CLAUSE 18.—(Definitions). (Hansard, 11 October 1946)

§ Mr. Woodburn
I beg to move, in page 11, line 30, to leave out "in," and to insert: from atomic nuclei as a result of. This, and the following Amendment, are drafting Amendments, and are put down on the advice of distinguished scientists in order to shorten the definition of atomic energy by deleting words which are redundant, without altering the meaning of the definition. As this is a very technical subject, I suggest that we accept the scientists' advice in regard to the definition, which is simplified to some extent.

§ Major Vernon
I beg to move, in page 11, line 37, at the end, to insert: nor processes which cannot involve the production of an ounce of fissionable material and do not operate at energies exceeding one hundred watts. The Minister has just explained that he has modified the definition earlier in this Clause in deference to the recommendation of scientists. This Amendment also originates from the Association of Atomic Scientists, and it is at their request that it is worded in this particular form. It is a difficult subject. It is felt that one way of getting exemption for the pieces of apparatus in question would be to define the limits of exemption numerically as put down on the Order Paper; an ounce of fissionable material, or one hundred watts are in relation to the enormous energies concerned in the atom bomb and production of power absolutely negligible but scientific work can be done if not on a single atom, at least on a relatively small number of atoms, and very small quantities of material, but with instruments like the cyclotron which may weigh hundreds of tons. These deal with attenuated gases which they turn into jets of material, particles or waves of energy, but always in very small quantities compared with those used on bombs or production of power for industrial use. This Amendment would give the necessary escape for these large pieces of plant needed for re- 557 searches, which are the key to the whole problem. As time goes on, larger and heavier machines will be required as higher speeds are needed for the researches to explore new fields and regions in nature where we have not been able to penetrate hitherto because we have not been able to get our instruments sufficiently sharp or powerful. The kind of definition proposed is believed to be the best way of exempting such apparatus. We do not attach great importance to "one ounce" and if it were found that five times as much, or half as much, were more suitable that would be acceptable.

§ Mr. Woodburn
We can sympathise with the desire of hon. Members to get definitions and restrictions. This is the old process of constitution making, and in this country we have never had a written constitution, although some people no doubt would like to write it. Immediately one writes a constitution one is tied up with many restrictions never expected to be in that constitution. By using our more flexible method we get far greater liberties and can deal with things on a commonsense basis. Although hon. Members have tried to restrict this in another way, it would be better to leave it on a flexible basis. Technically, the Amendment would be impracticable, because it does not mention any time in which this ounce of energy is to be produced. Is it a second, half-a-second, or a year?

§ Mr. Blackburn
A year.

§ Mr. Woodburn
It does not say a year. It is a rate of liberation of energy, and that is a thing that could not be tied up in this particular way. Moreover, we are not very certain as to how this is going to develop in the release of energy. It may assume proportions which nobody dreamed about. Therefore, to try and put measurements down would be impracticable. There is a further point, as the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) has explained. In atomic energy science one may be operating on the smallest particle and yet give to the world all the principles for operating on the maximum quantity. The secrets are not a question of quantity, but of method and principles. We are still at the beginning, and I would, therefore, respectfully ask that we should not be tied up with measurements which are not capable of application.

§ Mr. Blackburn
May I say that I agree with the criticism on technical grounds which could very easily be met by adding a period of 12 months and by using the words '' energy rights'' instead of "energy." However, I think that the scientists would much prefer to have this in the Bill itself. On the other hand, there is a great deal in the point made by the Minister that it is desirable to have a flexible method by which fundamental research can be excluded. In view of the previous assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Commander Noble
Is it in Order, Major Milner, for an hon. Member who did not actually move the Amendment to withdraw it?

§ The Chairman
No; I am inviting the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment to withdraw it, if he so desires.

§ Major Vernon
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.