HC Deb 05 March 1959 vol 601 cc620-2
45. Mr. Albu

asked the Prime Minister what proportion of the income of the Atomic Energy Authority is derived from public funds.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)

Under the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, the expenses of the Authority are met out of moneys provided by Parliament. The 1958–59 Estimates showed expenditure of about £119½ million reduced by Appropriationsin-Aid of about £13½ million. In addition extra receipts payable to the Exchequer were estimated at just over £3 million.

Mr. Albu

In view of the fact that the great majority of the income of the Authority is received from public funds voted by Parliament, does not the Prime Minister think that this body cannot be treated like a commercial or nationalised industry and that it is wrong that Parliament should not have the opportunity to discuss the administration of the Authority, even in its day-to-day affairs, particularly in view of the present grave dissatisfaction among the staff of the Authority, especially among the members of the Isotopes Division?

The Prime Minister

I cannot accept that deduction. Section 3 of the Act makes it quite clear that while the Minister has power to give the Authority such directions as he may think fit, he Shall not regard it as his duty to intervene in detail in the conduct by the Authority of their affairs unless in his opinion overriding national interests so require. While I have had the duty of trying to represent the Atomic Energy Authority in Parliament, I have tried to interpret this according to what I think both the spirit and the letter of the Act require.

Mr. Gaitskell

Is it not the case that a great deal of the Government money which is involved here is on capital account and for research and other purposes and cannot be regarded as a normal trading loss or anything of that kind?

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir. There is a large amount of money to be invested. It is really a vast research undertaking and the return, if at all, comes from the ultimate benefit of the research applied when the time comes to apply it.

Mr. Gaitskell

I merely wish to confirm what, I think, was in the Prime Minister's mind and to ask whether it is the case that, in effect, the financial benefit from this undertaking will not necessarily accrue in financial returns to the Exchequer, but in the general benefit to the country, the Defence Departments and civilian industry as well?

The Prime Minister

All those are points to be taken into account in taking a general view of this activity. What the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) had in mind was, I think, to try to show that because, for the present at least, the expenditure of money was far greater than any return could be expected to be, it should be administered in a rather different way from the other nationalised industries. I was trying to rebut that and to point out that under Section 3 of the Act, I thought my duty as the Minister responsible was not to intervene in the detail but only to intervene in large matters of public policy.

Mr. Gaitskell

I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman should not intervene in detail, but would not he agree that there is, surely, a difference from the other nationalised industries because of what he has himself said, namely, that this is, in effect, a large public research undertaking and one cannot talk of balancing the accounts year by year, or anything of that kind?

The Prime Minister

One can summarise these things as one likes. This one can never pay. The others do not pay.

Mr. Albu

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.