I will give him what answer I am able. The film industry do not regard a year as being enough. They say that good feature films are not"stale," from the box office point of view, at the end of twelve months. This is exactly what the noble Lord has been saying. As a further protection, the film industry would like to see television films handicapped by exclusion not only from the levy, as they are, but also from the quota. The question then arises of fairness to the television industry, and once that has arisen I think it is difficult to ask a Government to take sides. And I should have thought it quite wrong for a Government to be persuaded to take sides; because in this drama—and I hope that I am not unduly fanciful in seeing it as a drama which might well be portrayed on either the television or the cinema screen—both sides see themselves as the"good guys" and the others, if I may say so without offence, as the"thugs".
There is no doubt about the bitterness of this feud, and the bitterness came into the open early in January of this year, when Associated-Rediffusion"rustled" 55 films, mostly under ten years old and in good box office condition, for showing on commercial television. The rancour was all the greater because the existing renters' concern, Independent Film Distributors, controlled by Mr. John Woolf, had allowed themselves to be bought out together with the 55 films they then held, and also with the means to rent further films for commercial television, which was a declared purpose of the operation. The Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association met and announced publicly that in their opinion Mr. John Woolf had displayed"callous indifference" to the future of the industry, and condemned the action of Mr. Woolf and his associate in the strongest possible terms. Members of the Association were recommended not to book any films in which Mr. Woolf or Mr. Angel, his associate, or their respective companies

1061
were concerned, or to book any films comprised in the deal with Associated-Rediffusion.
I am sure that all this is known to the noble Lord, but I am making a point at the end of it. The Federation of Film Unions also threatened that if any attempt was made to show any of the 55 films without"adequate consultation with the Unions", they would consider telling their members not to work on any intended transmissions of those films. This was hostility coming out into the open. Although the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, may be brave enough to step into this battlefield, I am frankly not brave enough to follow him into it to-day. But it has to be remembered that there is an immense difference between the return from a film shown on the television and that shown on the cinema.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me to interrupt him? I promise that it is the last time I will do so. As we have a statutory levy on exhibitors of these films, and they are then sold to television contractors, does not the noble Lord think it right that the television contractors should be called upon to pay a levy in the same manner as the cinema exhibitors?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this seems to me an entirely new proposal by the noble Lord, arising from the points I am making. I have no doubt whatever that it will be considered with the other points he made, but I do not think that here and now I can very well deal with it. The point that I was making is that the most that it is paid at present by television services in the United Kingdom for a feature film is something like £5,000 to £6,000. The same film shown in cinemas throughout the United Kingdom would be expected to earn from tea to thirty times that amount. For the next few years at least the British film producer of feature films is bound to depend principally on the cinemas, and I think that that is a factor which has not been brought out very definitely in the arguments so far adduced.
The noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Westwood, dealt at great length with newsreels. Obviously, as my noble friend said in opening the debate, the inclusion of newsreels is one of the most important features, and certainly the most controversial, in the whole Bill. I
1062
listened with absorption to the noble Lord's expressed anxiety that newsreels, while being produced far more cheaply than second-feature films, could become, in fact, a second-feature film by being shown instead of it and still called a newsreel. I think that that was the point he was making. But it is not so easy as that. The noble Lord mentioned beauty competitions, but the fact is that newsreels, as such, have to be part of a series to be changed once a week. In point of fact, they are always changed twice a week, but under the law they have to be changed once a week. The noble Lord would be obliged to find 52 beauty competitions in a year or make up a fairly consistent series, changing his programme once a week. It is felt that that would be prohibitively difficult to do, and that the small second-feature makers have no real grounds for anxiety on that score. But, naturally, the argument put forward by the noble Lord will be examined with great care by my right honourable friend.
Much more has been said on newsreels. Clearly, the objections voiced in the other place during the passage of the Bill were taken into account by my right honourable friend in opening the debate and they have been referred to since by other noble Lords. The argument most forcefully used against their inclusion predicates that newsreels, as a genus, are dying a natural death, perhaps mostly due to television, and that the Bill proposes to keep them artificially alive. The counter-argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is that this Bill will give newsreels such a new lease of life that they will endanger short films. I should have thought that these two arguments contradict each other far more directly than I am prepared to contradict the exponents of either argument.
The reasons which persuaded us to propose this change have already been described. Newsreels are not paying their way. One large organisation has ceased making or showing them, and the remaining two have expressed doubts about their ability to continue unless these films are given quota protection and a share of the levy. The Government take the view that newsreels are important and their continued existence desirable, and they feel that at this time, with newsreels facing difficulties, it would be wrong to discriminate against them.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, what is meant by newsreels"paying their way". How would they, or should they, pay their way?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think that that point has been dealt with in the course of the debate. When the previous Cinematograph Films Act went through, they were not included because they were profitable undertakings. Now they are not, and the makers are simply stopping making them because they are not paying their way.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, is there any evidence that the public do not want them?
LORD ST. OSWALD: The evidence is in the box office.
LORD AMWELL: But cinemas are just as full as before.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The renters and exhibitors are not wanting to take them. That is the critical factor. I am afraid that I gave the wrong answer to the noble Lord. The fact that the two newsreel makers to-day are components of larger and more prosperous organisations is not in any way, to my mind, a valid reason for withholding these benefits from the newsreels themselves. These large organisations, and the newsreel companies within them, have a perfectly clear duty to their shareholders, and if one ramification of their business is doing badly they have every right to request a form of help which another is receiving.
LORD AMWELL: How is that registered? Do they hiss or express disapproval in some way?
LORD ST. OSWALD: The exhibitors do not hiss but they do not take the newsreels, which is a more effective method.
LORD AMWELL: That is not what I am talking about.
LORD ST. OSWALD: If the noble Lord wants to clear my mind I should like him to do so.
LORD AMWELL: I merely want to clear my own mind. We are told that newsreels do not pay. Surely we should
1064
know, and those responsible should tell us what is meant by"not paying". In what way do they come to the conclusion that they do not pay?
LORD ST. OSWALD: It does not pay the producers to make them because the exhibitors will not buy and show them.
LORD AMWELL: That does not prove that they do not pay.
LORD ST. OSWALD: It proves it to the producers who cannot get paid for them. Under the provisions of this Bill it is sought to help the newsreels. But I should like to make the point that this Bill has a life of seven years, and this particular clause should offer newsreels a new lease of life during those seven years, at a comparatively small cost, as my noble friend pointed out, of some £150,000 out of the levy of £3,750,000, which, if my arithmetic is correct, is a little under 4 per cent. of the whole levy. At the end of that period, Parliament will see what they have done with that new lease of life and measure their success or failure. Their future existence in the light of that success or failure will then be reviewed, together with the other provisions of this whole family of Bills. In the meantime, it does not seem just or wise to condemn them to extinction without given them this encouragement to save themselves by their own endeavours.
We hope that this Bill will give encouragement to the industry as a whole, and it seems to be generally accepted that it will. Its provisions have been worked out in the closest co-operation with the industry it seeks to benefit, and although perhaps it is too much to hope that each section of the industry will consider that a fair share of those benefits has come its way, I hope your Lordships will feel that, as has already been expressed, a balanced assistance is being offered not to keep a failing industry alive, but to revitalise it for an impressive future. With those remarks I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FOREIGN SERVICE BILL
4.54 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I should like briefly to run through the principal provisions of this Bill. Before the introduction of the 1943 Foreign Service Act it was to all intents and purposes impossible to retire an officer on pension before his normal retiring age, unless his health was seriously and permanently impaired. The Foreign Service officer has to retain throughout his career a high degree of initiative and energy, and he and his family must have a higher resistance to climatic and other strains than is required of most other civil servants. It sometimes happens that officers who show great promise in their early years do not fulfil that promise—sometimes for reasons which are within their control, but more often due to no fault of their own. In a comparatively small and streamlined service, there may be no place for them. It was to cope with this problem that the 1943 Foreign Service Act was passed. An officer prematurely retired under this Act loses his job earlier than the normal civil servant expects, and if the fault has not been his, he deserves some compensation.
The Foreign Service Act, 1943, permitted a Foreign Service officer above the rank of Second Secretary to be retired and to receive the pension and lump sum which his term of service had earned him. It also provided that, if the Foreign Secretary recommended and the Treasury agreed, officers retired in this way could receive special increases, both in pension and in lump sum.
The maximum special increases allowed under the 1943 Act were fixed at a figure of £100 per annum for pension and £300 for lump-sum payment. In 1943, £100 a year represented one-twelfth of the maximum salary of a First Secretary. But, of course, salaries have increased considerably since then, and the maximum salary of a First Secretary is now £2,120 per annum. The maximum special increases, however, have
1066
remained at £100 a year and £300. The first main object of this Bill is to correct this striking devaluation of compensation for premature retirement. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 of the new Bill establish a permanent relationship of one-twelfth and three-twelfths between these special increases and the emoluments received at the time of retirement. Thus a First Secretary prematurely retired and in receipt of a salary of £2,000 could receive maximum compensation of £166 a year and a £500 lump sum.
Until 1949 it was not possible for a civil servant to resign voluntarily and retain his pension rights. In 1949 a Superannuation Act was passed, Section 34 of which gave the right to the employing department to retire a civil servant on pension at or after the age of fifty"in the interests of efficiency", and at the same time gave the civil servant who had reached the age of fifty the right to retire voluntarily with his pension rights"frozen" until he reached his normal retiring age. Foreign Service officers subject to the 1943 Act were specifically excluded from the operation of this section. The result of this is that the Foreign Service officer of the rank of Second Secretary or above is liable to be retired at any age"in the public interest", but has no corresponding right to leave the Service of his own will without losing all his superannuation rights. The second main object of this Bill, therefore, is to give the Foreign Service officer the same right to retire voluntarily as his Home Service colleague. This is dealt with by Clause 2. But he is, of course, still at some disadvantage, since he cannot retire voluntarily until he is fifty whereas he can be retired compulsorily at any age. This disadvantage is compensated for by the"special increases".
The Bill has one further objective, and that is to tidy up two minor anomalies which have resulted from the effect of the 1949 Superannuation Act upon the 1943 Foreign Service Act. The 1949 Act enabled civil servants for the first time to obtain pensions for widows and dependants, subject to a contribution. Clause 1 (3) of the Bill requires that the contribution of those retired under the 1943 Act shall be based on their special, as well as on their normal, payments. Clause 1 (2) limits the special increase granted to an officer under the 1943 Act to the

