HC Deb 11 October 1946 vol 427 cc520-30
Mr. Wilmot

I beg to move, in page 7, line 3, after "substances," to insert: or of any minerals specified in the order, being minerals from which in the opinion of the Minister any of the prescribed substances can be obtained and not being minerals in a natural state or contained in a deposit of waste material obtained from any underground or surface working. This Amendment extends the control which is in the Clause as printed in the Bill. As part of the control which the Minister can exercise over the production and use of atomic energy, Clause 10 enables him by an Order to prohibit except under licence, the acquisition, production and use of prescribed substances, or of atomic energy plant. It is thought desirable to extend this part of the control to include acquisition not only of the substance? prescribed, but of the minerals from which the prescribed substances can be obtained, for instance, the mineral pitchblend, from which comes uranium, or monosite, the mineral from which thorium is derived. This Amendment excludes minerals in their natural state, still in the ground, because it would be an offence to buy or possess land under which some minerals lie. Control over minerals in their natural state, or in heaps, is obtained under Clause 6 by the power to acquire and the right to work. This Clause extends the control beyond the substances prescribed to the minerals from which those substances can be obtained. Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Richard Law

I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, after "shall," to insert: in consultation with the Lord President of the Council. I think the purpose of this Amendment is self-evident. We on this side of the Committee, and I think hon. Members opposite, are extremely keen that the powers of the Minister to encourage research under this Bill shall be utilised and exploited to the full. Research and development are among the most important functions the Government are taking over in respect of atomic energy. We suggest the introduction of the Lord President of the Council in this matter, not because we wish to cast doubts upon the ability of the Minister of Supply to conduct research, but because the Lord President of the Council has certain functions in regard to research generally. The Minister of Supply is mainly a production Minister. He is a Minister with a great many other irons in the fire, and has many duties to perform. It is conceivable that in the rush for production, research and development may be rather sidetracked. We therefore suggest that the Lord President of the Council should be associated with the Minister in regard to Subsection (2) of this Clause.

1.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General

We fully sympathise with the object behind this Amendment, but it does raise interesting constitutional issues, and we hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to press it. Nowadays it is common to hear people say that a par- ticular Minister has done this or another Minister is going to do that; the personal pronoun, is, perhaps, too frequently used in these matters. The decisions and actions of Ministers are the decisions and actions of the Government. We think it a very important principle of our Constitution, and one which should be strengthened rather than weakened nowadays, that all Ministers are collectively responsible for the acts of any one of them, and that all Ministers are entitled to be consulted on any matter which affects their collective responsibility. Any statutory provision, such as the right hon. Gentleman here proposes, that some particular Minister should always be consulted in regard to a particular matter, might tend and, I suggest, will tend, to detract from that overriding principle that every Minister is entitled to be consulted on any matter which concerns him.

Clearly, matters of research would concern the Lord President of the Council under Subsection (2) of this Clause. It is perfectly true that in one or two recent cases, Statutes have provided that particular Ministers, who have been regarded as possessing some special and statutory function in regard to particular matters, shall be specifically referred to, and provisions have been made that their consent is to be obtained before this or that is done. The two cases I have in mind are those of the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Secretary of State for Scotland, also in regard to planning matters. But the general principle in regard to this was laid down by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison), then Minister of Agriculture, in 1937 in connection with a Bill which affected agricultural matters, and we accept what he then enunciated. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also accept it.

Unless it is clear that a particular Minister has a special and overriding responsibility under some Statute, such as the Minister of Town and Country Planning or the Secretary of State for Scotland may have, in regard to certain definite matters, provision for consultation with any particular Minister is unnecessary because it ignores the wider obligation to consult all interested colleagues, unconstitutional because it weakens the doctrine of collective responsibility, and undesirable, if I may say so, because it tends to establish a precedent which might either lead to the introduction of similar provisions protecting the position of a similar Minister in every other Bill or, on the other hand, might tend to imply that there was no need to consult one's colleague unless he was specifically referred to in the Bill concerned. In these circumstances, and with the assurance that in the operation of this Subsection of the Clause there would, of course, be the fullest consultation with the Lord President, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Law

There is obviously a great deal in the constitutional argument put forward by the Attorney-General. The only reason why we put down the Amendment in this form was simply to underline and stress the overwhelming importance, in our view, of research over this whole field. However, I think it is clear, for the reasons which the Attorney-General has just given and in which he quoted a precedent from an Administration more respectable than the present one, that it would be unwise to seek to insist upon these words. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wilmot

I beg to move, in page 7, line 11, after "education," to insert: for medical and biological purposes. This Amendment is one which, I am sure, will commend itself to the Committee generally. Clause 10 (2) places a duty on a Minister, if control over a mineral substance or plant is imposed, of securing, as far as possible, that he shall, by the issue of licences, see to it that these mineral substances or plants are available for purposes of research and education and for commercial purposes not involving atomic energy. The purpose of this Amendment is to extend this dispensation to minerals required for medical and biological purposes, and to require the Minister, as far as possible, to issue licences so that they may be used for those purposes also. As has been mentioned in the discussion, radioactive substances are already used as trace elements in medicine and biology. The radioactive properties enable such substances to be traced through human and plant systems, and they may be of very great value in medical and biological research. I am sure that the Committee would wish to put everything possible in the Bill to strengthen the use of these materials for these purposes.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Mikardo

I beg to move, in page 7, line 12, at the end, to insert: (3) The Minister shall present a report to both Houses of Parliament at least once in every session of Parliament showing the names of persons and bodies to whom licences have been issued under Subsection (1) of this Section and the number and character of such licences. One of the difficulties which this Bill raises is that of reconciling secrecy, in certain circumstances, with the paramount need that Parliament should always have control over the actions of its Ministers. This is a difficulty of which there were many instances during the war. Many of us who were outside Parliament at that time noted with admiration the way in which that Parliament, which may or may not have been more respectable than the present one, safeguarded its rights in the matter and insisted on a very large degree of Ministerial accountability to Parliament, even in matters where it was very difficult to demand from the Ministers disclosure of what they were actually doing. We have the same problem in this Bill, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when moving the Second Reading. What we have to do is to find some means of allowing the Minister to go his mysterious way in the development of atomic energy, because that necessarily must be the case, without altogether escaping the duties which rest upon him as the basis of his accountability to Parliament. The Committee know that, whenever we talk about these things, we are never talking about the present Minister; we are always envisaging a successor greatly inferior to him both in competence and in his respect for the rights of this House and the nation. It is entirely in regard to this hypothetical successor of my right hon. Friend that I am speaking at this moment. Clearly, the feeling is very strong in all parts of the Committee that, in this matter of the development of atomic energy, there should be no equivocation about its being carried out under a very close public control, a degree of control which can be achieved only by public ownership. We are all agreed about the necessity for nationalisation.

In this Clause, the Minister takes unto himself—I think we are agreed, quite rightly—powers to deviate from this general principle by giving licences to other persons and organisations to do some of his work. I repeat that we are all agreed that this is no doubt a sensible thing in the present initial stage of development, and, perhaps, at some future stage, when it might be highly desirable for the Minister to farm out some of his responsibilities in this way, and I think it would be a mistake for the Committee to try to prevent him. But I also think that it is sensible and does nothing to break down the barriers of that degree of secrecy which is necessary if we ask the Minister to come and tell Parliament once a year how far he has gone in subcontracting his responsibilities for the development of atomic energy. We shall want to see whether the number of proposals for which it is decided in the early stages to grant licences under this Clause increase or decrease, for then we shall have some measure of asking for information, without asking the Minister to disclose scientific secrets, simply by watching the incidence of the issue of licences. That is really all that we are asking the Minister in this Amendment, and I warn my right hon. Friend that my hon. Friends and myself will not go quite so quietly over this one as we did over the previous one.

All we are asking him to do is to come along once or twice a year to tell us the number of persons or companies or individuals to whom he has given licences under Clause 10 (1). We are not asking him to tell us what the licences are for or their terms, because he may have extremely good reasons in the national interest for not disclosing them, but, at least, Parliament is entitled to know who are the receivers of his responsibility under this Section and to see whether the Minister is carrying out, in spirit as well as in the letter, the wishes of Parliament, and, particularly, to know that the Minister has assumed the major, and, as far as possible, the whole, responsibility for the development of atomic energy.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I should like to support what my hon. Friend has said in moving this Amendment, and I very much hope that the Minister will accept it. This Clause is one of the few Clauses in the Bill which places a positive duty on the Minister-Parliament is directing the Minister to secure, as far as practicable, that licences shall be issued for the purposes of research and education, and for commercial purposes, not involving the production or use of atomic energy, as well as to the other purposes for which this Clause has been amended on the suggestion of my right hon. Friend. It is always desirable that, when Parliament places duties on a Minister of the Crown, Parliament should be able to see that those duties are being carried out, and this has been made particularly necessary in this case, where we are dealing with a subject which, for purposes of national security, must be enveloped in a certain amount of secrecy.

It is most desirable, in my opinion, that, wherever possible, the secrecy surrounding this subject should be lifted and that we should be given the widest possible information with regard to the progress made in research on atomic energy, so that the public may know what developments are taking place and the kind of bodies and organisations that are working on them, and, generally, to reassure the public that the fullest use is being made by the Minister to develop atomic research for the eventual benefit of the nation. While I think that, in any event, it would be desirable that Parliament should insist on periodical information from the Minister on how he is carrying out duties of this kind, it seems to me to be especially necessary in this case, because, unless Parliament has such information, it will be impossible for the House of Commons to do its duty in criticising the Minister, commenting upon his actions or raising the matter in the House at all, in connection with the progress that is being made. I feel that it would require some far more convincing reasons than have yet been given to the Committee to justify us in not insisting upon this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles (Down)

I would be inclined to advise the Minister not to accept this Amendment. We all know the importance of this Bill and the secrecy which is attached to it. I have been reading through the further Amendments on the Order Paper, but, of course, I would be out of Order if I referred in more than a word or two to the last Amendment, where, for the first time, we see that the Irish Land Act, 1907, and another Act, are to be disregarded in regard to the disposition of mining rights. It is very obvious that the Minister and his Department think that great secrecy must be maintained, or they would not go so far as to introduce such an Amendment as they have proposed to Clause 20. We know that, at the present moment, America has offered to make the whole of her work on this atomic power public to the whole world provided that the same inspection is allowed in Russia as in other countries, and that Soviet Russia has refused it.

Mr. Blackburn

I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member would not desire to say that Soviet Russia has absolutely refused, because this matter is now under negotiation in New York, and nothing should be said here today to imperil the extremely important negotiations which are going on in New York.

Sir W. Smiles

I would be very glad if I were proved wrong and if it were the fact that Russia had accepted that position. Perhaps the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) has more information than I have. However, at the present moment, with international negotiations in progress, the Minister would be very wise to refuse to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Beswick

I feel that the hon. Gentleman who spoke before me is under a misapprehension about this Amendment. There is nothing here to suggest that any technical details should be made public. There is no possible danger of any secrets being given to foreign Powers as the result of this Amendment being accepted. There is one point which I want to stress, and that concerns the amount of money involved in this Bill. The Bill makes an initial provision for £30 million. On the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) stated that in the United States £200 million had already been expended. In point of fact, the amount of money which has already been expended in this field in the United States is in the region of 2,200 million dollars, and it is likely that the sum of £30 million will be exceeded by a very large amount in this country. Obviously, therefore, although we should not know the financial terms as between the Ministry and any particular firm or person to whom a licence is issued, it is advisable, on this ground alone, to know which industrial concerns or persons are engaged in work of this character. The fact that the day to day supervision of financial expenditure cannot be exercised, does not mean that we should not have some general idea as to who is handling the very large sums of money which might be involved in this connection.

Mr. Wilmot

I am sure we all appreciate the necessity for the most active Parliamentary control in this most important matter, and I myself am very alive to it. The Minister will be required to give to the House of Commons frequent and full information about what he is doing with the vast powers which are entrusted to him and in accordance with the duties which are laid upon him in this Bill, but I do not like the method suggested in this Amendment and, although I feel, as does the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), the necessity for securing information, I hope he will not press this Amendment. I will explain why. The Minister will, of course, be here to answer any Parliamentary Questions. This very information can be obtained from time to time, as often as any hon. Member may desire it, by putting down a Question on the Order Paper. There will be Debates and reports from time to time as Parliamentary occasions arise. But that is different from inserting in the Statute a requirement that at least once in every Session there shall be a published report of all the names of the persons and bodies to whom licences have been issued, and the number and character of such licences. In the nature of things, as this matter now stands, the number of leading persons concerned in the work is so limited, that the publication of a list of persons to whom licences have been granted to do development and research work and, to use the words of the Amendment, "the number and character of such licences," might well disclose the very information which parts of this Bill are designed to protect. I would, therefore, ask the hon. Members who have put down this Amendment, for reasons which we all appreciate and support, not to press it. There is another reason—

Mr. Eric Fletcher

Would my right hon. Friend forgive me for interrupting? Is he suggesting that if an hon. Member puts down a Parliamentary Question directed to eliciting the names of persons and bodies to whom licences have been granted, that information will be given?

Mr. Wilmot

No. The point is this. In the case of a Parliamentary Question, the Minister has the opportunity of saying that it would not be in the public interest to give a certain part of the information which is asked for, and I think in this case the Minister must reserve that right. We all know that from time to time, for perfectly good reasons, information is sought in Parliamentary Questions, which cannot be given without involving the nation in danger. We have got that safeguard if we proceed by way of Parliamentary Questions, but if we make a statutory obligation on the Minister to do what is set down in the proposed Amendment he cannot use that safeguard. He must set it all out and very likely disclose the very information which the Bill is designed to protect.

Mr. Blackburn

I do not suggest that what my right hon. Friend is now saying is not just conceivably possible, but I put it to the Minister that this is a little far-fetched in view of the fact that the Smythe Report, published by the United States of America, as to the way in which the atomic bombs were produced, gives the whole of the information which was asked for by my hon. Friend, and indicates who is responsible in detail— which companies were responsible, which universities were consulted, and even the names of the persons responsible.

Mr. Wilmot

I am not now thinking of the past. I am thinking of the future. We all hope that not very far off in the future, these security provisions will not be necessary, but we have to face the fact that to-day they still are. I would regard it as a most dangerous addition to the Bill if this obligation were laid upon the Minister. There is another reason. Because of the subject and the limited state of our present knowledge, we have been bound to do something that is very distasteful. If the Committee look at Subsection (1) (b) they will see that even the plant designed for research has to be licensed. The Minister will, therefore, be requiring scientific men working in their own laboratories to have licences in certain circumstances and, having laid that obligation upon the scientists, I do not think it would be fair to publish to the world that he was doing certain work in a certain line of development with certain plant, which would be disclosed to any knowledgeable person if we followed the words of this proposed Amendment. Therefore, I ask the Committee to believe that it is absolutely necessary that we should exercise to the limit the Parliamentary controls which are available. All the information that the House requires will be given, save only such information as would be of danger to the State. But the Government are bound to be the only people in possession of the information which would enable them to form a judgment on that matter, and, therefore, on the assurance that nothing will be withheld which can safely be revealed if it is sought, I would ask the mover of this Amendment to withdraw it.

Mr. Mikardo

In the light of what my right hon. Friend has said, and with the assurance contained in his last phrase, coupled with the earnest hope that the rights of Parliament in this matter will be safeguarded by the continuance in office for many years of the present Minister of Supply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.