HL Deb 09 February 1960 vol 220 cc1070-105

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) 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 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 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 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 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- 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, 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 LATHAM

had 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- 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 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 CULROSS

had 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 HAILSHAM

had 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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:—

  1. (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
  2. (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
  3. (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 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 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,—

  1. (a) absorption, admixture or adhesion of radioactive material or radioactive waste, and
  2. (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: