§ 45. Mr. Masonasked the Prime Minister if, for security reasons, he will give a general direction to the Atomic Energy Authority not to allow the production of nuclear fuel rods by private firms.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) on 22nd April.
§ Mr. MasonHas it not always been understood since the inception of the Atomic Energy Authority that the production and processing of nuclear fuel elements should be the monopoly of the State? Why has it been necessary to farm out the production of nuclear fuel elements to private firms? Can the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that no private firm will be given the opportunity, the "know-how" or the task of processing nuclear fuel elements?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I said in the discussion that we had a week ago, any manufacture of nuclear fuel elements by private industry will be under licence and under proper control. The fissile material involved will have to be fully accounted for, and will remain the property of Defence Departments or the Atomic Energy Authority. Those are the cases we have in mind. No doubt, because it suits the various conditions under which the Authority has to operate, it gives out some of this work. I understand 1096 that the wider question is being discussed within the provisions of a Bill which is now in Committee, and I think that we had better leave it to the Committee to discuss the question.
§ Mr. RobensIs the Prime Minister aware that discussion in the Committee is difficult owing to the habit of the Parliamentary Secretary of moving the Closure every two hours?
§ The Prime MinisterLike the right hon. Gentleman, I have been a Member of a number of Committees. The Closure is sometimes moved and sometimes accepted by the Chair, but it is the decision of the Chair whether the Closure is actually put.
§ Mr. GaitskellIn view of the fact that, owing to the technical complexity of this matter, it is extremely difficult to get clear exactly how far the Government are proposing to go in allowing the production or processing of nuclear elements by private firms, will the Prime Minister consider either making a statement on this matter, giving fuller details, or publishing a White Paper on the subject?
§ The Prime MinisterI shall certainly try to answer any Questions which the right hon. Gentleman may put on the Order Paper, but as there is a Bill dealing with this very subject, I would have thought that its Second Reading, Committee, Report stage and Third Reading would have been appropriate times to have a discussion on the matter.
§ Mr. GaitskellThe Bill is concerned, quite properly, with introducing controls to ensure that this kind of thing takes place only under licence. We are here concerned with a matter of Government policy, and the question how the Government propose to operate the Bill. From that point of view, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a further statement of Government policy in the matter, and make clear how far they propose to allow private firms to produce or process power elements?
§ The Prime MinisterI am trying to answer the Question which was put down. I should have thought that as the matters are closely allied, one of the many stages of the Bill would be a convenient moment to discuss this question.
§ 50. Mr. R. Edwardsasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, apart from Rolls-Royce being permitted to produce nuclear fuel elements for atomic submarines, the firm of Marston Excelsior, Limited, Fordhouses, Staffordshire, a subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, is also producing nuclear fuel elements; when permission was granted for such production; and what security and health arrangements have been provided and maintained.
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. I am aware that, under a contract placed in 1955, this company assembles fuel elements from sealed nuclear components manufactured by the Atomic Energy Authority, which exercises the same sort of control and supervision as in its own establishments doing similar work.
§ Mr. EdwardsIs the Prime Minister aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power refused to give information of this nature on the ground of security? Further, is he aware that it is no secret that this subsidiary of I.C.I. at Wolverhampton is producing fuel elements? Again, is he aware that, in an advertising sales promotion leaflet, the company even produced a picture of the fuel element and advertised it for sale all over the world? is not this a give-away of the people's important capital investments to a private monopoly?
§ The Prime MinisterThese ancillary components have been manufactured for a long time, and it has been arranged through the Atomic Energy Authority. There was a release about it as long ago, I think, as a year ago. There is no concealment of it at all. On the larger issue, I still think that it is very difficult for me to conduct a discussion by question and answer in the House when. at the same time, we have a Bill going through Committee. I really think that it would be better to try to co-ordinate these things.
§ Mr. GaitskellDoes not this confirm the need for an authoritative statement as to exactly what these private firms are doing and what controls are exercised to ensure that they are doing it only in the national interest?
§ The Prime MinisterI say again that if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question to me, I will do my best to answer it. I do not like making these 1098 statements on a very complicated matter off the cuff.
§ Mr. RobensWhen the Prime Minister says that these matters might properly be considered and discussed in Committee, is he aware that, when we discussed the matter on the first occasion, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power refused information on the ground of security, and the matter then came to this House and the right hon. Gentleman cleared it up? Secondly, when this morning we discussed the whole question once again, before a number of my hon. Friends had made their speeches on this very important matter, the Parliamentary Secretary moved the Closure and prevented all further discussion. Will the Prime Minister be good enough to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power to be a little more generous in dealing with the Committee? This is a highly technical matter about which his knowledge is as limited as our own, and we are all trying to deal with the matter on safety grounds. Unless we can have the co-operation of Ministers in the Committee, we shall have constantly to come back to the Floor of the House about it.
§ The Prime MinisterThe last sentence is, perhaps, the key to the point. I understand that the Committee is dealing chiefly with regulations about safety and control. I do not share the views which the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) has expressed. The Committee has made good progress, and the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to be, or seemed to the Chairman to he, quite right in moving the Closure after a very long discussion. [HoN MEMBERS: "Two hours."] That is a reflection on the Chair which I cannot accept. It certainly would not be for me to say anything about that here.
As regards the wider question of policy other than safety, I will repeat that, if the right hon. Gentleman would ask me a question, I will do my best to make a general statement on the matters which might not be wholly germane to the more limited problems of the Bill.