HC Deb 19 March 1963 vol 674 cc190-2
13. Mr. Peter Emery

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what information the Minister for Science gave the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority staff representatives whom he recently received about the prospects for employment at Aldermaston after the spring of 1964; and if he will make a statement.

37. Sir A. Hurd

asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science to what extent changes in the programme of work to be undertaken by the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment will necessitate staff changes at Aldermaston; and if the Authority expects to be able to offer comparable employment to the scientists and technicians whose services will no longer be required at Aldermaston.

Mr. Denzil Freeth

My noble Friend recently received a joint deputation from the staff and trade union sides of the Authority's Joint Industrial and Whitley Councils at which the situation was fully discussed. He confirmed to them that, while the load on the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment and its outstations was not expected to diminish substantially before March, 1964, a reduction thereafter could not be ruled out and the deputation asked that everything possible be done to minimise its effect on employees.

Mr. Emery

Does my hon. Friend realise that that Answer is not entirely satisfactory? Aldermaston means not only A.W.R.E. but also A.E.I. Does my hon. Friend realise that the scientists at this institute are having great difficulty in finding new jobs? Will he co-operate with A.E.I. and also the Minister of Labour on the replacement of redundant scientists? Does not he think that this is a golden opportunity for the Government to be able to use these men in creating greater peaceful uses of atomic energy?

Mr. Freeth

In answer to the first part of that supplementary question, the operation or removal of the Associated Electrical Industries laboratory at Aldermaston is not a matter for which my noble Friend has responsibility. On the second part of the question, we are co-operating with all other Government Departments to alleviate the problems of any scientists or professional people who are made redundant from the Authority's staff. In regard to the third point, this of course would mean a substantial increase in Government expenditure.

Sir A. Hurd

Can my hon. Friend say how many men and women will be affected and whether all those who will be affected have been notified? Can he give an assurance that all the buildings and equipment at Aldermaston—established at very considerable expense—will be continued for some useful purposes after 1964?

Mr. Freeth

It is impossible until all the implications of the changed defence programme resulting from the Nassau Agreement have been worked out to say how many men or women or what categories will have to be redundant, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall inform the staff as soon as we possibly can.

Mr. Emery

Will my hon. Friend revert to the last part of his original Answer to me and press a little more for this extra expenditure? If we are running down the establishment, cannot the balance of the money be used for peaceful uses, and the improvement of peaceful uses of atomic energy as well as the defence of this country which is equally as important? Do not let anyone misunderstand that. The two should go in balance.

Mr. Freeth

I am very glad that my hon. Friend is supporting the very substantial programme on the civil side of the Atomic Energy Authority. He will have noticed that only recently we have authorised the Authority to build a steam generating heavy water reactor at Winfrith Heath. It is essential to keep the programme in balance, but it has to fit in with all the other scientific and industrial policies of the Government and cannot be considered in isolation.