1067
amount that would have been payable had he continued in the Service until the normal retiring age.
This is a Bill which enables the Foreign Secretary to retire, without undue hardship, those whose services, through no fault of theirs, has lost its full value. I therefore commend this Bill to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
5.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Marquess for such a clear exposition of a Bill with rather complicated provisions, and I would not ask your Lordships to listen to any more than a declaration that we are in full agreement with the Bill had it not been that the Minister in another place quoted as an example of officers of the Foreign Service who came under the provisions of this Bill the Chinese Consular Service. That made me think of that very fine Service—some of your Lordships, no doubt, will have known members of it in the old days—which had a life of about a hundred years, from 1843 to 1939. They were a body of people who devoted their lives to the Far East, and who saturated themselves in the language, the law and the culture. They were people on whom the Foreign Office must have relied for its knowledge of China and the Far East.
Since the last war, the services of a number of those officers have obviously been dispensed with. I should like to ask what use is being made now of the specialised knowledge of those officers. I think we should all agree that contacts between the People's Republic of China and the West are far too few. Fewer English people live and grow up in the Far East and have an opportunity of learning these languages. Therefore it seems that former officers of the Chinese Consular Service could be of enormous value in various departments at home. The B.B.C. comes to mind at once. I wonder how many of those officers are helping with overseas broadcasting. I hope the noble Marquess will be able to tell us that such officers as are still in the Service are being used where their special knowledge is of use, and that those who have retired have found suitable employment elsewhere.
1068
Going on a short way from that—and, I hope, not too far outside the rules of order of your Lordships' House—I come to the question of the diplomatic missions in other countries of the Far East. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that whereas in the old days the Chinese Empire, Japan and Siam were the only independent countries where there were diplomatic missions, now there is a much larger number of independent sovereign States, each of which have their own language. There are the Philippines, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Viet-Nam, Mongolia and, I expect, a few more I cannot think of. I want to ask what steps the Foreign Service take now to ensure that on those missions there are always officers with a knowledge of the local language and, therefore, capable of communicating with the ordinary people of the country. With those two questions, I would repeat that we are in favour of this Bill.
5.6 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am much obliged for the reception that the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has given to this Bill. I think it is a business-like Bill and it brings the situation up to date. As regards the two questions that the noble Earl has asked me, he was good enough to give me advance notice about the Chinese Consular Service, so I have looked into the facts a little. Briefly, the position is this. The Chinese Consular Service came to an end in 1935, and a large proportion of its members were absorbed into the Foreign Service. There are still, I understand, seventeen members of the old Chinese Consular Service in harness and serving with great distinction. Just to mention a few posts, there is the Ambassador in Kabul, the Ambassador in Phnom Penh, a high official in Bonn, and the head of the Imperial Defence College. So the great qualities of these men have certainly not been wasted. A number of them were retired under the 1943 Act. It so happens that the retirement age for some of them was earlier than for the usual members of the Service because of their having been in unhealthy posts. They qualified for retirement at the age of 55, and a certain number of them left the Service in that way. Of course, when anybody leaves the Foreign Service every effort is made to ensure that he finds a suitable job;

1069
and, as the noble Earl is well aware, great pains are taken and a considerable amount of help is given to ensure that his services are used as they should be in ordinary civil life.
As regards the second question, I am in a little difficulty here over the language question. I think it would be true to say that in the new sovereign countries of what was old French Indo-China the lingua franca is French. I came in contact recently with a number of gentlemen from those countries, and that was the language in which we spoke to one another. As regards the learning of Chinese—and it is Mandarin Chinese which is taught and encouraged—it so happens that my own private secretary is a Chinese speaker. He spent the first year of his time in Peking as a student of Chinese, for which he very properly receives the premium. So we are certainly not losing sight of the necessity for members of the Service to learn these hard Oriental languages. I suppose one cannot expect to have people proficient in every language, though those who are gifted certainly pick up the local dialect when they get to these posts. But Mandarin Chinese would probably get them by in some places, certainly among people of education, although it would not be so among people of a lower education. They would have to speak some Cantonese or Hakka. I can assure the noble Earl that every attention is being given to this question of our having men who are well versed in Oriental languages, so that they can get on close terms and on intimate relations with the ordinary people of the Far East.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

DISTRESS FOR RATES BILL [H.L.]
5.10 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order) on Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills: Bill reported without amendment.

RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL [H.L.]
5.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clause 2 [Exemption from registration under s. 1]:
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM) moved, in subsection (2), after"licensee" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert:"(subject to the next following subsection)". The noble Viscount said: This is what I believe is called, in technical language, a paving Amendment for the next one. I will, therefore, with the permission of the Committee, refer to both in what I have to say on this. The substantial part of the Amendment is seen in Amendment No. 5, Clause 2, at page 3, line 28 to insert the words on the Order Paper. This is very little more than a drafting Amendment.
Nuclear sites licensed under the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act, 1959, are under subsection (2) exempt from registration because a comparable control would be exercised under the 1959 Act. I explained this on Second Reading. There is, however, one respect in which the control would not be fully equivalent to the controls proposed in this Bill, for it does not generally enable conditions to be imposed which would require licensees to furnish information on the removal of radioactive materials from the sites or mark consignments of these materials. Such conditions can be imposed under this Bill, Clause 1, subsection (4), paragraphs (b) and (c). The purpose of these two Amendments is to enable the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Minister of Housing and Local Government in England and Wales, if he should consider it necessary, to impose on licensees by direction conditions such as he might have imposed under subsection (4) (b) and (c) of Clause

1071
1 if the premises had not been exempt from registration. The sanction would be that if they failed to comply with any such direction of the Minister they would lose the benefit of the exemption given by subsection (2). I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25 after ("licensee") insert ("(subject to the next following subsection)").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 28, at end insert:
"( ) Where, in the case of any such premises as are mentioned in the last preceding subsection, it appears to the Minister that, if the licensee had been required to apply for registration under the preceding section in respect of those premises, the Minister would have imposed conditions such as are mentioned in paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of that section, the Minister may direct that the exemption conferred by the last preceding subsection shall have effect subject to such conditions (being conditions which in the opinion of the Minister correspond to those which he would so have imposed) as may be specified in the direction.
( ) On giving a direction under the last preceding subsection in respect of any premises, the Minister shall furnish the licensee with a copy of the direction."—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Registration of mobile radioactive apparatus
(5) On registering a person under this section in respect of any mobile radioactive apparatus, the Minister shall furnish him with a certificate containing all material particulars of the registration.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, to add to subsection (5):
"and specifying the areas in which the apparatus may be used; and the Minister shall send a copy of the certificate to the local authority of each area so specified."
The noble Viscount said: This is a question of the certificate which is to be issued for a mobile radioactive apparatus. I cannot confess that I know exactly what this particular variety of machine is, but I imagine that, certainly in some cases, it is the sort of thing that goes from place to place by road to be used in various tests in factories and so
1072
on, and is not simply a machine which can be moved from place to place inside one particular factory.
Under the first clause of this Bill there is a particular exemption from registration under that clause for mobile radioactive apparatus which come under Clause 3, and therefore no certificate of their registration will be sent to any local authority or to any of the various other public bodies which have been mentioned in this Bill. I think it is possibly because of the difficulty of deciding which local authorities should receive certificates that this omission has occurred, but I think it is important that there should be some sort of knowledge in the hands of local authorities of the equipment of this sort which is going round and being used. I have suggested one particular method, and that is that the certificate under this clause should specify the areas in which the apparatus should be used and that the local authority in each area so specified should have a copy of the certificate. This probably is not very satisfactory because it would limit beforehand the place in which the apparatus could be used, but it was one suggestion.
Another suggestion, if this is the sort of thing which travels on the road, is that the local authority who issue the Road Fund licence for that year should have the certificate; or, alternatively, it might be that it would be enough for the local authority in whose area this apparatus is normally kept to have a certificate. But in the Bill at the moment there is no provision for any certificate to go to any local authority at all. I cannot see that there is likely to be very much difference, at any rate in some cases, in the amount of radioactivity involved, and I cannot understand this omission.
In this Amendment I have attempted to keep within the general scheme of the Bill as the noble and learned Viscount described it on the last occasion when this House was in Committee, and I shall continue to do so. But it seems to me that there is the following point to be taken into account. We are at the moment legislating for a disposal service of a national kind, but in the process of providing this nation-wide disposal service there are going to be problems affecting local authorities, such as safety

1073
and fire and accident, in which the police and fire services are going to be interested. It seems a little narrow, perhaps, to limit ourselves entirely and to avoid taking the chance of making matters easier for the local authorities in the process of providing for the disposal service as a whole. I therefore hope that this suggestion, if not in the form in which I have put it down at any rate in some form, may be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, after ("registration") insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
5.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This again is an Amendment which involves me in a repetition of the underlying purpose and structure of this measure. It is not a Bill for making radioactive substances safe; it is a Bill for the safe disposal of radioactive substances. The point at which the local authority requires to be informed of the activities of the mobile apparatus for the purposes of this Bill is the point at which its radioactive content is disposed of. There it will be informed by a certificate of a disposal authorised under Clause 6 of the Bill, of which it will have a copy.
The first part—and as I say, it is an essential part—of my noble friend's Amendment would have the effect of specifying the areas in which radioactive mobile apparatus is to be used. But the very essence of this mobile apparatus is that it is used everywhere, in all areas. It is, as my noble friend rightly pointed out, taken about from place to place and used, I think entirely, in factories. At any rate, it is moved from place to place and may be used in all areas. Therefore the effect of the Amendment would be to compel the Government either to limit the use of something which was required to be used everywhere, which I do not think is acceptable, or to inform every local authority, in the very wide sense that it is given in Clause 18 or Clause 19 of the Bill, every time mobile radioactive apparatus came up for registration. That would be to clog the administration impossibly. In registering mobile equipment the Minister will satisfy himself that the apparatus is such and is so built as to produce no pre-
1074
dictable waste disposal hazard wherever it may be used; that is to say, he will be satisfied that there are no risks arising from the discharge of radioactive waste in any local authority area in which the apparatus may be used.
Of course, if it is intended, as normally it will be intended, to transport it over the roads, it will have to be transported over the roads in accordance with regulations, not under this Bill but under one of the other pieces of legislation which the Ministry of Transport will impose after consultation with local authorities. The intention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport to impose such regulations has already been announced in December in another place. When the radioactive content of the apparatus comes to be disposed of, then I agree that this Bill comes immediately into force with the full procedure of information in suitable cases. Under this Bill the local authority will be informed and will get a copy of the authorisation. I have, therefore, every sympathy with the purpose of my noble friend, but I would venture to submit to the Committee that under one or other pieces of legislation we have already covered the point, and that this is not an appropriate means of obtaining it
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, but I am slightly puzzled in this way. He has said that the disposal, which is the main point of the Bill, will be authorised under Clause 6. So it is. But in the case of premises where radioactive substances are going to be used there is another form of registration under Clause 1 of this Bill, and in that case the certificate of registration is to be sent to the local authority. I cannot, therefore, understand, if it is not necessary to have a certificate for a mobile radioactive apparatus, why it is necessary for simple, ordinary stationary premises.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think, if I may say so to my noble and learned friend, the reason is because the premises are stationary and the mobile apparatus is mobile. It is, I think, fair to say that the variety of radioactive substances which are kept in premises is much wider, and they give rise to a much greater range of considerations than the rather specialised apparatus which is considered here,

1075
in respect of which I have given my noble friend the assurance that the Minister will impose conditions before registration which are designed to render them safe quoad the place where they are kept.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank the noble and learned Viscount very much. Perhaps on a later Amendment he will go a little further into the question of regulations regarding transport on the roads.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I will do my best.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Cancellation and variation of registration]:
LORD LATHAMhad given notice of his intention to move, in subsection (1), after"relates," to insert:
"shall record the cancellation or variation in the register to be maintained by him under subsection (7) of section one of this Act,"
The noble Lord said: Technically speaking, this Amendment and Amendment No. 11 standing in my name on the Marshalled List fall because of the rejection of the proposed Amendment to Clause 1. But I feel, after abundant consideration, that the Committee is always anxious in matters of this kind, and I should like to make one or two comments. I should inform the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Privy Seal that the Amendment to Clause 1 which was rejected may have to be reconsidered at a later stage of the Bill. My principal reason for saying that is that, although the Lord Privy Seal stated that, following discussions with associations of local authorities, they were to be authorised and would be expected to make the information they received available to other public authorities, including water undertakers, there is no statutory obligation in the Bill to that effect. As the noble and learned Viscount himself indicated, however, Clause 13 (3) imposes restrictions upon unauthorised disclosure, and also provides for penalties. Water undertakers and other like bodies interested in this matter are somewhat apprehensive at that provision, and local authorities responsible for passing on the informa-
1076
tion may be somewhat hesistant and worried about giving information with regard to which they can be subjected to penal provisions. In those circumstances I shall invite the House to reconsider at a later stage the proposed Amendment to Clause 1 which, as your Lordships will recollect, dealt with the establishment of a central and of a local register.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: As Amendment No. 9 and the one which follows are consequential upon the Amendment I have just moved, I will not move them.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Supplementary provisions as to authorisation of disposal and accumulation of radioactive waste
(2) Before granting an authorisation to which the preceding subsection applies, the Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall each consult with such local authorities, river boards, local fisheries committees, statutory water undertakers or other public or local authorities as appear to him to be proper to be consulted by him.
(5) On granting any such authorisation, the Minister or Ministers concerned—
(b) in the case of an authorisation under section six of this Act, shall (unless, for reasons of national security, it is in the opinion of the Minister or Ministers concerned necessary that knowledge of the authorisation should be restricted) send a copy of the certificate to each local authority in whose area, in accordance with the authorisation, radioactive waste is to be disposed of.
LORD LATHAM: This is a drafting Amendment to subsection (1) which deals with authorisations under subsection (1) of Clause 6 in respect of the disposal of radioactive wastes from nuclear reactors. I submit that it is quite conceivable that the disposal of waste from a nuclear reactor could be made under an authorisation granted under Clause 6 (3) as well as under Clause 6 (1), and, if that were so, that particular disposal of waste would be removed from the consultation provisions of Clause 8 (2). The effect of the Amendment is to make the consultation provisions of Clause 8 (2) applicable to all disposals from nuclear reactors; and

1077
I apprehend that the noble and learned Viscount will see the wisdom of so doing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 26, leave out ("subsection (1)") and substitute ("subsections (1) and (3)").—(Lord Latham.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord has kindly said that this is really no more than a drafting Amendment, and that is the way I view it. I do not suppose that either he or I would go to the stake for our respective views, or those views which we have been advised to take; but I have been advised that this Amendment is not necessary. The noble Lord is envisaging a case where the Atomic Energy Authority or the owner of a licensed nuclear site was given somebody else's waste of which to dispose; and he says (I think with some plausibility) that when one first looks at the drafting it appears that disposal thereafter would not attract the consultative procedure—which, I feel, would clearly be anomalous. What I am advised is that when a nuclear site authority or the Atomic Energy Authority receive or will receive other people's waste for disposal they will be given the authority to dispose under Clause 6 (1) and not under Clause 6 (3); and by reason of the proviso to Clause 6 (3) the consultative procedure will not therefore be avoided. It will be in substance a disposal under Clause 6 (1)—because that is the clause under which authorisation will be given in that case—and so it will attract the consultative procedure. For that reason I am advised that this Amendment is not necessary and I would ask the noble Lord not to press it. But I must say that there is a good deal to be said on both sides and I do not think it is something for which either he or I would be prepared to go to the stake.
LORD LATHAM: No, and I do not propose to do so. Resting on the assurance given by the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSShad given Notice of a series of Amendments on consultation, the first being in subsection (2) to leave out"such" and insert"the". The noble Viscount said:
1078
By leave of the Committee, I should like, in moving this Amendment, to refer at the same time to Amendments Nos. 14 and 16 because they all deal with the same point. Subsection (1) of Clause 8 deals with the authorisation for disposal of waste from the Atomic Energy Authority's premises and from premises which have or had a nuclear site licence, and for this reason one may presume that there is going to be a rather larger amount of waste forthcoming. I cannot understand the difference between the consultative procedure in regard to these particular premises and that which is provided under Clause 9 (3) for all other kinds of premises.
It seems to me that there is a much more arbitrary power given to Ministers to consult local authorities and other bodies mentioned in the case of these larger disposals of waste than in the case of smaller disposals under Clause 9, and I have therefore put down these Amendments in order to make sure that the procedure for consulting local authorities should be greater where the disposal of waste concerns greater quantities. It may be that there should be an excepttion for security purposes, but these authorisations under Clause 8 (1) and 8 (2) are going to be for actual disposals of waste, and I am certain, therefore, that if special precautions are needed to be taken by local authorities they should be consulted and it should not be open to the Minister to say, as he might do under the present wording, that it is not proper for him to consult them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 44, leave out ("such") and insert ("the").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I may be wrong, for this is a point which had not been brought to my attention in advance, but I do not believe that my noble friend is right in drawing a comparison between Clause 9 (3) and the particular subsection in Clause 8 that we are discussing, because I believe Clause 9 (3), which is the special precautions clause, does apply to authorisations both by the Minister alone and by joint Ministers—in which case it would govern this type of disposal as well as that where no consultation was necessary. At first sight, I do not think the noble Viscount is right in saying that the comparison is a just

1079
one, for unless I am mistaken this would be covered by Clause 9 (3) in suitable cases.
There is one other point I should make by way of introduction: I do not think the noble Viscount is necessarily right in what he says about the quantities for disposal. The really substantial and difficult material from the Atomic Energy Authority will not go through local authorities at all. The worst of that is contained in very thick concrete slabs and taken out to sea; therefore we are not really talking of that. It will be dealt with in Clause 10. What we are talking of here is relatively weak material like that which comes into the Thames, I believe above Reading; and I would at once concede that it is vital that local authorities who may be affected in one way or another should be consulted or informed, as the case may be, at the proper time.
I believe, however, that this Amendment would go too far the other way, for it would make"area" the only criterion of whether or not the matter was discussed with a local authority; and I am sure that that is the wrong criterion. Suppose, for example, one takes a water undertaking—a very important local authority. If we are disposing of some radioactive waste into a sewer whose only outfall is into the sea—and that would not be relatively rare; it would be relatively common—there is no reason why the water undertaker of the area should be consulted; equally with the fire service. In other words, it is not easy to find a single criterion and put it in the Bill which would really make it obligatory to consult a particular class of undertaking. Therefore, I should think that, on the whole, at this stage we should follow the practice of accepting from the Ministers their assurance that it is their intention and practice invariably to consult those local authorities and other bodies whose interests are directly affected. I believe that the cases in fact vary so much that it is impossible to define them in the Statute without clogging up the administrative machinery by requiring a number of consultations, which if we really went into it might well prove to be a pure waste of time and paper. I absolutely agree with the general principle underlying the Amendment, and perhaps my noble friend, in
1080
view of my assurance, would be prepared not to press it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am very glad indeed to have that assurance from my noble friend. I wonder whether he could explain a little further about the difference between these two consultative procedures. If all the disposals dealt with under Clause 8 (1) and 8 (2) are going to be covered by the consultation under Clause 9 (3) what is the point of providing for any consultation under Clause 8 (2), except perhaps for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Why should it be different? Why should it not be a special precautions case as well?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think that all the stuff from the licensed nuclear sites and from the Atomic Energy Authority is considered sufficiently important to demand a double consultative procedure; that is to say, between the two Ministers in the first place under Clause 8 (1) and by the two Ministries with the local authorities where their interests are affected, and that irrespective of whether special precautions are required by the local authorities. But Clause 9 (3) deals with the case where special precautions by the local authorities are required and there consultation is necessary, irrespective of whether is it a case for the Minister alone or for the two Ministers jointly. I believe I have it right. This is very technical, but that is my understanding.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank the noble and learned Viscount. So it would appear that the consultation under Clause 8 (2) may be more extensive than that under Clause 9 (3)?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is more extensive regarding the stuff from the licensed nuclear sites and the Atomic Energy Authority; it is less so far as it does not depend on special precautions. There may be cases which demand special precautions which do not come under Clause 8 (2) at all.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved in subsection (2) to leave out"statutory water undertakers". The noble Lord said: This Amendment, together with Amendment No. 17, deals with the same point as the Amendments of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, except that the Amendment as drafted which is standing in my name is of a rather wider application because it is not limited to areas where the disposal of radioactive waste would be undertaken, but is wide enough to embrace any area where a water undertaker might be affected by the proposed disposal of radioactive waste.
This Amendment in the view of the water authorities and, I believe, also of other authorities, for whom, of course, I do not speak, is regarded as being probably the most important one tabled to this Bill. The water authorities are very anxious that it should be accepted in principle at all events, if not in form, in order that they, the water authorities, may discharge their obligations. As this subsection stands, the Ministers are not obliged to consult with any water authorities before granting authorisations for the discharge of wastes from a nuclear reactor. Each of the Ministers recited in the Bill is to consult with such local authorities, water authorities and other like bodies"as appear to him to be proper to be consulted by him". There is, therefore, no guarantee that any water authority will be consulted by the Minister before radioactive waste may be discharged into a source of public water supply.
Clause 9 of the Bill proposes to make inoperative the water authorities' statutory powers to deal with pollution where that pollution results from contamination by radioactive substances. It is, therefore, in my submission, right and proper that the Minister should be required to consult the appropriate statutory water undertakers and other undertakers having a like duty and responsibility where that water undertaking or other undertaking is or may be affected by a proposal to dispose of radioactive wastes from a nuclear reactor. That is what these Amendments seek to do, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount may be able to indicate that his right honourable friend is disposed to accept what seems to be a perfectly proper request.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 1, leave out ("statutory water undertakers").—(Lord Latham.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think the noble Lord is right about one thing. I do not think any of these Amendments applies to anybody except statutory water undertakers. The effect is, as I understand it, to put statutory water undertakers in a special position in the Bill which is quite different from that of the general local authority, which may be at least as responsible, at least as affected; to put them in a special position as distinct from the fisheries committees, which could be equally affected; to put them in a special position as distinct from the local sewerage boards, which are certainly equally affected; and to put them in a special position of privilege as against the police authorities. This is not a proposition which my right honourable friend could accept. I do not think there is anything between the noble Lord and my right honourable friend or between the noble Lord and the Government. We have, of course, recognised our obligation to consult water undertakers when they have a predictable interest. When the temporary provisions, which I think these provisions would supersede, of Section 1 (5)—
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble and learned Viscount not regard the possibility or probability of emptying radioactive water into a water supply as a predictable interest of the water undertakers?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Clearly. I was about to say the same thing. When the temporary provisions of Section 1 (5) of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act, 1959, which relate to discharges of radioactive waste by nuclear site licensees, were being considered in Parliament, we made it very plain that it was our duty to do these things, and we recognised it. But what is not clear, I think, is that every water undertaking should be told every time a disposal is made in their area—and, as I understand it, the noble Lord is not saying that. To my mind (and this is the advice I have received), the noble Lord is saying that it is only when they are or may be affected that they are to be consulted. That is not really an improvement on the phraseology of the Bill. From one point of view it is a good

1083
deal worse, because it selects one class of local authority and puts them in a privileged position, which might adversely affect the interests of the others if the provision ever came to be construed.
But at the end of the day my advice is that the Amendment would hardly achieve any purpose at all, since sooner or later somebody would have to obtain some power of discretion to interpret the words"are or may be affected." So that the amended clause would hardly be different, in effect, from what it is now—except, of course, that it would mean that one group of local authorities would be selected for special treatment. I should have said that it is perhaps not inappropriate that some modicum of discretion should reside in the Ministers, since they are not only charged by the Statute to exercise an expert judgment on these matters—indeed, that is the purpose of the Act—but, as it happens, have direct, personal responsibilities for national water policy.
However that may be, I do not think that in the administration of this Act there is the smallest difference between the noble Lord and me, or between the noble Lord and my right honourable friend. I think we should give the fullest assurances about consultation which any reasonable person could require—not only to the water undertakings but to all the local authorities of different kinds, of whom the water undertakings, although they are important, are only one class. But I could not recommend my right honourable friend or the Committee to accept this Amendment, which has very doubtful advantages even as regards those in whose interests it is proposed, and which would have the effect of defining one group of local authorities and preferring it to all the others.
LORD LATHAM: I am not seeking to be at all selective. These Amendments are put down by me because of my interest in water authorities. It may well be that in another place Amendments not dissimilar from these will be put down by other local authorities, including the river boards, the fishery committees, and the like. But the circumstance that the water undertakings have been sufficiently seized of their responsibility to have
1084
Amendments put down in your Lordships' House really should not count against them: rather, it seems to me, it should count in their favour.
On the other point, the question whether the words actually in the Amendment as printed in the Marshalled List are the best form of words to achieve the purpose in mind is another matter. That is a question for the draftsmen. But it is the case that if this Amendment were carried then there would be a wider obligation of consultation than is at present proposed in the Bill. That is undeniable; and it is that wider, comprehensive obligation to consult that this Amendment seeks to achieve.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (5) (b), to leave out"in the case of an authorisation under section six of this Act". The noble Viscount said: I hope that in this case I may forestall the noble and learned Viscount, who will indubitably say that this is not within the purpose of the Bill. By this Amendment, and by means of Amendment No. 20, which goes with it, I am endeavouring to ensure that where an authorisation is granted for the accumulation, as opposed to the disposal, of radioactive waste, the certificate of this particular authorisation shall be sent to the local authority of the area concerned. I know that this Bill is dealing with a national disposal service, but these certificates to be sent to the local authorities must be intended for their information, so that they will know, more or less, what is going on in their area. It is not for the purpose of keeping the thing safe, but to inform the local authorities so that they will know where these accumulations are within their area, in order that they can, if necessary, deal with them.
The accumulations of radioactive waste are going to occur, I think, where premises use radioactive substances and where, when they have finished with them, they put them in some sort of container to await collection and removal by the national disposal service. While they are sitting in these containers they are in their most radioactive and dangerous stage, because in some cases, at any rate, they sit there until a certain proportion

1085
of their half-life is decayed, or whatever the expression is—at any rate, until they are less dangerous and less radioactive and are well capable of being moved away. I would submit, therefore, that it is extremely important that, while these substances are at this dangerous stage, the local authorities should know that they are there. As the Bill stands at the moment, certificates are to be sent in the case of disposals but not in the case of accumulations; and while it is true that the local authority may be consulted before an authorisation for an accumulation is given, this will not necessarily be the case, and under this Bill it may be that the local authority will not know about the authorisation for an accumulation at all.
If I may go on, with the permission of the Committee, to a point connected with this, which appears in my next Amendment, I have also proposed that where there is a disposal service working in connection with premises which use radioactive substances the local authorities, or some of them at any rate, should have an idea what route the lorries or other vehicles carrying these substances are going to take between the premises and the disposal point. I know that in many cases the amounts concerned will be small, but there will inevitably be occasions, in connection particularly, perhaps, with the Atomic Energy Commission, where there will be a steady flow of lorries or other vehicles taking radioactive substances from points of accumulation to points of disposal; and I think that it is desirable that the local authorities in these areas should know, not necessarily of a definite, specific route, but of the passing to and fro of vehicles containing these substances. Therefore, I have attempted in my next Amendment to provide for something of this nature. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 19, leave out ("in the case of an authorisation under section six of this Act").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: In spite of my noble friend's apprehensions, as regards this particular Amendment, although not as regards his second point on Amendment No. 20, I am advised that the principle which he has enunciated is acceptable. All I ask him
1086
to do is to withdraw the Amendment now so that the draftsmen may, if need be, re-word it for inclusion elsewhere in the Bill. I do not really know why it does not go here, but I am informed that it may not. I hope that, if I tell him that the principle is acceptable, he will accept it and will withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am extremely surprised and very grateful to my noble and learned friend. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.0 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (5) (b), after"authority", to insert,"and all statutory water undertakers". The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to take this Amendment with Nos. 21 and 23, as they deal with the same matter and seek the same result. Clause 8 (5) provides that, on granting an authorisation for the disposal of radioactive waste under Clause 6, the Minister is to send a copy of the certificate to the appropriate local authority. The purpose of my Amendments is to provide that the Minister shall also send a copy of the authorisation to the appropriate statutory water undertakings and to such other undertakings as it may please the Minister. I say that in order to avoid any charge of being selective as regards water undertakings.
It will be conceded that the statutory water undertakings are in a special position, because they have both a legal duty and an ethical duty of public responsibility to ensure that the water they supply to the public for drinking and other purposes is free from harmful pollution. Therefore, I submit that it is vital to the discharge by water undertakings of their responsibilities that they should know where polluting matter is being discharged. Undoubtedly there is some growing concern among the public about the quantities of radioactive material which are at large, and the whole purpose of the present Bill, as it appears to us, is to bring them under control and to reassure the public, which is a very laudable purpose on the part of the Government. But water authorities can co-operate with the Government in this control and

1087
in reassuring the public—and I submit that it is essential that there should be this co-operation, in the interests of both parties and of the public generally—only if they are kept fully informed of the proposals for disposing of these wastes in the areas of their sources of supply.
It may not be generally realised that many of the larger water authorities are already monitoring their water supplies and measuring the quantities of radioactive substances in them. The water undertakers who have the equipment and the skilled personnel can be of inestimable value to the Government in ensuring that there are no unauthorised discharges of radioactive matter (for one cannot exclude this possibility) or that the authorisations which have been granted are not exceeded or abused, to the harm and to the danger of the general public. It seems to me little short of folly for the Government to miss this opportunity of enlisting the help of the water undertakers and other authorities, if it so be, in the implementation of the laudable purposes of this Bill, when all that is required is the simple device of sending to water undertakers and others copies of any authorisations which may be issued by the Minister. Those are the reasons why these Amendments have been put down, and I move the present Amendment with the hope that we may get some little crumb of comfort from the Government in respect of the improvement of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 24, after ("authority") insert ("and all statutory water undertakers").—(Lord Latham.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sorry that the noble Lord should feel that he has had no crumb of comfort. This is a picture of sadness which almost moves me to tears. But I am bound to say that there is no real difference between us about our objective. We are both agreed that the local water undertakers are entitled to be informed—I thought that I had told your Lordships this before, and I had hoped that your Lordships accepted it. The question is a difference of procedure rather than of aim. Nor has it much relation to the differences which existed on the
1088
last Amendment moved by the noble Lord.
Those who are advising me are convinced that the only way in which everybody who requires to be told will be told is by putting these authorisations into the hands of the general local authority. That places upon the local water undertaking the obligation of going and inspecting the list, which will be open to them. We are convinced that this is a more satisfactory method than that they should be given a copy of every authorisation. We think that the arrangement proposed by the noble Lord would be more liable to mistake in actual practice and would undoubtedly clog up procedure to an extraordinary extent. Although I agree on the importance of the water undertaking, I do not agree that it is more important than the county council or the sewerage board or a river board or fisheries committee or the police or fire service. They all have legitimate interests in this matter, and, if we have the imagination, we can imagine circumstances where these interests are of the greatest possible importance. So I do not accept the view that any particular class should be given any particular preference.
There is no doubt that these Amendments are designed to give, and do give, the water undertakings a particular preference. It is true, as the noble Lord argues, that every other body can move similar Amendments in their own favour. Very likely they would, if I were to accept this Amendment. The only effect would be to destroy the administrative structure which my right honourable friend has been attempting to set up by this Bill and achieve something which would lead to quite extraordinary consequences. If we read Amendment No. 19 with No. 21 and consider a particular example, the position would be that if radioactive water was discharged into Birmingham sewers, it would be the Birmingham water undertaking which would have a priviledged position as regards being notified, although the Birmingham water undertaking gets most of its water from Central Wales and not from Birmingham.
LORD LATHAM: The sewerage undertaking of Birmingham would get information from the local authority,

1089
which would have received the information from the Minister. It is the same authority. And it is the same in the case of the police and the fire service.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Exactly: if the Bill were passed unamended, that would happen; but if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, the water undertaking would be entitled to separate notification. If it happened that the water undertaking was the same as the general local authority, of course the point would not arise, but one could easily enumerate not one case but hundreds of cases where the local water undertaking is not the same as the general local authority. What the noble Lord is really saying is that if the authorisation is given in a town, notwithstanding the disposal is by land or in a sewer, or in an area where none of the water comes from, the local water undertaking is to be given special treatment, but that all the other local authorities who may be directly affected must accept the arrangements made for them by the Government. That is quite unacceptable. Our view is that the only efficient way of ensuring that all these various bodies are satisfied is to have a central place—and as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, pointed out last time, there may in fact be several places, because the county districts also have the authorisations if people choose to go there—to which people can all go and make sure that they know. We think this is the proper way of doing it. We discussed this point at some length last time, and this is only a particular, and on the whole, I should have thought, less acceptable, variant of the same theme.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (5), to add to paragraph (b):
"or accumulated, and to each local authority through whose area the radioactive waste must pass in order to reach the point of disposal."
The noble Viscount said: The noble and learned Viscount has already indicated that this Amendment is not acceptable, but I hope he will go a little further into this question in a moment or two. It seems to me that unless the regulations which have been mentioned and are to
1090
be made by the Minister of Transport provide something of this nature, it should be arranged in some way that the police, for instance, or fire authorities should have knowledge of the routes to be taken by vehicles taking part in this national disposal of radioactive waste. Clearly, at the moment there will not be many of these vehicles, but as more and more of these substances are used I foresee a time when there will be a considerable convoy going along the roads, or possibly along the railways, and I think that there should be some indication from the Government now that these routes, or variety of routes, will be made known in some way beforehand to the local authorities or the police. I suppose the regulations that are to be made will cover Scotland, too. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I have an anxiety about this Amendment, although we have heard that it is not to be accepted in its present form, and that anxiety concerns the fire danger. Many of these radioactive wastes are contained in lead coffins (I think that is the term) and lead is very easily melted in fire. A diesel lorry, although it is not particularly inflammable, could easily run into a petrol-driven car and be burnt out, as can be seen at the sides of the roads to-day. It may be that this will occur beside a ditch; it may happen that the radioactive waste will run into that ditch and that a cow will drink the water from that ditch, and contaminated milk might be distributed. Obviously the Government will do something about this matter, but I should be more happy if my noble and learned friend could put my mind at rest by saying that something will be done.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There are two points in this Amendment. First, the words"or accumulated", which occur at the beginning of the Amendment, are acceptable in principle, subject to the same point about draftmanship which I made where they occurred before. The second is the one which I indicated was not so acceptable, and that not because I differ from my noble and learned friend at all about the desirability, but because this is expected to be covered by the Minister of Transport in the draft regulations. I should

1091
hope that the local authorities and any other person, including my noble friend, who had particular points to draw to the attention of the Minister of Transport in drafting those regulations would make sure to do so while they are still in draft. Like other regulations, they are susceptible of debate one way or another in both Houses of Parliament when they are promulgated. Therefore, with that assurance, that we do not disregard either of the points made, I hope that my noble friend will not choose this opportunity to press the Amendment but will accept that the regulations are the appropriate place in which to do this.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend, and I think this is quite satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to add to the clause:
"() An authorisation granted under section six of this Act by the Minister shall have effect from such date as the Minister may think fit, not being earlier (in a case where it is not in the opinion of the Minister necessary that knowledge of the authorisation should be restricted) than twenty-eight days after copies of the certificate relating thereto have been sent to the local authorities and statutory water undertakers concerned in accordance with paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of this section."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment, as has been the case with other Amendments, is to improve the operation of the provisions of control in the Bill by providing for a delay of twenty-eight days between the date when the Minister issues the authorisation for the disposal of radioactive waste and the date when the authorisation becomes effective. Where the authorisation for a discharge of radioactive waste from a nuclear reactor is given by the Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, then there is provision in Clause 8 (2) for consultation with local authorities to take place before the authorisation is given. But when the authorisation is given by the Minister under Clause 6 for a disposal of waste from premises other than nuclear reactors, then there is no provision for consultation with local authorities or statutory water undertakers and the local bodies would have no knowledge
1092
of the giving of the authorisation until they received from the Minister a copy of the certificate. It could therefore be that a disposal of waste had already been carried out before the local bodies knew anything about it.
It is appreciated, of course, that the Minister may give many authorisations for small quantities of waste, and it is therefore not suggested that he should consult with the local people on every occasion. The purpose of the simple device suggested in the Amendment is to ensure that the local bodies know that the disposal has been authorised before in fact it takes place and is carried out. This would enable them to assess the situation, and if they thought there was any danger, they would be in a position to warn the Minister. It seems to me that that is a perfectly reasonable and workmanlike suggestion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 42, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Latham).
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Here again I doubt whether there will be very much difference between the noble Lord and the local authorities and the Ministers in the carrying out of this policy. The associations of the authorities concerned have already been told that it is intended and expected that in the normal way authorisations will be operative from some future date. The purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment is to write into the Bill a statutory provision that no authorisation should be effective at all until a date specified by the Minister not earlier than twenty-eight days from the date on which it is issued. This, I am afraid, is not right. It would not be right to provide in the Bill that an authorisation should invariably be inoperative for at least twenty-eight days after it was issued. Would it really be tolerable, for instance, that the medical use of a radioactive material for some lifesaving purpose, or the use of such a material for detecting the seat of a failure in an important public utility, should be delayed because any consequent discharge of radioactive waste was subject to a period of not less than 28 days' notice before it came into effect, whilst a local authority considered whether it wished to comment?
The whole basis of this Bill is to put this highly delicate subject into the hands

