HC Deb 19 April 1948 vol 449 cc1425-7
35. Mr. Emrys Hughes

asked the Minister of Supply how much money has been spent on research as to how atomic energy can be used for industrial purposes in times of peace as compared with the sum spent on the atomic bomb.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

It is not possible to make the comparison requested by my hon. Friend since almost all the effort involved in the research programme is of common application to both the industrial and the military potentialities of atomic energy.

Mr. Hughes

Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to a statement by Professor Bernal that 50 per cent. of our scientists are now engaged on war work and that 66 per cent. of the money spent on research work is devoted to war purposes? Could he say anything about those figures?

Mr. Strauss

I have not seen those figures, but they are certainly not correct.

Mr. Harold Macmillan

Is it not a fact that the gentleman in question referred to defence purposes and not war purposes?

41. Mr. Blackburn

asked the Minister of Supply whether he will state the circumstances in which the atomic energy programme was delayed owing to the lack of priority for iron and steel until some date in 1947 in spite of the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons on 5th March, 1946, that the needs of atomic energy research should be accorded the highest priority; and what action he has taken to prevent a repetition of such delay.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

During 1946 there was no formal priority and reliance was placed on executive action, based on general statements of the Government's attitude. By the early part of 1947 it had become apparent that more formal treatment was required, and the Prime Minister's list of priorities, which included atomic energy was issued.

Mr. Blackburn

Does the Minister state to the House that despite the Prime Minister's statement, the highest possible priority was not given for atomic energy research, and in view of the great importance of this matter will he reconsider the submission of the Select Committee on Estimates that there should be an impartial committee of the House to help him in the discharge of this important function?

Mr. Strauss

In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, the formal priority was given in March. Prior to that, certain executive action was taken which it was hoped would be satisfactory, but it was considered later that some more formal arrangement should be made, and it was made. In reply to the second part of the question, I really do not think that any committee as suggested would be helpful.

Mr. Blackburn

Do I understand the Minister to deny or to accept the fact that delay occurred after the Prime Minister's statement owing to the failure to give the highest possible priority to atomic energy research?

Mr. Strauss

I repeat that certain action was taken which did hasten matters, and many improvements were brought about. More formal priority was given a little later when the need for it became apparent.

42. Mr. Wyatt

asked the Minister of Supply what was the expenditure by this country on research and development of the atomic bomb before the agreement to combine research with the U.S.A. came into operation.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

Work in this country on the atomic bomb, during the period early in the war to which the Question refers, was preliminary and exploratory, and conducted principally in University laboratories. This work was of supreme importance, but the cost in money was not large. To arrive at the exact figure would require an unjustifiable amount of time and labour.