Ministry of Supply

HC Deb 26 January 1953 vol 510 cc680-701

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply for the administration of supply (including research and development, inspection, storage, disposal and capital and ancillary services related thereto); for the supply of atomic energy and radioactive substances; for administrative services in connection with the iron and steel nonferrous and light metals and engineering industries; and for miscellaneous services.

3.49 p.m.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys)

The need for this Supplemenary Estimate arises in the main from the increased rate of expenditure on research and development. In the original Estimate we provided for expenditure amounting to £128 million on research and development, including new works for that purpose. After all feasible economies have been made, we expect expenditure on research and development to exceed that figure by about £21 million. This covers additional expenditure on stores, materials, equipment, buildings and also payments to industry and universities for the research and development work which they carry out on our behalf.

Our ability and that of our Allies to defend ourselves against the numerically stronger forces which we may find ranged against us depends upon our maintaining at all times superiority in the technical quality of our weapons. It must, therefore, be our policy to press ahead energetically with research and development, so that we shall be able to bring into service as quickly as possible new and more advanced types of equipment.

Some part of this increased expenditure is, of course, due to increases in prices and wages, but in the main it provides gratifying evidence that the progress of the technical and scientific establishments of the Ministry of Supply and of the industries which are working with us has been more rapid than we expected a year ago. The acceleration in this work is directly reflected in the expenditure under Subheads B. 2 and B. 3.

This expenditure is not, of course, spread evenly over the whole of this wide field. It has been deliberately concentrated on the points that matter most. A special effort has been made to accelerate development of new types of airframes, aero-engines, electronic equipment and improved methods of jet propulsion.

Work on guided rockets has been intensified, and further encouraging progress has been achieved. Weapons travelling at several times the speed of sound are being successfully evolved for use in both defensive and offensive roles. There can be no doubt that the guided rocket is one of the decisive instruments of war which will dominate the military scene in the none-too-distant future. We therefore, take the view that, wherever else retrenchment may be acceptable, work on guided rockets must be allowed to forge ahead, and that to hold back our scientists or technicians in any way in this vital field would be false and dangerous economy.

Atomic energy is another sphere in which our effort has been expanding. The successful test at Monte Bello a few months ago completed an important phase in our programme of atomic research, and opened up to us a wider horizon for further scientific activity. Likewise, the progress made in studying the peaceful applications of this dreadful force, to which I referred in a statement a few minutes ago, has justified an expansion of our development programme in this field and a corresponding increase in our expenditure.

Expenditure on atomic energy is also included under Subhead B. 4.—"Loans for the production of uranium." Here we are asking for an additional £2,500,000. There are two reasons for this. The first is that the process of extracting uranium as a by-product from gold-mining in South Africa has gone ahead more rapidly than we expected. Additional mines have now been brought into the scheme, and in consequence the drawings upon the loan during the present financial year are likely to be greater than was anticipated. The second reason is that there have been encouraging developments in Australia which have justified loans to uranium producers in Australia as well as in South Africa. I do not believe that I need stress the immense importance of stimulating to the utmost the production of uranium in the British Empire.

Under Subhead E—"Transportation charges"—we are asking for an additional £2,600,000. Of this £1,400,000 is due to the increase in the flat rate charged by British Railways for the carriage of stores and materials for the Ministry of Supply. The balance arises from the increased volume of shipments by sea, partly in connection with operations in the Middle East and Malaya. It also includes the additional cost of shipping a large consignment of picrite from Canada.

Finally, under Subhead G. 1—"Works Services"—we ask for a supplementary vote of £5,850,000. Nearly £5 million of that sum relates to our research and development establishments and arises in connection with the expanded programme of work to which I have just referred. Apart from building work at these establishments, the only other substantial item under this subhead is the increased expenditure incurred on an agency factory for the manufacture of tanks. Not only are these tanks produced for our own re-armament programme, but, as hon. Members know, we have recently secured a substantial order for them from the United States for delivery to members of the N.A.T.O. They will, therefore, earn much-needed dollars.

I hope that I have said enough by way of introduction of this Supplementary Estimate, but if more details are requred the Parliamentary Secretary or I will be glad to intervene again.

Mr. John Strachey (Dundee, West)

I have only a very few questions to ask of the Minister at this stage. I ask them really in the capacity of an old customer of the Ministry of Supply. The Minister has told us clearly what are the general reasons for these substantial—and they are substantial—augmentations of these Votes in the matter of research and development, but there are one or two more specific questions to which I think the Committee would like to know the answers before agreeing to the Supplementary Estimate.

I imagine that under subhead B. 2 the figure is a straight increase, as the Minister said, of the amount of research being done by his Ministry, and the cost of it, partly due to prices. The item which I think will obviously strike the Members of the Committee is Subhead B. 3, under which we are asked for no less than £10 million, or very nearly that, for outside research. That is a very substantial increase, and it is a little difficult to see why an under-estimate of that magnitude was made.

The Minister speaks of the development of atomic work and of the test which was carried out off the coast of Australia, but all that was surely tare-seen at the time of the Estimates. It is a little difficult to understand why an extra £10 million is needed for the development of research outside the Ministry—at universities and in private firms. Is it that large numbers of further development contracts have been placed? One would not at first sight have thought that, because it surely takes much longer than one year for anything to result from development contracts and for substantial payments to be made. I think the Committee are a little mystified as to why development contracts are being given in additional numbers for guided missiles or for new types of aircraft which should necessitate anything like an extra £10 million, even though no doubt they are highly desirable.

4.0 p.m.

Coming to Subhead B. 4—"Loans for the Production of Uranium"—about which the Minister spoke, the Committee would not expect him to tell us very much about the places or methods for which those sums are needed. We are told in the Memorandum, and the Minister mentioned it himself, that it is partly for South African development and partly for Australian development. I should be interested, as I am sure the Committee would be, to be told how these loans work; what is the financial mechanism of them and the need for them? Are they made mainly to individuals or to firms? I imagine that on the Rand large-scale mining companies are concerned, but are loans made to individual prospectors in Australia?

Again, why is it necessary to make use of these methods? I should imagine that the production of uranium is highly profitable. Why is it impossible for it to be developed in the usual way like any other material, by giving contracts and purchasing it as and when it becomes available? Why do the Government have to put up the capital, especially in the case of the Rand, where the companies concerned are large, substantial and profitable organisations? At first sight it is difficult to see why public money has to be loaned for this purpose. I am not suggesting that there may not be a perfectly good explanation, but I think the Committee would like to hear it.

On transportation charges, we understand the increase in rail charges. I take it that is a sort of automatic increase which could not be foreseen. But why should there be this substantial increase of over £1 million in sea freights? I think I am right in saying that there is a decrease rather than an increase in prices there. It must mean that there is a very substantial and unforeseen increase in the volume of shipments, and one does not quite see why there should have been such a sharp increase in the movement of materials about the world in connection with research and development. The Minister spoke of Far Eastern operations, but surely those are not concerned with research and development.

On Subhead G, I should be interested to know how much of the sum actually went to housing. In my experience of these matters, which is indirect but which did arise in the War Office, almost the key question in getting new production was whether housing was available.

The Minister mentioned tanks, and I am certain the whole Committee is glad that additional tank manufacturing capacity is now coming into operation. It is a slow business to make tanks, and a still slower business to build the factories which make them. This had to he started, and was started, as one of the very earliest features of the re-armament programme; in fact the preliminary work was done before the re-armament programme came into operation. As the Minister rightly claims, it is showing valuable results, both in the field of military preparedness and in the economic field. It will be a good investment from the point of view of pure economics, apart from defence. But I remember occasions when one of the real features was the development of housing facilities round the proposed new plant. Those are one or two questions which the Committee might like to hear answered before we part with this Vote.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan (South Angus)

I do not wish to repeat what has already been said, and some of the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) had occurred to me. I wish to raise one point on transportation. I see that there is the sum of £1,200,000 for sea freights to meet an increase in shipments. I also see that in the Army Supplementary Estimate there is an increase of over £1 million for the conveyance of stores by sea and by air. At what point are the goods which the Ministry of Supply make for the Service Departments delivered? Are they delivered at the home station, or at the station, either Air Force, Army or naval, abroad? Is there any overlapping in allotting transportation costs?

I think that delivery should take place at home, and that it would be a cleaner job if subsequent transportation costs overseas, by sea or by air, were the responsibility of the Service Department concerned. I should like an assurance that some clean and tidy financial arrangement is made to ensure that there is no overlapping in transportation charges between the Ministry of Supply and, for instance, the War Office, in whose Vote we are to be asked for another £1 million for the same object.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I wish to asked some questions which are perhaps a little more searching. I should like the Minister of Supply to give us a further and more detailed indication of what exactly is meant by research. "Research" is a word which can cover a wide field of activities. We have found, when questioning Ministers, that even an important Minister like the Foreign Secretary does not appear to know what is being done in the Ministry of Supply. I asked a Question about the nature of the research in certain Departments. I asked, for example, about the research department at Porton biological—

The Chairman

On a Supplementary Estimate of this nature one can only discuss the reason for the increase in the Estimate, and not the original policy, which has already been decided on.

Mr. Hughes

My point is that there is a subhead for research which is so vaguely worded that I wish to put a question to the Minister about whether this additional sum includes any further expenditure upon the biological and chemical station at Porton. When the Minister comes with such a large item for research I believe we are entitled to have a very definite statement about whether it includes anything for this biological and chemical research station. I think that question is relevant, and now that I have put it in a definite form, I hope I shall receive an answer.

I am not at all enthusiastic about these Supplementary Estimates. Indeed, I wish there had been a definite challenge to them from this side of the Committee. At a time when there are huge economies in our social services, we have had brought here today Supplementary Estimates the greater part of which are purely for war purposes. I should like the Minister to make some attempt to estimate what proportion of this Supplementary Estimate is for defence.

Is any sum allowed for the purpose of research for developments which are not identified with the rearmament effort? Recently I have seen urgent criticism relative to building. Building is mentioned in this Supplementary Estimate. There has been some relevant criticism of the very small amount which is being spent on research into the building industry. I should like to know whether the Ministry of Supply are trying in any way to divert the ability, energy and technical skill of our scientists into work which would be useful in the development of the nation's industries.

The items which have received major consideration today are purely for defence or, not merely for defence, but for offensive purposes. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), I should like to get a little more information about the guided missile station in Australia. I have tried to put Questions, but inevitably there comes down this curtain of security. this iron curtain which is round the Ministry of Supply. Whenever we ask about any matter in which we are really interested, we are told that it is not in the national interest that we should know.

I should like to know the total amount which has been spent in Australia. What proportion of the expense is borne by the Australian Government? Can we get some inkling of what results have been obtained for this expenditure to justify the Committee in voting this additional sum. I have my own doubts whether all this research into guided missiles is likely to benefit this country at all. If there had been a Division I should have been prepared to vote against this Supplementary Estimate. I do not see why the countries which are united in the so-called Western defence should appear to be spending large sums in isolation from one another. For example, in connection with the expenditure in Australia, have the results been pooled?

The Chairman

Is not that going rather outside this Supplementary Estimate? We can deal only with the increases asked for. The original policy has been settled.

Mr. Hughes

I should like to know whether any of the increased expenditure has been spent in Australia. Surely we are entitled to know what value is likely to accrue to this country. If there is increased expenditure, apart from the expenditure of other countries, would it be less if we were in some way pooling our resources with the United States of America?

The Minister mentioned the explosion at Monte Bello. It seems to me that when we are facing a severe economic crisis and when we have to cut down expenditure on meals for school children, we ought to pay attention to every Supplementary Estimate of this kind which is brought before us. I believe that the whole of the Monte Bello experiment, which presumably is covered by this increase in the Estimate, was absolutely unnecessary if in another war we are going to fight alongside the United States. I believe that, in the scare atmosphere which is being created, large vested interests are coming into being, in addition to the other vested interests that we have already. The Minister of Supply can now come along and ask us for almost anything in huge sums which are clouded in mystery and the expenditure of which is not really necessary in the interests of the country.

4.15 p.m.

I do not believe that we are entitled to pass an increased Estimate for guided rockets, for example. What are those guided rockets going to hit? If they are going to hit something, are we not likely to expect other guided rockets as a present in return? This country is in danger as a result of the development of this new kind of warfare which the Minister has said will dominate the scene in the future. I do not believe that we shall get increased value for the defence of the people as a result of this increased expenditure. Only a fortnight ago in "The Times" a distinguished retired Air Chief Marshal, Sir Philip Joubert, told us that we did not even have a fighter aircraft today which could stop a jet bomber coming along and dropping atomic bombs on this country. If that is true, I do not see that this is defence at all. It is the diversion of a huge amount of our national resources from industry and useful research which would be of real benefit. If we cannot stop a jet bomber, how are we to stop a guided rocket?

I asked these questions rather prematurely three or four years ago. I do not see that in this Estimate we are doing anything but spending a huge amount of the money of the British taxpayer on items which will bring very little result indeed. I do not envisage any increased security as a result of this expenditure. I see only increased danger for the civilian population. I wish that. instead of acquiescing in these proposals, the Opposition had taken a stand against them.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

I wish to ask one or two questions about Subhead B. 3—not for the same reasons as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—which calls for an additional sum of £9,900,000 for research and development work by industry, extra-mural research at universities, and so on.

The references made by my right hon. Friend to the development of atomic power for use in industry, both in his statement this afternoon and in his introduction of this Supplementary Estimate, prompt me to inquire how much out of the additional £9,900,000 is to be devoted to peaceful purposes, by which I mean the expediting of means of producing electric power for industry, and how much is for a purely warlike purpose, or, indeed, whether it is possible to differentiate between the two in this Supplementary Estimate.

In this connection, I do not think that I should be out of order in asking my right hon. Friend to what extent the Government are acting in this matter of industrial research into increased power development as a sole or monopoly interest in the development of atomic power and to what extent the British Electricity Authority are participating. The nationalised authority maintains a large and expensive research organisation. Is that carrying out parallel development enquiries and research, or are the Government making themselves responsible at Harwell and other similar establishments for the whole of this industrial research into the development of additional power by atomic means? If my right hon. Friend could clear up these two points, it would help us to understand why a sum of nearly £10 million is asked for in this Supplementary Estimate.

I very strongly support the voting of any reasonable additional sum of money that is required for hastening the development of additional electric power in this country. In fact, in Britain with every month and every year that passes we are lagging farther and farther behind the United States, which has enormously greater electric power resources at the elbow of every workman employed in industry than we have in this country. In the United States today, there are no less than 75,000 megawatts of installed capacity in power houses, compared with only 16,000 megawatts of installed capacity in this country, and the gap is widening year by year. It is for that reason that I think that, in the industrial and purely peaceful sphere, as opposed to atomic development for warlike operations, the very highest priority ought to be devoted in the establishments at Harwell and elsewhere to the primary and single purpose of seeking to develop additional sources of electric power cheaply, economically and quickly.

Finally, in that connection, I would strongly endorse what my right hon. Friend said in introducing this Supplementary Estimate that a great deal of misconceived optimism has been shown in the last few months in regard to the rate of development of the use of atomic power for industry. Several newspapers have suggested in the last few months that we may see atomic power being used to drive power house generators in a matter of a year or two. In fact, of course, it may well be years, and the recently published Ridley Report on fuel and power resources came down very strongly in support of the view that it would undoubtedly be a very long time before this essential and very desirable form of development is achieved.

That does not in any way detract from or vitiate my argument that in the sphere of development for peaceful purposes, the greatest possible amount of money and energy ought to be devoted at once to finding alternative and additional means of providing electric power, in place of our steam or thermal power houses which are at present driven by coal.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt (Birmingham, Aston)

I want to ask one question on Subhead B. 3 in regard to the aircraft industry and the extra amount needed for research. I should like to ask the Minister to explain how the arrangements are made between himself and the firms concerned on the civil aviation side. Do we take it that now, in fact, no research on civil aviation or jet propulsion takes place unsubsidised by the Government, or is any research still taking place under the auspices of private firms and paid for by those firms?

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)

I should like to ask a short question regarding Subhead B. 3 which has occurred to me in connection with an answer which the Minister gave earlier at Question time. In his opening statement, my right hon. Friend referred to guided missiles, rockets and jet propulsion, which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has taken to refer entirely to war development. Of course, one of the principal developments arising from the study of rockets and guided missiles concerns knowledge of the upper atmosphere, a region which, despite our present scientific knowledge at ground level, is outside our ken.

I hope that, when my right hon. Friend said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Mr. Perkins) that we were not making any developments towards inter-planetary travel, he did not mean that nothing was being done about research into these regions which are beyond exploration by means of the more conventional methods of air travel. It is an important subject connected with radio and television, and all sorts of scientific developments are affected by what is going on above the stratosphere, which can only at present be reached by rockets. I should like to know whether any part of this Supplementary Estimate is concerned with rocket exploration of regions which we cannot otherwise reach.

Mr. Frederick Lee (Newton)

I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who brought our attention to the fact that the United States has a far greater horse-power per head at the disposal of the workers than is the case in this country, and I should like the Minister to develop that theme a little more, because while, with one or two exceptions, we do not wish to divide against these Supplementary Estimates, we ought to have some more details about what they mean.

The amount asked for—nearly £10 million—is a very considerable sum of money. Incidentally, I do not quite understand the difference between the expenditure under Subhead B. 3 and that under Class IX, Vote 2, which is concerned with assistance to industry. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what the difference is.

Returning to Subhead B. 3, we see that it is for research and development work by industry, extra-mural research at universities and so on, and the Minister said that much of the increase is due to the fact that we went ahead at a far greater pace than he anticipated at this time last year. I think it would be very helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us in just which sphere we have gone ahead at a more rapid pace than was expected.

As far as research in the universities is concerned, some of us have been extremely concerned that the results of that research have not been applied with the same speed in British industry as they are applied in the industries of our competitors. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say something on that side of the matter, and tell us what methods are being used by the Ministry of Supply to ensure that, this research having taken place with the Ministry's financial assistance, there is some link between the research and its application to industry at the earliest possible moment.

I know that, as regards the number of people engaged in research, it may be a question more for the Ministry of Education, because our ability to press forward with research depends upon the success we obtain in introducing more technologists and scientists. Here again, we are all extremely concerned that, in countries like the United States and Switzerland, our competitors—the largest and the smallest—are outstripping us enormously in the production of technologists and scientists. If the Minister of Supply, who, I am quite certain, wishes to go ahead at a faster pace with research and in getting the results through to industry, would concern himself with that side of the problem, he would be doing a good job of work. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether he is satisfied with the results in the universities themselves.

I should like also to refer to Subhead G. 1, which relates to new works. Perhaps we may be told where new works are being sited. The Minister referred to the need for new works and the co-operation between the Ministry of Supply, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour in finding good sites for these new firms. We all know that there are some pockets of unemployment in the country which we are all desirous of mopping up, and, if we are to get the best results, it is very necessary that careful consideration should be given to the special position of the Development Areas when the Minister is making his decisions on siting these new factories. In some Departments no special consideration at all is being given to the position of Development Areas. They seem to be lumped in with the rest of the country, whereas the whole purpose of the Distribution of Industry Acts was that they should be given very special consideration when questions of development are being discussed.

4.30 p.m.

I ask the Minister to tell us where his new factories are sited, and if, in the event of some factories falling to be sited, he will give very special consideration indeed to the question of the Development Areas. The Minister talked about the development of uranium. I have no doubt that we are all very keen to see this development take place, but whether the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Fuel and Power will be quite as keen, I do not know. I recall my old friend Ernest Bevin saying that, given 20 million tons of coal for export, one has a foreign policy.

Whether in the long run it is going to be a benefit to a country whose chief raw material is coal that coal should be supplanted in this way, I do not know. That is something for the future, but it may give some of us cause for thought when we realise that the position of Britain in the world might well be measured by our ability to produce and export coal. I shall be obliged if the Parliamentary Secretary can answer the points I have raised on Subhead B. 3 and about the siting of new works in Development Areas.

Mr. Patrick Maitland (Lanark)

I wish to ask the Minister one question. As regards Subhead B. 3, can he indicate whether the failure of the United States to make available to us the results of their research is to any extent responsible for this increase? Sir John Cockroft stated publicly in New Zealand that the United States had not yet told us whether their breeder reactor was, in fact, breeding. I refer to the breeder reactor in connection with uranium. He said that such a reactor was being built at Harwell, and he left it to be inferred that with United States information available to us we could construct it more cheaply. Can the Minister say whether we shall have to spend more money owing to the failure of the United States to pass us information on this subject?

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham, East)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) asked one or two questions about Subhead B. 4—the loans—to which I should like to add a further question. Can we be told what arrangements are made for the repayment of the money advanced in this way? Does the additional sum provided here involve any change in the methods of repayment?

With regard to expenditure on research, to which many hon. Members have referred under Subheads B. 3 and G. 1, does the Parliamentary Secretary intend to reply to the questions addressed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) as to the nature of the research that has been carried on? If he does, it will be extremely interesting, but I am rather doubtful whether he will. But he might at least go as far as this on the lines suggested to him by my hon. Friend.

As has been pointed out both by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), we are not dealing here solely with matters which can be of use for defence purposes, and I should like to know whether, in so far as there is to be further research, it will be accounted for almost entirely by the accelerated production of weapons of war of the kind referred to by the Minister in his speech, or whether it represents to any substantial extent new discoveries in fields not connected with military and defence purposes.

We know that there are already certain very valuable and peaceful purposes for which atomic and nuclear research may be used. Do these additional figures represent any new departures or discoveries in these fields? When the Minister is deciding to approve a Supplementary Estimate of this kind, and to ask the approval of the Committee for it, does he consider how the additional research envisaged in these figures fits in with the research already being conducted either by other authorities in this country or by authorities in other countries?

I am sure that both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary realise that in this matter of research they have something far more than mere Departmental responsibility to consider. They are entrusted with the development of something that is making a major change in human history, something that stands in relation to our century like the invention of gunpowder did to a previous age. It is perhaps worth recording that in the reign of the first Elizabeth the manufacture of gunpowder was prudently kept solely in the hands of the Government for reasons not so much of industry as of defence and security.

The Minister today wields a somewhat similar responsibility for something that may have similar potential results on the welfare of mankind. When we are asked to vote further sums of money for research, we have the right to be assured that before deciding to ask for that money the Minister has considered how the research on which it will be spent will fit in with any plan of research conducted either by this country or by this country and her Allies.

There are several references in the Supplementary Estimate to the increased sum of money being due partly to further progress and partly to higher prices. It is of considerable importance to know the comparative amounts of those two factors. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say with regard, for instance, to the figure of nearly £10 million under Subhead B. 3, what that figure would have been if there had been no increase in prices, and similarly, with regard to the sum of £4,500,000 at the beginning of Subhead G. 1.

Are we really being asked to vote money in order that more work may be done, or is this money necessary merely in order that an existing programme may be carried through? I raise this point because some little time ago the Prime Minister gave us to understand that it was the Government's policy to spread the defence programme over a longer period than was originally intended. It is surprising, in view of that statement, that we should be asked to vote further sums of money in a debate of this kind.

Of course, there are possible explanations. It may be that, while the defence programme as a whole is being spread out, it has been considered prudent that certain parts of it should be accelerated. Or it may be due to a less satisfactory reason, that, despite a general spreading out of the defence programme, it is still going to cost us more owing to higher prices. It has been the Government's contention that in defence as in other matters they would secure better value for the country's money. That is why I repeat and stress the question of this extra money which we are being asked to vote. Can we be told, even if only in rough proportions, how much of it represents any real increase either in military preparedness or industrial strength, and how much of it is merely due to the inability of the Government to arrest a rise in prices?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low)

I will try and answer the many questions asked by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I think the majority of them have been put on Subhead B. 3 about which the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart), who was my predecessor, has been speaking.

As he showed in his speech, my right hon. Friend, of course, attaches enormous importance to research. As the hon. Member for Fulham, East indicated, it is not possible for us to break down for the Committee's benefit the various items into which this research expenditure is divided. Therefore, 1 am not able to answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).

Nor am I able to answer questions put to me by one or two other hon. Members; and I am afraid I cannot meet requests for enlightenment about expenditure under Subhead B. 3. As my right hon. Friend indicated, the extra expenditure is required because of increased effort and higher costs in respect, amongst other things, of research into airframes, aero-engines, jet propulsion, guided rockets, electronics and atomic energy. I am afraid that I cannot go further than that.

We have been asked whether there is some expenditure on research for civil purposes intermixed with this Vote. The answer is that there is some. That would include some expenditure on the air side for that purpose and, of course, some on atomic energy. A number of detailed questions have been put to me under this head. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred to the development of atomic energy. I can best answer his question by saying that that is, of course, the responsibility of my right hon. Friend; but at points where the problem facing him overlaps problems facing others, and in particular the problems facing the British Electricity Authority, there is consultation with those concerned.

Mr. Nabarro

But is there division of cost in this matter? My right hon. Friend made the specific point that the use of atomic energy for electric power development would carry with it the use of existing generators in power houses. There must be, therefore, some overlapping. Is there any division of this cost between the nationalised Authority and my right hon. Friend's Department?

Mr. Low

The production of ordinary generators is, of course, a matter for the B.E.A. If my hon. Friend studies the answer which I have given, which was that at the point where the problem overlaps with their problems, there is consultation, he will find that that meets his question.

The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) made a point about research in the aircraft industry. As he probably knows, there is, of course, a great deal of research carried out by the aircraft industry for themselves. Research carried out by the Ministry of Supply in air matters is primarily, and in fact overwhelmingly, for military purposes. I believe that my right hon. Friend made that clear at Question time in reply to Questions. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Aston was present.

Mr. Wyatt

Does that apply to jet propulsion in the civil field as well? Is that all done by private enterprise?

Mr. Low

We do a great deal on jet propulsion, as I have said, but, as far as I am aware, there is also some research on jet propulsion carried out privately by the aircraft industry for themselves.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) raised once again the important matter of inter-planetary travel. I can add nothing to the excellent and lucid answer given by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. Some important work being done now will help, or might help, us in the future.

Some questions were put to me under Subhead B. 4 in connection with loans in respect of uranium. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), these loans are loans made to individual companies. They are carefully scrutinised under a scheme which was started under the previous Government. I believe that the scheme was sanctioned in November, 1949. It allows for agreed proportions of loans to these companies between ourselves and the United States Government.

The terms of repayment which were fixed then are applied in the same way to the loans that are covered by this Supplementary Estimate. These loans are made to individual companies because this uranium production is not part of their normal business. Slightly different considerations apply in the case of the loans in Australia, but the same scheme is being followed.

4.45 p.m.

Then there were questions put to me under Subhead E in connection with transportation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West asked why it was that this sum had not been foreseen. I am afraid that it is a fact that a large load in connection with the picrite importation to which my right hon. Friend referred was not foreseen, and this covers the main bulk of the Supplementary Estimate. It is slightly over £800,000. As I think my right hon. Friend said, the rest is mainly taken up in shipments of supplies to the Middle East and Malaya.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) asked whether there might be some confusion between us and the War Office in this matter. In the normal way, supplies that pass through the Ministry of Supply Votes are delivered at home, but part of this Supplementary Estimate covers certain supplies that were ordered, I believe under the previous Government. from Europe and were delivered direct from Europe to the Middle East or the Far East. The transportation costs are met under Subhead E of this Vote. We recover from the War Office under Subhead Z. 8 of this Vote, and I expect that the War Office, in order to pay the Ministry of Supply, have to include it in their Vote.

I was also asked questions on matters arising under Subhead G. 1. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) talked about the siting of factories. I think that my right hon. Friend made it clear that the bulk of the expenditure here was in connection with the Ministry of Supply research and development establishments. There is one factory to which he referred—an agency factory—and that is sited, as agency factories sometimes are best sited, alongside the parent factory. So I do not think that the considerations to which the hon. Member for Newton referred arise here.

The hon. Member for Fulham, East asked whether this Supplementary Estimate represented mainly higher costs or more work being done. Under this Vote, it is a fact that more work is being done. There has been some increase in cost, in particular in connection with the factory to which my right hon. Friend referred. I can best answer the hon. Member's question about higher costs by referring to Subhead B. 3, which relates to research and development by industry, extra-mural research at the universities, and so on.

I cannot give general figures for higher costs under the whole of this Vote I, but under Subhead B. 3. I can tell the Committee that higher costs account for slightly over £3 million of the additional sum required of £9,900,000 out of a total of £62 million.

I think that I have covered the main points that have been made. I am sorry that we were not able to hear all the searching questions of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. I think that he was prevented from putting some of them by the rules of order.

Mr. Patrick Maitland

Could my hon. Friend deal with the question that I put to him, namely, the extent, if any, to which this expenditure under B. 3 is attributable to the refusal of the United States to share the secrets of atomic energy with this country?

Mr. Low

I am sorry I did not refer to my hon. Friend's question. It is, of course, an important question, but I think the relations between this country and the United States are outside the terms of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could make a little more definite one of the statements that was made by his right hon. Friend. I do not know that we have so far obtained any more definiteness from the hon. Member's reply. In fact, those things which were indefinite before have become rather more hazy as a result of his intervention.

I am old enough to remember the time when Jules Verne's book "Round the World in Eighty Days" was regarded as a demonstration not merely of the improbable but of the impossible. When I hear people laughing today at references to the possible speed and distance that we may attain in the future, I remember that in one comparatively short lifetime one has reached the stage when any boy offered that book today would regard it as an insult to his knowledge of the speed which can be attained in the world.

The right hon. Gentleman said, I think, that supersonic weapons now travelled at several times the speed of sound. I think he used the word "several." That is about the kind of mathematical term that the Parliamentary Secretary is very adept at using, but it does not help us very much, because "several" is a somewhat vague and elastic term. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman feels that he could help us by giving a sort of minimum firm number that we could insert for the word "several" and still not reveal anything that would endanger our security.

The speed of sound, as far as I can calculate it—in one interpolation I have been confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), who knows it by heart; I had to work it out—is 765 miles an hour—or just under 13 miles a minute. That sounds a pretty terrific speed, but I wonder if we could be given some indication of the sort of minimum that we have reached in this field.

Mr. Sandys

That expression was carefully chosen in order to be deliberately vague, and I am glad that it has succeeded. As to the speed of sound, I think the right hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct. When I give the correct information I think he will find that the statement I made was even vaguer than he thought. The speed of sound varies according to height and I believe also according to temperature.

Mr. Ralph Assheton (Blackburn, West)

I do not feel that we ought to let this Supplementary Estimate go without calling the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Materials alone are today coming to us for £100 million extra. The explanations which have been given by the Minister may very well satisfy the Committee, and they may well think it appropriate that the Supplementary Estimate should be granted, but it is a very impressive sum of money to be requested as a Supplementary Estimate for these two Departments.

Although I do not expect a reply to this point, I should like to stress what was said by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland), namely, the importance of our co-operation with the United States in trying to reduce the enormous cost of the development of atomic energy in the two countries. I cannot imagine any more beneficent result of conversations with the United States than that, and I hope the Minister will take account of that point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply for the administration of supply (including research and development, inspection, storage, disposal and capital and ancillary services related thereto); for the supply of atomic energy and radioactive substances; for administrative services in connection with the iron and steel, non-ferrous and light metals and engineering industries; and for miscellaneous services.