1093
of a national service, and although I would repeat the assurances which have been given, that in normal cases authorisations should take effect only at a future date, it would be, I think, positively deleterious to insist on a period before which they should not operate at all, and to make that period 28 days. For those reasons, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Provisions as to functions of public and local authorities
(3) If, in considering an application for an authorisation under section six of this Act, it appears to the Minister (or, in a case where the power to grant the authorisation is exercisable by the Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it appears to either of those Ministers) that the disposal of radio-active waste to which the application relates is likely to involve the need for special precautions to be taken by a local authority, river board, local fisheries committee, statutory water undertakers or other public or local authority, the Minister or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as the case may be, shall consult with that public or local authority before granting the authorisation.
6.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAMhad given Notice of a series of Amendments to Clause 9, the first being, in subsection (1), after"imposed by," to insert"or for the enforcement of". The noble Viscount said: This series of Amendments to Clause 9, especially subsections (1) and (2), is to be read, in a sense, with the proposed new Schedule which is also in the Marshalled List entitled:
"Enactments, other than local enactments, to which section 9 (1) applies."
These Amendments, which, with the leave of the Committee, I will deal with together, are designed to meet questions which have been raised on the application of subsection (1).
The purpose of subsection (1) of Clause 9 is to ensure that persons who become subject to the very detailed and meticulous new controls provided in the Bill shall not remain subject to another and separate control, and even, in theory, possible prosecution by local authorities and similar bodies under other Acts, in so far as these other Acts are capable, as they would be if Clause 9 were not
1094
in the Bill, of being applied to the radioactivity in material that persons possess or waste they dispose of. It was suggested, both during the Second Reading here and, I think, in conversations, that these two subsections go too far. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, pointed out on Second Reading on November 24 that on the face of it they might be held to disqualify local authorities from undertaking routine monitoring which was otherwise within their capacity. I think it is also suggested that there was some conflict between subsection (1), which provides that local authorities should not take account of radioactivity, and subsection (4), which clearly envisages that in certain circumstances they may be taking special precautions in relation to it.
The purpose of this series of Amendments, together with the new Schedule, is to narrow the scope of subsection (1) in order to meet these criticisms. At the cost of, I fear, some elaboration of the drafting, the Amendments make it clear that the effect of subsection (1) of Clause 9 is simply to remove radioactive material and radioactive waste—but only in so far as their radioactive properties are concerned—from the ambit of statutory provisions whereby local authorities and similar bodies may restrain the accumulation or discharge of polluting matter or may proceed against the persons responsible. Thus, if any such authority has a general statutory power enabling it to undertake, for instance, routine monitoring in relation to such discharges, this power will not be impaired by subsection (1), though if it wishes to recover the cost of special precautions from a person making a discharge it will still need to get the precautions approved in advance by the Minister under subsection (4).
The Amendments proposed to page 9, lines 9, 10, 16 and 17 provide, among other things, that subsection (1) shall apply not only to existing Statutes providing for local controls of the nature described but also to Statutes amending them. I should think that they are no more, or little more, than drafting Amendments, for if Parliament accepts the principle of avoiding dual control it would not, I think, wish to put itself to the trouble of reconsidering the point every time the legislation on local public

1095
health controls came up for amendment in detail. The proposed new Schedule:
"Enactments, other than local enactments, to which Section 9 (1) applies"
contains the details of the English and Scottish enactments. The corresponding Amendments to Clause 20 (2) (i) (Northern Ireland) will be covered by later Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 4, at end insert ("or for the enforcement of").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD TAYLOR: I want only to say that I am grateful to Her Majesty's Government for meeting this point about the maintenance by local authorities of their own monitoring systems. It is important that it should not be impaired where they are already doing a useful job.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having provided a separate list of the enactments in force in Scotland. It was not put in the original Bill, and I think it is a great improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 9, after ("or") insert ("for the time being").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 10, leave out from ("of") to ("and") in line 15, and insert ("any of the enactments specified in the Schedule (Enactments, other than Local Enactments, to which s. 9 (1) applies) to this Act, or any enactment for the time being in force whereby an enactment so specified is amended, extended or superseded").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 16, after ("or") insert ("for the time being").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 17, after ("enactment") insert ("whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act")—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 19, after ("of") insert ("waste or any description of waste, or of")—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move the last Amendment in my name to Clause 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 30, leave out from ("abating") to ("mentioned") in line 31 and insert ("such disposals or accumulations as are")—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (3), after"section six" to insert"or section seven". The noble Viscount said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 inclusive, because they are all on the same point. As the Bill stands at the moment, there is a consultative procedure laid down only in the case of disposals under Clause 6 of this Bill. Clause 9 provides that where there is any need for special precautions to be taken by local authorities and various other public bodies for the purposes of these disposals, there shall be consultation by the Minister with the local authority before the authorisation is granted.
The key to this is the requirement that special precautions are needed. Naturally, if such precautions are not needed there is no reason for consultation. But I have a feeling that in the case of authorisations under Clause 7 for accumulations, and also maybe in the future, where under Clause 10 (1) the Minister provides facilities for disposal which are not at the time in existence, there may be need for special precautions to be taken by local authorities, I therefore think that there should be some provision in the Bill for consultation with those authorities if the Minister should think that special precautions are needed in either of those two cases. I

1097
would emphasise that at the moment, under Clause 10, it is presumably envisaged that the disposal facilities will be, perhaps, at sea, or somewhere where no local authority can possibly be affected; but later on, when more and more disposal facilities are needed, it may be that there will be a requirement for special precautions to be taken by local authorities. It is to guard against that that I am suggesting by this series of Amendments that this consultation should be incorporated in the Bill at this stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 34, after ("six") insert ("or section seven").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: It appears that it might in future be convenient for local authorities to utilise, for example, disused mines for radioactive waste which has a relatively short half-life, rather than go to the expense of disposing of these radioactive wastes at sea or in other ways. In that sort of case, which one can visualise happening in the future, I think consultation with the local authority in whose area such possible places for disposal exist is surely desirable.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My noble friend moved this series of Amendments as one series. I will, with his permisson, reply separately and differently to this one and No. 34, on the one hand, and to Nos. 33, 35 and 36 on the other. The reason is that No. 32 and No. 34 deal with Clause 7 cases and the remainder with Clause 10 cases. As regards the latter series—that is to say the ones which deal with Clause 10—although I suppose they will need to be moved formally, I think they are acceptable in principle, although I would ask him not to press them to-day for drafting reasons. The Amendments seem to be intended to require that the Minister should consult local authorities before making arrangements under the powers given by Clause 10 for the disposal of radioactive waste by the national disposal service. I think my noble friend is right in thinking that normal waste disposed of under Clause 10 may be expected to be highly active, and we therefore think it reasonable that local authorities should be consulted if the Minister intends to arrange disposal in their area. For that reason the prin-
1098
ciple of these Amendments, as we understand it, is acceptable, although, for the reason indicated, I would ask my noble friend to leave it to the draftsmen to tidy them up.
As regards the other Amendments (that is, the one at present moved, No. 32, and its consequential Amendment, No. 34, dealing with Clause 7), we do not take the same view—for this reason. If waste is accumulated under authorisation there will be no need for the local authorities to take special precautions, since accumulation will be allowed only in circumstances in which there can be no discharge. If there is any discharge then an authorisation will be necessary; and if this involves special precautions, consultation with the local authorities follows under the existing provisions of the Bill. For this reason, we cannot accept Nos. 32 and 34, but we will accept the remainder in principle.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. I should be grateful to him if he would just confirm that the accumulations to be authorised under Clause 7 will be such that they will be completely watertight, and there will be no question of any local authority having anything to worry about at all. As regards Clause 10, could the noble and learned Viscount tell me whether he means that the local authorities will be consulted in all cases, or only when special precautions are needed?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: In all cases where the Minister intends to arrange a disposal in their area. I think as regards the first, as I understand it, that corresponds with my information.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank the noble and learned Viscount, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved in subsection (4), after"precautions" to insert,"including the monitoring of radioactivity". The noble Viscount said: This is a slightly different point. A few minutes ago my noble and learned friend said that the monitoring of radioactive waste comes into two categories: one the routine monitoring and the other monitoring when it takes the

1099
form of a special precaution. Am I right in supposing, as I have tried to indicate in my Amendment, that monitoring when it is a special precaution will allow the local authority to recover charges, if they have the authority of the Minister to undertake this monitoring? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 46, after ("precautions") insert (", including the monitoring of radioactivity,").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think I can probably satisfy my noble friend here. In our view, special precautions include monitoring, and all monitoring is a special precaution. I think I am right in saying that. On the other hand, I am sure I am right in saying it is undesirable to define special precautions, because if you start inserting examples you might have undesirable effects on the general definition.
LORD TAYLOR: Am I not right in thinking that the noble and learned Viscount said that the local authority could not recover the cost of routine monitoring?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: What I said was (correct me if I am wrong) that they can recover under Clause 9 (4) against the subject only if the routine monitoring is approved by the Minister. Presumably, they can recover from other subjects under rates and taxes, but against an individual only if it is approved.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank the noble and learned Viscount, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Additional facilities and powers for disposal of radioactive waste]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that where the Minister provides or arranges for the provision of any such facilities he shall notify the local authority in whose area radioactive waste is to be disposed of by virtue of such provision."
The noble Viscount said: In view of what my noble and learned friend has just said, which I welcome very much, I rather doubt whether there is any
1100
necessity for this Amendment, but I should like to make one point. If the Minister is going to consult a local authority whenever he is going to consider providing facilities for disposal of waste in their area, it is possible that he will decide not to do so, and it may therefore be that the local authority will at the end not be perfectly certain which way the decision has gone. Therefore I think it might be desirable to incorporate in the Bill some such Amendment as I have suggested here to make sure that the local authority knows exactly what the situation is regarding facilities for disposal provided by the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 39, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is one of the same series which I agreed to accept in principle before. I should not like to give an answer to the specific point my noble friend raised, because it had not previously occurred to me. I have no doubt it will be noted by the draftsmen and effect will be given to it if it is as good as it sounded when he said it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank my noble and learned friend, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Rights of entry and inspection]:
6.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2) (a), after"premises" to insert"or mobile radioactive apparatus". The noble Viscount said: I think that this series of Amendments are all on the same point. Clause 12 gives the Minister power to appoint inspectors to go round and see, broadly speaking, that premises registered under Clause 1 of this Bill are being properly conducted—in other words, these inspectors may enter premises and ensure that everything is taking place as it should take place. My series of Amendments would enable these inspectors also to go into mobile radioactive apparatus—in other words,

1101
the vehicles which this Committee was considering a little earlier to-day—for the purpose of doing exactly the same thing. I am not quite sure that the powers under Clause 12 of the Bill would enable them to do this. It may be that they could go on to the premises in which the apparatus was situated, but, none the less, could not go on to the apparatus itself. It was for the purpose of clarifying this point that I put down this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 37, after ("premises") insert ("or mobile radioactive apparatus").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the noble Viscount has thought of one refinement which had not previously occurred to me. Actually, I do not think that, in the broad, this Amendment is necessary. The test is not, of course, whether the premises are registered or not, but whether radioactive material is kept on the premises. Therefore, if you have premises in which there is mobile apparatus, the mobile apparatus will be containing radioactive material within the meaning of this Bill, and therefore the inspector can certainly go upon the premises and exercise all the powers of the Schedule, subject to its safeguards. This is only a drafting point, and therefore I do not object to it in principle; but I would point out to my noble friend that in fact it would not be acceptable to shift the power of inspection from subsection (4) to subsection (2), because this would have the undesirable side effect of removing the safeguards from the inspection so shifted. But I would tell my noble friend that in principle the main point which he is establishing seems to be covered and that therefore the Amendment is unnecessary.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank my noble friend. I have an idea that some of this apparatus may consist of fairly large things, and it may be that one has to go inside them in order to see whether all is well. Is the noble and learned Viscount saying that this also would be covered?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This was the refinement which I had not previously thought about and which I had in mind when said that I had not previously thought about it. I should have to look more carefully at the Schedule. My
1102
guess is that it probably would be, because, after all, with most of these places where radioactive material is kept it would not simply be enough to stay in the front hall. Presumably it is in some kind of container, and I do not think the law would be too nice about stopping short of the container, whether it happened to be on wheels or not to be on wheels. But I should not like to give a considered opinion. I will see that those who give careful legal opinion on this drafting will notice the noble Viscount's refinement, because to me it is a perfectly legitimate one and one day might be raised in some interesting case.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank the noble and learned Viscount and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after Clause 12 to insert the following new clause:
Vehicle Markings
".—(1) The Minister shall make regulations prescribing special distinctive markings to be displayed on any vehicle to which this section applies when on any highway.
(2) This section applies:—

(a) to any mobile radioactive apparatus in respect of which a person is for the time being registered under section three of this Act; and

(b) to any mobile radioactive apparatus in respect of which the Authority is exempted from such registration by subsection (1) of section four of this Act; and

(c) to any vehicle carrying radioactive waste for the purpose of disposing thereof in accordance with an authorisation granted in that behalf under section six of this Act or in accordance with subsection (3) of section ten of this Act."

The noble Viscount said: It is quite clear that this Amendment is not necessary because of the regulations which are going to be drafted and laid before Parliament by the Minister of Transport, and I hope also applied to Scotland by the Secretary of State. I hope, however, that the noble and learned Viscount can tell the Committee a little more about the scope of these regulations, because they seem to be relevant to what we can leave out of this Bill. For instance, I would suggest that these regulations should provide for information to

1103
the police when convoys of radioactive substance carrying vehicles are going along a certain route. They should certainly, and most important of all, provide that vehicles carrying any fair amount of radioactive substance—that does not include wristwatches—should carry an unmistakable marking, so that it is quite obvious to all other users of the road, or to all shunters and other personnel on the railways, that the vehicle or wagon does contain radioactive substances.
The chief danger is, and must increasingly be, from road accidents of one sort or another, and if it is quite clear to everybody on the road that a lorry is to be particularly avoided because it contains radioactive substances, I think these regulations will have done the major part of what they are intended to do. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me for going slightly outside the scope of this Bill, and that he will be able to answer in some form the questions that I have put. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think I can help my noble friend very much on this matter, because, as he rather indicated, it would probably be out of order for me to do so. Not only would it be out of order, but I do not think I know the answer. All I was really in a position to say this afternoon was that it was quite clear that the Minister of Housing and Local Government would not be the one to make the regulations, and that it was outside the scope of this Bill. I will try to find out something for my noble friend, but my own belief is that I shall be told by my colleagues that it is not customary to anticipate an announcement on the contents of regulations and that, while they are most grateful to my noble friend, and indeed to my noble friend Lord Stonehaven, who has a rather similar Amendment to come, for the suggestions that they have made in regard to the regulations, it really would not be appropriate to discuss them until they are published. I am almost sure that that is the answer that I shall get.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I suppose it will be quite certain that there will be consultation, for instance with local authorities and other interested people, before these regulations are drafted and so become public?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know that, but it sounds very sensible to me.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Offences]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 2, at page 3, line 28. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 41, leave out from ("being") to ("exempted") in line 42 and insert ("(wholly or partly)").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is consequential on the same Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 42, leave out from ("there-under") to ("does") in line 43.—(Viscount Hailshaum.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Financial provisions]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is an Amendment the purpose of which is, in a common form, to provide for receipts of the Minister under the Act to be paid into the Exchequer. I do not suppose noble Lords will want further explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) Any receipts of the Minister under this Act shall be Paid into the Exchequer").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Interpretation]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This, like the following Amendment, to which it is preparatory, is a drafting Amendment for the

1105
purpose of making the definition of"disposal" clearer to persons whose disposal of waste will be subject to control under the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 36, leave out ("discharge").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 36, after ("thereof") insert ("the discharge thereof, whether into water or into the air or into a sewer or drain or otherwise").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is a purely drafting Amendment to make plainer to those people who have to dispose of waste, and who need to consider whether it is radioactive within the meaning of the Bill, the meaning of the term"contaminated". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 35, leave out from ("by") to ("the") in line 36 and insert ("either or both of the following, that is to say,—

(a) absorption, admixture or adhesion of radioactive material or radioactive waste, and

(b)")

—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is consequential upon that I have just moved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 37, leave out ("by").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 21 agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is the new Schedule of which I have already spoken, and, as I said, it is consequential to Amendments already discussed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After the clauses, insert the following new Schedule:

ENACTMENTS, OTHER THAN LOCAL ENACTMENTS, TO WHICH S. 9 (1) APPLIES

  PART I
  England and Wales
  1. Section two of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888.
  2. Sections eight and fifty-nine of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923.
  3. The following provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936, that is to say, sections twenty-seven, thirty-nine, forty-eight, seventy-nine, eighty-one, eighty-two and ninety-two, subsection (2) of section one hundred and eight, and sections one hundred and forty-one, two hundred and fifty-nine and two hundred and sixty-one.
  4. The following provisions of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, that is to say, sections thirty-four, forty, forty-eight, forty-nine, eighty-two to eighty-four, ninety-three, one hundred and two, one hundred and twenty-eight and one hundred and thirty-seven.
  5. The Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act, 1937.
  6. Sections seventeen, eighteen and twenty-one of the Water Act, 1945.
  7. Sections two, five and seven of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951.
  8. Sections ten and sixteen of the Clean Air Act, 1956.

  PART II
  Scotland
  1. Section thirteen of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1862.
  2. Section seven of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876.
  3. The following provisions of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, that is to say, sections one hundred and nine, one hundred and twenty-five, one hundred and twenty-seven, two hundred and twenty-two, two hundred and twenty-three and two hundred and thirty-three.
  4. Sections eight and seventeen of the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895.
  5. The following provisions of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, that is to say, sections sixteen, seventeen, thirty-two, forty-one, forty-two, one hundred and sixteen and one hundred and twenty.
  6. Sections sixty, sixty-one and sixty-four of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946.
  7. Sections twenty-two, twenty-five and twenty-eight of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951.
  8. Sections ten and sixteen of the Clean Air Act, 1956."—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed.