Lords Sitting of 5 July 1951

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

GUARDIANSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF INFANTS BILL [H.L.]
2.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I rise to move that this hill be read a second time. It is a small Bill, but it deals with an intricate and important subject. On reflection, my reading, of the Bill convinces me that our law on this subject is in rather a muddled stae. We have two broad codes — one, those Acts which deal with wife maintenance, the Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Acts, and another, the Guardianship of Infants Acts. Then we have certain Statutes like the Maintenance Orders Act, which we passed last year, Which applies to both of them. These two codes are not quite consistent, and I think this is one of the topics which, when we have time, we might usefully consider as subject-matter for consolidation, together with, perhaps, the Bastardy Acts.
However, it is not the object of this Bill to do anything of that sort. It has been drawn with strictly limited objects, and I hope that it will not occasion controversy or difficulty. It sets out to do two things: first, to alter the law relating to venue in proceedings under the Guardianship of Infants Acts. These are Acts which enable a court to make orders for the custody and maintenance of infants. The second purpose of the Bill is to cure an anomaly that has arisen in the amount of maintenance that may be ordered by a court of summary jurisdiction.
Last year, in the case of The King v. Sandbach Justices, the High Court held that applications under the Guardianship of Infants Acts (there are two such Acts, the first dated 1886 and the second dated 1925) to courts of summary jurisdiction
654
can be made only to the court for the place in which the respondent resides. That arose in this way. The Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886. defined, so far as England was concerned, the court having jurisdiction to entertain guardianship applications as the High Court and the county court of the district in which the respondent resides. The Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925, which first conferred a limited jurisdiction on courts of summary jurisdiction, did not say expressly which court of summary jurisdiction was to be competent—the court for the place where the respondent resides, or the court for the place where the applicant resides, or both.
Until the decision of the High Court in the Sandbach Justices case last year, many courts of summary jurisdiction had been in the practice of following the general rule in the Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Acts, and of entertaining applications in the court for the district where the applicant resided. Under those Acts, the Separation and Maintenance Acts, the venue lay where the cause of complaint wholly or partly arose, which generally included the court for the place where the applicant resided. In 1949, however, the Married Women (Maintenance) Act of that year extended the jurisdiction so as to include expressly the court for the place in which the married woman or her husband resides. We think it well that the applicant's court should have jurisdiction, and we think it right to extend the jurisdiction for that purpose. That, we believe, would be in keeping with the modern tendency in summary jurisdiction law. By this Bill, therefore, we propose to give the courts of summary jurisdiction the power which, before this recent High Court decision, it was generally thought they possessed, and this applies whether the applicant is the father or the mother.
In addition, we propose to give jurisdiction to the court for the place in which the infant is. We propose to apply both these changes to the county courts for conformity. It would be wrong to regard this proposal as a proposal to favour the woman as against the man. In guardianship cases, it is a fundamental principle that the interests of the infant are paramount, and we believe that the easier it is to bring the case before a court, the better the infant's interests are likely to be served. The extension of venue is in

655
Clause 1 (1), and in Clause 4 (1) we propose that orders which turn out to have been made without jurisdiction should be validated. This is an exceptional provision, I agree. But unless we do that, we shall inflict very great hardship in a large number of cases on people in quite humble circumstances. We should, indeed, cause grave doubt to be cast on the position of those concerned in cases which arose before the commencement of the Act. I need hardly inform your Lordships that the jurisdiction of the High Court is in no way affected.
As for the second main purpose of the Bill, as I have said, orders for the custody and maintenance of infants may be made under the law relating to wife maintenance and under the Guardianship of Infants Acts, although the two methods of procedure are not completely interchangeable. In the Married Women (Maintenance) Act, 1949, the amount that might be awarded by a court of summary jurisdiction in connection with a wife maintenance order was raised from ten shillings to thirty shillings a week. Since then, there has been the anomaly that orders made under the Guardianship of Infants Acts are limited to twenty shillings a week, whereas the maximum for similar orders under the other Acts is thirty shillings. We therefore propose that the maximum in orders under the Guardianship of Infants Acts, and certain analogous orders, which are referred to in Clause 2, should be raised from twenty shillings to thirty shillings. This is done in Clause 1 (3) and Clause 2 of the Bill. This Bill applies only to England, except for the clause which adjusts the position of income tax under the new maximum payments, which, for the purpose of uniformity, is applied also to Scotland; and I gather that for that limited purpose our Scottish friends welcome the application of the Bill. That is the substance of the Bill. I commend it to your Lordships, and beg to move that it now be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, those of your Lordships who have listened to the explanation of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will have no doubt that we should assist in passing this measure into law. Perhaps
656
I may translate what the noble and learned Viscount has said with so much accuracy and learning by imagining a single and simple case. Suppose that a married couple, Mr. and Mrs. X, have separated and are living in different parts of the country, Mrs. X in Surrey and Mr. X in Yorkshire. They have a child, and the mother, Mrs. X, desires the court to appoint her as the guardian of the child, which in most cases is an entirely proper thing to do. The child may be with the mother, but it is possible that it may be elsewhere—let us say in Wales. As the noble and learned Viscount has explained, as the law stands at present if Mrs. X, living in Surrey, wishes to apply to the court for an order giving her the guardianship of the child, and if she desires to apply either in the county court or to the magistrates, as is usual in the case of poor people, she cannot do it in the place where she lives. She must search out Mr. X in Yorkshire. She must, of course, serve him with the proper process, because these orders cannot be made without his knowledge. Then she has to take her proceedings in a county court or before a magistrate in Yorkshire, going there for the purpose. That is the only jurisdiction which at present can be exercised by a county court or justices in these cases.
As I follow the Bill—and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong—its effect, so far as the first and more important provision is concerned, is as follows. It provides that in future Mrs. X, living in Surrey and wishing to apply for an order for the guardianship of her child, may take proceedings in Surrey where she lives; or in Yorkshire, where her husband lives; or in Wales, where her child happens to be. I should think that that arrangement is one which most people would think fair and reasonable, it being always understood that before an order is made the husband has to be served with notice that his wife has made an application for the guardianship of the child. The court will consider the circumstances, hear the respondent, if he chooses to turn up, and make a suitable order. The woman will be saved travelling to another part of the country, and obviously justice will be more conveniently, expeditiously and cheaply done.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor says he thinks the Bill

657
should also include a provision for the application to be made in the court in the district where the infant happens to be, which in most cases would be where the mother is, though not necessarily always so. This question occurred to me —and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will say a word on it, if he thinks fit to say anything at all at the end. If Mrs. X has made an application in Yorkshire and has failed, can she subsequently make another effort by applying in Surrey; and if she fails in Surrey, can she make a further application in Wales? No doubt the answer is that, once having been made, an order is intended to remain either in her favour or against her, without allowing her to try again before a different tribunal, unless the circumstances have changed. I do not think the point is entirely an easy one, but no doubt the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has considered it or will consider it. Of course, if the application were made to the High Court, as there is only one, obviously there cannot be any question of that sort. If the circumstances have changed, the woman who has failed in the first instance may succeed in the second instance, but apparently it is not intended that she should be able to apply to a series of courts rather in the way in which some people apply for a writ of habeas corpus to every Judge on the Bench, one at a time.
That, I think, is a simple but practical illustration of the way this Bill is meant to work, and I should think that it will commend itself to the good sense of all your Lordships. The other provision, making the amount of money which can be ordered to be paid correspond with the two sets of Statutes, is obviously right, and it is not worth spending time dealing with it. Therefore, so far as I have any judgment to offer the House in the matter, I should say that this is clearly a case where the House will be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading, and will be glad to see it pass into law.
2.51 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said. The only point with which I want to deal is the question of the second application. I agree that the point is not altogether easy but I have the authority of the case of The King v. Middlesex Jastices, ex parte Bond, for this proposition,
658
where an application was made to the Middlesex Justices and was refused, and then the person being refused that application went back to the Middlesex Justices and again asked for an order. There being no change of circumstances (if there is a change of circumstances the question does not arise) it was decided that the defence of res judicata applied; that is to say, the case had been decided and could not be raised again. It is true that in that case both applications were made before the same court, but I believe the same principle would apply, and that the same decision would be reached even though one of the applications were made to a different court of summary jurisciiction; that is to say, if there were no change of circumstances I believe the defence of res judicata would still be applicable; it would be said that the matter having been adjudicated upon, and there being no change of circumstances, it could not be reopened. I believe that to be the answer, but I take this opportunity of mentioning it so that it may be looked at by any of your Lordships who has been good enough to take an interest in this matter. For the rest, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, this is a short Bill but, like many short Bills, it is a very valuable one. Its purpose is clear. It is to enable my right honourable friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning to continue his good work of making grants towards water supplies and sewerage schemes in the rural areas of England and Wales. It will be remembered by your Lordships that the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, fixed a maximum amount for grants towards such schemes of £15,000,000. All of the £15,000,000 provided under that Act has been allocated: £3,000,000 has actually been paid, and the remaining £12,000,000 premised, to local

659
authorities. This Bill raises the maximum by £30,000,000, from £15,000,000 to £45,000,000. Grants are made from this fund for the smaller schemes on completion of each scheme, and for the larger schemes at intervals as each stage is completed. It will interest your Lordships to know that the number of approved schemes up to day is 800 for rural water supplies, and 550 for rural sewerages. The local authorities in rural areas are already preparing further schemes, which it is estimated will cost some £40,000,000. Therefore, the outlook in the rural areas is most encouraging.
Noble Lords will have noticed from the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that it is expected that all the schemes coming under the new grant will be completed in seven years. I need not tell your Lordships that that depends on a number of unknown factors. If it is a period (as we hope it will be) without major catastrophies—that is to say, with no catastrophe of any kind which adversely affects the labour and materials position—the schemes will be completed within that period. It also depends on how quickly the schemes can be prepared. As your Lordships, especially those who have had experience of these matters, know, the provision of water supplies and sewerage in rural areas is necessarily a lengthy process. Schemes have to be planned to meet foreseeable needs for many years ahead, which is not always easy, and regard must be had to anticipated new developments in those areas, to the prospect of co-operation with other local authorities, and also to new agricultural demands and other similar points. All these things must be considered, and consideration takes time.
There is one administrative arrangement which I may mention between the Ministry of Local Government and Planning and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in order to obviate delay. Under this arrangement, the Ministry of Local Government and Planning accept responsibility for schemes which are mainly for domestic purposes but which, nevertheless, have a large agricultural element, while the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries will deal with the schemes—even though they may be promoted by local authorities—that are intended
660
mainly for agriculture. My right honourable friend is anxious that I should stress that he desires to press on, through the local authorities, with the formulation of schemes, but it would be utterly futile —I hardly think it necessary to say this in your Lordships' House—not to realise that it is possible that the rearmament programme may slow down the preparing and the carrying through of the schemes envisaged. Otherwise, there is great confidence that all the schemes which are likely to be brought forward will be completed within the seven years to which I have referred. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
2.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord opposite for having explained so clearly the provisions of this short Bill. I should like to say how pleased we were on these Benches to hear two remarks which fell from the noble Lord. The first, if I understood him aright, was that there are to be no watertight compartments between the Minister of Local Government and Planning and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries; and the second was the real intention to press on with this business of providing rural water supplies. We are now getting towards the end of the Session, which I might describe as the season for Bills; as was once said, "Thick and fast they come at last." But this is a Bill which we on this side of the House wholeheartedly welcome. I understand that we are not the only people to welcome it, because I believe that the Rural District Councils Association, in their conference at Torquay, gave it an equally hearty welcome; and I believe that at that conference the great majority of the rural district councils in this country were represented.
I am well aware that this has been certified as a Money Bill, and, therefore, even if we wanted to (which we do not) we could not go to the length of rejecting it. If the Bill by itself were to herald an immediate improvement in rural water supplies and sanitation, I think there would be little more to be said. But, unfortunately, it is not so simple as that. The noble Lord himself has mentioned one of the difficulties namely, rearmament—which may come between promise

661
and performance. After all, this is only a Bill to enable the Ministry of Local Government and Planning to make promises to local authorities that in certain conditions a certain amount of money will be allocated for approved water and sewerage schemes. That is all right, but I do not think I shall be contradicted when I say that that is the easiest part of the whole matter. I feel almost inclined to quote the motto which one sometimes sees in the offices of harassed business men. "Don't worry, it may never happen."
I hope I am entirely wrong in that regard, because it would be a commonplace to say how important we think, and everybody thinks, this business of rural water and sewerage is. If we recall what has been done in the earlier years—the noble Lord opposite did not mention the earlier years, and I will not go into them in detail—I think we shall all agree that the earlier work was the easier work. Obviously it was. The simpler schemes were carried out, and they were schemes which would involve the ratepayers in as little expenditure as possible and would give benefit to the greatest number of people. The result was that, just before the war, over 7,500 villages had a water supply in one part or another of their village. I think it is fair to say that when the work of completing the rural water supply was started under the 1944 Act, there again the easier jobs and the more profitable jobs were tackled first, as they should have been. None the less, as one goes on tackling the easier jobs, so the hard core is left, and the task becomes harder and harder; the distances over which the water has to be carried grow longer and longer, and the deficits which have to be met by local authorities with the assistance of the central Government, are likely to grow greater and greater. I will not deny that.
However, there is the work and we all agree that the work is necessary. In practice, we are getting to the point—I know that we are in my own district—where a great deal of this work which is now to be undertaken by local authorities will link up with the work carried out by the country landlords, not under this group of Acts, but under the agricultural group of Acts, whereby subsidies have been Granted for estate water supplies. Here, I suppose, I must declare my interest, because I am a country landlord. I myself have carried out more than
662
one water supply scheme under the Agricultural Acts, and I am looking forward to the day when our own water supply will link up with the estate's supplies. That is very important, because estate supplies, coming from wells, springs and so forth, are now fully extended in providing for the essential domestic needs, and also for the demands which are increasing all the time—the demands for water caused by the tightening up of the specifications and the standards under the milk and dairies ordinances.
In a great many cases local water supplies which were quite sufficient for things as they were in the past will not now be sufficient for the new requirements—cleanliness of cowhouses, for instance, and all the other requirements. They are all important, but they consume a large quantity of water and the supplies which the estate provides will not be able to meet the demand unless, so to speak, estate supplies are boosted by the local authorities' water provided under this Act and the previous Acts. Until that happens it will not be possible, in a great many cases, to do more than provide the actual water for domestic use; and in many cases it will not be possible to furnish water board sanitation and all those things which are described in advertisements as "every modern convenience." Therefore, we have this need to reach out and to link up with this group of Acts following upon the 1944 Act and the Agricultural Acts which subsidised and encouraged water supplies on agricultural estates.
May I give your Lordships another reason why this matters important? We have often talked in this House and elsewhere about the problem of stopping the drift of young people from the country to the towns. Speaking as a countryman, I would say that there are three directions in which that problem requires to be solved—water supply, electricity and transport in and out of the towns. In my part of the country, certainly, those are the three vital needs. If we can reach a proper standard of facilities in those three directions, then the country will become just as good a place to live in, and in some ways a better place to live in, than the towns. But if we cannot, we shall fall down on the job, with all the consequences, which everybody realises, to agriculture and, therefore, to the defence effort and so forth. Those are the three

663
prime needs, and perhaps noble Lords opposite will agree with me when I say how important it is that people in the country should get their fair share of these benefits when they are going.
Now let me turn to a practical point of view, the impact of the Government's capital investment programme on this question of sewerage and water supplies. I think it was forecast in another place that £8,000,000 yearly was to be spent for the next three years. The noble Lord opposite, if I heard him aright, said that the money to be provided under this Bill was to be spent in seven years. That, if I may say so, begs the question—as I think the noble Lord opposite realises—of whether we shall be able, in the years following the next three years, to allow a bigger proportion of capital expenditure to be spent on these things. If so, well and good. The scheme would then probably be likely to come to fruition. But if by any chance it is not possible to make a bigger allocation from the money available for improvements of this sort at home, then none of us must suppose that this programme is going to be fulfilled in seven years, and we shall have to wait a little longer. I am quite at one with the noble Lord opposite in realising that the requirements of the armament programme may be overriding requirements, and that if they have to be fulfilled, they will demand a higher priority than any expenditure on rural water, much as we should wish it to be otherwise.
Let me turn to one or two other problems. We shall have to see whether we are making the best use of the money available for allocation for meeting capital costs of providing rural water, and we shall have to see whether we are making the best use of the materials available, the steel, iron, cement, and so forth. It strikes me very forcibly, from what I have seen going on in the country, that we may not be getting the best value for money in some of these water schemes. I do not want to lay that complaint only at the door of the Government, because I know that a great deal of the responsibility for careless expenditure, if there is such a thing, or for delay in the execution of contracts, if there is such a thing, or for anything else like that, may rest not with the Ministry
664
of Local Government and Planning, but with the local authority, or even with the contractor. But if we are to be limited in the amount of money we can spend on these things, surely it stands to reason that we must see that the money we spend is spent in the best possible way, that there is no waste in the money paid to contractors, and no undue delay, and that we do not create unnecessary difficulties over the question of raw materials.
May I explain in detail what I mean? In the past, it has been the practice in water and sewerage schemes to make use chiefly of iron or steel pipes—and, of course, they are the best possible type for this purpose. But there are other kinds of pipes. There are the asbestos and cement pipes. Incidentally, cement and asbestos are not such useful materials for the war effort as cast iron or steel. It strikes me that we may have to reconsider our standards. It would be satisfactory to say that nothing but the best should go into water or sewerage pipes, but the best may be the enemy of the good. I hope that, for the time being, at any rate, no one in local government or in the Departments is going to be "sticky" about insisting upon cast iron or spun pipes and thus set up competition with the armament programme, since asbestos or some other substitute pipes may be equally good. I believe that during our debate the other day on the Ministry of Materials Bill it was mentioned that the Minister was charged with looking into this question of substitutes. Here is a job for him straightaway.
So, my Lords, although we have been promised this £30,000,000, there are many fences to be got over before promise is translated into performance; and before promise is translated into performance we want to see the money spent to advantage and to see these numerous schemes coming off the drawing board and being put actually into operation. For these reasons we on these Benches support this Bill. We support it all the more because of what the noble Lord said in introducing the Bill: that the Government intend to press on—and therefore, I imagine, intend to see results obtained. That will require a constructive partnership between the Government and the numerous rural districts and other local authorities who are concerned with this scheme. We all know that the rural district councils vary in

665
their efficiency, and in their power to press on with schemes. I am sure that, with all die powers which the Minister of Local Government and Planning has, he will be able to support the efficient and progressive councils, and to guide and encourage those who have not the same experience and the same facilities. Let us not forget that it may well be that the people who most need these water supplies are the least well organised to achieve what they want. I feel certain that the Government realise that these people will watch to see that the schemes are proceeded with while the real need exists. We are delighted to find the scheme conceived in this way because, as the noble Lord has indicated, this is a practical scheme—far more practical and objective than any talk of national water grids, which is now, I think, all over. We shall not wish to amend so short a Money Bill and we shall hope to see it reach the Statute Book at a very early date.
3.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I should like to welcome this Bill and to say how glad I am to hear of the progress that has been achieved and the determination of the Government to carry on with the work. But we who are concerned with local gmernment live in a world of make-believe. We are encouraged to make great schemes and then are told that we cannot carry them out. Therefore, we must be excused if we look even the most promising gift horse in the mouth. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill said that many of these schemes are complicated and take a long time to prepare, and that is certainly no exaggeration. There is in my own county a scheme in which I was interested as long ago as 1947, partly because it was designed to provide many villages and other places with water. I inquired then how long the scheme would take to come into operation. I was told three years. I have made similar inquiries annually since 1947 and I am always given exactly The same answer—three years. I am glad we are keeping abreast of the problem: but it would be encouraging if we could make some progress.
It is easy enough to blame local authorities for this delay in a scheme, where there are two or three district councils, a county council, one water company
666
or more, and the Ministry of Health on the scene. Of course there are delays, and of course it is quite normal that we should blame each other for these delays. But I think there are one or two reasons for the delays. One is the degree of inflation of prices that is going on all the time. What happens is that die scheme is prepared—it may even be ready to be put into operation—and then there may be a shortage of pipes, and that may mean delay. When the delay is over and the pipes are there, they may be a good deal more expensive and labour costs may be higher; and this may upset the entire financial aspects of the scheme. It may be that some of the constituent authorities have to raise their charges, and that means Parliamentary procedure of some kind, which, again may lead to some delay. I am only saying in effect that, valuable though this. Bill may be, it will be still more valuable if these ancillary difficulties can be removed, and if every possible reason for delay can be tackled at the same time as the actual scheme to lay the pipes and make the reservoirs to supply the water. I know the Government have given some attention to this matter and I hope they will continue to do so.
3.19 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, there is such agreement about this Bill that I wish to say only a very little. But I should like to join other noble Lords in blessing it and in saying how much we on this side of the House welcome it. It concerns a most vital problem, which becomes more manifest when we consider that something like one-third of those who live in our rural areas at the present day are still without a water supply. I speak with a particular interest because in 1934 I was Parliamentary Secretary to the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Walter Elliot, who was responsible for introducing the first Rural Water Supplies Act. Under that Act, something like half a million rural dwellers were given a piped water supply. The points that have been made by noble Lords on this side of the House amount to this: we trust that from now this matter will really be pressed on. It is a little discouraging when we recall that in 1944, £15,00C,000 were voted for this purpose, and only about £250,000 has been spent. Now that we are in

667
creasing the amount available from £15,000,000 to £45.000,000, the rate of progress will, we hope, be more rapid.
I should like now to raise a point which, though not strictly relevant to this Bill, is relevant to the subject under discussion. I am convinced that the real problem here is the administrative difficulty. It is not a question of the willingness or the desire of Ministers and Departments to push ahead; it is not a question of policy. It is just this administrative machine that seems to be "getting us down" in so many directions. May I give your Lordships a short personal experience of mine the other day connected with administration? For some years, I have been trying to lay on water—as I think most other landlords have been doing— to my remote cottages and farmhouses by the simple method of pulling a pipe behind a tractor, thereby saving the cost of digging. I proceeded on that basis to supply a cottage that was three-quarters of a mile from any other water point. so your Lordships can visualise that that cost a certain amount of money. When the scheme was completed, when the pipe was there and the matter had already been mentioned to the water authorities, we asked the water authorities to turn on the taps. An inspector came along and said: "The pipe is only eighteen inches deep. We have justpassed a model by-law which says that it shall be two feet six inches deep. Therefore, we cannot let you have the water." That is not the way to encourage landlords to improve their properties.
It is a situation that is made even more crazy by the fact that I own only a small estate another part of the estate is under a private water supply; this part is under the rural district council water supply. I am still allowed by the private water company within half a mile to put the pipe only eighteen inches deep. I am not complaining of the action of the district council, because they have been trying in every way to be most helpful; they said that they were working under direction from the Ministry of Health, and could not do anything about it. This may seem a small point, but it is vital in the case of those remote properties. I venture to suggest to the noble Lord, if he will pass on the suggestion to his colleague in the appropriate Department, that, although two feet six inches may be
668
for most purposes preferable to one foot six inches (I will not go into that technicality), with regard to these special rural cases, where the only practical way of laying on these remote cottages at a reasonable cost is to pull the pipe under the ground it cannot be sunk much deeper than one foot six inches. In my view, the district council should be given power to use their discretion, so that this method, which is the only method of getting supplies to those cottages at a reasonable cost, may be continued. That is the only practical point that I want to put to the noble Lord. Having said that, may I again say that we are delighted that this Bill is put before us, and we hope that it will go through, and come into active operation as soon as possible?
3.25 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, seldom have I heard a Bill given a warmer welcome by the Opposition than this Bill has been given. I am truly grateful. It seems to me that the whole of the debate has turned on the question of the rate of progress, how quickly can the job be done. Before I deal with the facts that affect that. may I assure the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that though he has raised an irrelevant point, it is a vitally important point, and I shall certainly bring it to the notice of my right honourable friend. There are three factors which affect progress. They have all been mentioned: the shortage of material, the ever-changing costs and the rate of progress of the buildup of the labour force. May I make a brief statement on each? I realise that your Lordships are interested in the debate which is to follow this Bill, but I would say this. As regards the rate of progress of the build-up of the labour force, I asked for figures, which I will give your Lordships. The average monthly head of labour employed in the period from January to December, 1947, was 9,804. From January to March, 1951—I will give no intermediate figures—it was 19,156, more than double.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: On schemes under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: That is right. I could separate those figures into water

669
and sewerage, but it is not necessary. I am giving the totals—9.804 from January to December, 1947; 19,156 from January to March, 1951—that is, this year. The shortage of material I will mention briefly. The noble Lord was right when he mentioned the danger of confining ourselves to one type of material. He referred to spun iron and asbestos cement pipes. He realised that, at the present juncture in our history, we may find it better to use one type of pipe rather than the other. The Department, I would add, keep in close touch with the manufacturers of both, and this question is constantly under attention.
As regards steel rods and bolts for reinforced concrete, temporarily they are almost unobtainable. Otherwise, there are no serious shortages of materials at this momment. The other matter with which I want to deal is the question of costs. I agree that these are so uncertain that no one dare venture to give any firm prediction. There has been a steady increase in costs during the past two years, and some evidence that they are approaching the level of three times pre-war costs of similar works. What will happen between now and the end of seven years' time I do not know. I said earlier that whether or not these contemplated schemes can be completed within the seven years depends on very many unknown factors. All we can do is to give a definite undertaking that we shall do all that is possible in the circumstances to see that these schemes are completed during the next seven years.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he undertake to convey a message to the Iron and Steel Corporation with regard to the nuts and bolts?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: If it should be necessary, I will.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will interrupt our proceedings at the earliest convenient point in order to make a Statemention Persia.

ATOMIC ENERGY
3.30 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL LORD CHERWELL rose to move to resolve, That this House regrets the slow progress made in this country in developing atomic energy for peaceful and for war-like purposes and calls upon His Majesty's Government, whilst maintaining broad general control, to transfer work on this subject from the Ministry of Supply to a special organisation more flexible than the normal Civil Service system under the direct control of the head of the Government. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had hoped that it might be unnecessary to move this Resolution. Remembering the sympathetic reception given to my views by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, I should still like to believe that the Government might have been persuaded to make the needed changes if he had not, unfortunately been stricken down by illness. But, as I hope to convince your Lordships, things have become so urgent that we cannot just sit back until the House reassembles after the Summer Recess and watch this great and vital project decline, as I feel it is bound to do unless it is reorganised can summarise in a very few words the reasons why I ask the House to pass this Resolution. During the war we worked hand in hand with the United States on atomic weapons. It is incredible that, despite their elaborate spy system, in 1945 the Russians should have known more about the production of atomic bombs than we did; yet they have managed to make and test one years ahead of us Could anything be more unsatisfactory?
The matter has become urgent because Lord Portal, the Controller of Atomic Energy, is leaving next month, and his principal scientific adviser has already left. I hope to convince the House that unless the present organisation—the cause of most of our delays and frustrations is changed, it will be very difficult to get anyone adequate to accept these key positions; and unless we do the whole project will disintegrate and atrophy. Although the development of peaceful uses of atomic energy will be impeded by bad organisation it will be several decades before this aspect becomes very important. But the delay in the production of atomic weapons is a much more urgent matter, for the use of nuclear energy in war constitutes as big a step forward

671
(perhaps I should say, backward) as the introduction of explosives into this diabolical form of human activity. Our long-drawn efforts to persuade the Kremlin to agree to some form of effective control have failed, and nothing in the present state of the world encourages the view that the Politburo, or whoever governs these matters, will be too high-minded to use these weapons if it should suit their book. Indeed, unless we also possess them we shall be in the position of savages armed with boomerangs and bows and arrows confronting armies using machine guns. Not only will our days as a great Power be numbered, but we shall be faced with slavery or even extinction.
All this, I think, is common ground. We do not complain about the Government's attitude in this matter. From the first, they recognised that it was vital that this country should maintain its position in the production of atomic weapons, just as it seeks to do in the production of other arms. Nor do we complain about the scale of their effort. They have not grudged men, money or materials, in the pursuit of this objective. What we complain about is the delay in achieving results. Why is it, I repeat, that the Russians with their imperfect information have been able to produce a bomb in half the time it is taking us? I think the reason is quite clear. It is because our organisation is not of the sort required for this purpose. As the House knows, it was decided in the latter half of 1945 to confide the supremely important task of producing atomic weapons to the Ministry of Supply. This decision has, I think, proved to be singularly unfortunate, for, with all its merits, the Civil Service is quite unfitted to cope with this sort of undertaking. I am not blaming the Civil Service for this. On the contrary, I think that, considering the immense handicap under which they laboured, all those concerned have done extremely well. It is just that it is the wrong sort of tool for the job. You cannot expect to win a tennis championship if you insist on using a niblick instead of a racquet.
The manufacture of atomic weapons is quite unlike the manufacture of any other weapon. Research of the most recondite kind, such as measuring the cross-sections of nuclei under bombardment by neutrons
672
of various velocities; development of methods to shoot together the sub-critical parts of the bomb and to make them detonate; production of fissile material involving large-scale separation of isotopes or extraction of traces of new elements from mixtures so radioactive you dare not approach them—all these aspects interact upon one another and are so closely intermingled that it is an undertaking of quite a novel kind.
The Government quite rightly decided that the project must be unified and welded together. The mistake was in handing it over to the Civil Service. If every decision and every plan, or change of plan, has to go through all the interdepartmental committees and obtain Treasury sanction, if every appointment has to be approved by the establishment officers, interminable delays are inevitable. What is needed is some much more flexible organisation, freed from the trammels and restrictions which are bound to hem in any sub-department of a Ministry. Naturally, it would be under Government control. Indeed, in my view, considering the importance and urgency of the project, it should be responsible to the head of the Government, for he alone could settle quickly any difficulties which might arise with any department, and he alone could cut through red tape. Only in this way can we get quick decisions and the right men. Rapid progress can be expected only if the people in charge are allowed a reasonably free hand. Only men used to tackling large industrial developments can successfully handle operations of this nature.
But industrialists of this sort, accustomed to take decisions and responsibility, cannot be fitted into the Civil Service machine. The Civil Service would find them singularly indigestible; and they, for their part, except in war time, would be very unwilling themselves to be swallowed by the Civil Service. If the project had been entrusted to some flexible organisation, freed from the inevitable restrictions of a Government Department, it would have been much easier to induce men experienced in large industrial undertakings to take a leading part in the work; and, given reasonable freedom of action in making plans, in making contracts, engaging staff and so on, they would, I am sure, have produced for us atomic bombs at least as fast as the Russians.

673
This difficulty does not arise only in the top ranks; it extends all down the line. Rightly or wrongly, many good engineers and scientists do not like the idea of joining the Civil Service. They know that they will be less independent than in industry, and that their work will be prescribed for them and regulated by the administratise civil servants who often know little about the subject and yet enjoy a much higher status. For this reason alone it is very hard to get and to keep the right sort of man. In this country, un high-grade technologists are all too scarce—there are more jobs than men.
Working as I do at Oxford, in close contact with the experimental station at Harwell, I see a good deal of these difficulties. The House would be astonished if it knew what a large proportion of the best men have left or are trying to leave. The fact that higher salaries are paid in industry than in the Civil Service is not unimportant; but it is by no means the main trouble. There are numerous other difficulties concerned with housing, transport and so on, which could easily be dealt with in an independent corporation without constituting precedents—which would be quite intolerable in the Civil Service. Even when men of the right type have been to consider appointments, the inevitable delay and red tape have often resulted in their being snapped up by other employers. For Treasury approval has to be obtained for each post, and the Civil Service Commissioners have to be satisfied that the mode and terms of each appointment conform to traditional usage.
In 1946 I called attention to the difficulties which were likely to arise owing to this, and we were assured that they could be and would be circumvented. But I think it will be found that in practice the complications were such that short cuts of this sort were few and far between. Quite apart from the difficulties of manning the establishments, progress would have been cnormously accelerated if rapid decisions could have been obtained. In Government Departments, as we all know, innumerable conferences and committees have to report before anything important can be decided. In private business, things are often settled in a couple of days that would be held up for months in a Ministry. But difficulties of this sort have been arising and have held up the progress of
674
this work. I will give the House just one instance of the sort of things which have happened. In the case of one large project, an interval of three years occurred before the decision of the technical people that the project was necessary showed above the ground in the form of bricks and mortar. True this was a big undertaking, equivalent to erecting a large power station. But I cannot believe that such a long period would have elapsed if the atomic energy project had not been part of the Ministry of Supply.
One of the most serious objections to the present arrangement is concerned with security. As my noble friend Lord Swinton pointed out in a recent debate, the security officers are set an almost impossible task in present circumstances. A civil servant, as the House knows, can be shifted from one post to another (Ally if it can be proved—I emphasise the word "proved" —that his associations with the Communist Party are so close that it would be dangerous to leave him in a post in which he has access to secret information. Before anything can be done the so-called "purge" procedure has to be invoked. The House will realise that it is often exceedingly difficult in this country, where we do not keep police records as they do abroad, to prove to the satisfaction of a quasi-legal tribunal that a man is not a good security risk. Unless this can be done, such a man remains at his post. Even if he is not immediately concerned with most secret matters, 1t.3 is bound to know—and can certainly find out—a good deal about what is going on in other sections where secrecy is absolutely vital. I am sure that if he has been properly instructed, the Minister will not venture to deny the existence of cases of this sort, causing the gravest anxiety. All this, of course, could be avoided in a more flexible organisation. People would be given contracts with a "break" clause. It would be possible to get rid of them without any stated reason on payment of six months' or a year's salary. Naturally, their salaries would have to be higher. But surely it would be well worth it. If we could have prevented Fuchs giving the information to Russia which has enabled them so quickly to make atomic bombs, it would have been worth paying many millions of pounds.
It has been suggested that these points should have been raised when the

675
Atomic Energy Bill was before the House. I do not admit this. Nothing specific was stated in the Act as to how the project was to be organised. It would have been open to the Minister to form a semi-independent body, had he so desired. As I have said, I pointed out some of the difficulties as to staffing, division of responsibilities and the need for a directed drive, and I hoped that the Minister might take account of them. But I was willing to wait and see what was done. And, knowing that the noble Viscount, Lord Portal, had patriotically undertaken the control, I hoped for the best. Apart from this, when the Bill was before the House, security considerations were in the foreground of our discussions. Up till then there had been no stop, except the Official Secrets Act, on communicating what might be vital secrets in this field by anybody to anybody. It would have been impossible to hold up the Bill while we discussed details of the organisation which the Minister might intend to set up.
I cannot understand what are the objections to working on the lines which I have been adumbrating. They have been adopted by every other country working on atomic energy. The United States has its semi-independent commission. Take Canada, South Africa, France, Sweden, Norway: there is not one of these countries that is trying to carry out atomic research and development in a Government Department. Why should it be wrong here to organise the work on the lines all these other countries consider to be right. After all, there are plenty of precedents for organisations of this sort. We have the Medical Research Council and the B.B.C.; we have the Electricity Authority and the Coal Board. We have the Colonial Development Corporation; and in the war we had the United Kingdom Corporation. It is nonsense to say that arrangements could not be made by which a vital project like the atomic energy project could be entrusted to some semi-independent organisation without undue risk to the public interest or the public purse. Indeed. this was the course contemplated by the Coalition Government when these questions were examined in the first half of 1945. The then Chan
676
cellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Anderson, saw no objection from the Treasury point of view. If Sir John Anderson, who started life as a civil servant, accepted such a possibility, surely there can be nothing inherently wicked about it. But I hope that I am preaching to the converted. Only yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, gave the House clear and convincing reasons—endorsed by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough—why the production of coal, electricity and so on, could not be entrusted to the Civil Service. If that is true of such straightforward things as coal and electricity, how much more clearly is it true of a complicated and entirely novel undertaking like the production of atomic weapons?
The other objections to taking the atomic energy project out of the Ministry of Supply are equally unconvincing. The Coal Board, we are told, is in quite a different position; it pays its way. The atomic energy project cannot expect to spend all this public money without minute Treasury control. But if the atomic energy project charged the Services for the atomic weapons supplied, then, surely, it also would pay its way. And, incidentally, do all the other Corporations pay their way? Do the Medical Research Council, or the B.B.C., or the Colonial Development Corporation, or the Food Corporation, all make vast profits? Of course not. But in all these cases money derived from taxes is spent for what is believed to be a useful public purpose. The production of atomic weapons is in exactly the same case. Sometimes it is contended that if this organisation were admitted for the atomic energy project other Service research groups, such as the guided missiles group, might claim to be treated in the same way. But this argument is fallacious. These other projects involve research; they do not involve new principles. They require development, but no novel production methods. Once the missile, or whatever it may be, has been designed and tested, its production can be put out to contract. Production and development can be separated. This would not be possible with atomic weapons. Until the fissionable material has been extracted, research and development cannot be finalised. Production, development and research are inextricably linked. Even if we had complete blue

677
prints there is no firm from which we could order a thousand atomic bombs; for they would have to begin by building vast plants to get the raw material.
It is said that, in any case, scales of pay would have to be much the same as in the Government scientific service, so what would be the use of the new organisation. Are they really the same in the Coal Board and the other organisations? It is very difficult to find out, but it seems that they are not—certainly not at the top. In any event, as I have said, it is not only or indeed mainly, the rates of pay that are at issue. It is the rigidity and inflexibility of the Civil Service system which must be dispelled. It is essential that it should be possible to consider various cases on their merits and to make special arrangements where necessary. Anyway, it is not a good thing to haw work of this sort done by people receiving much less than men doing equivalent work for private firms, even if we can get them to do it. A man tends to wonder whether he would not be better off elsewhere and to become disgruntled; and what is worse, it puts the employer at the mercy of the man who can at any moment walk out and find a better job.
As time went on those who had been in close touch with the technical aspects of the project, all of whom had been doing their best to make it a success, came to the conclusion that things could not go on as they were going, and that a radical change on the lines I have indicated was absolutely necessary. For some years now, efforts have been made, backed by he best technical advice, to induce the Government to take the project out of the hands of the Ministry of Supply. Nothing has been done. What has bought the matter to a head, as I have said, is the departure of the Controller, Lord Portal, and of the deputy controller for technical policy, his principal scientific adviser, Mr. Perrin. As your Lordships know, Lord Portal has been in charge of atomic energy production for five years. All who have seen anything of his work admire his gallant efforts to make headway against all obstructions and frustrations inherent in the organisation as it stands. No one could have done better in the circumstances. Indeed, I doubt whether anyone else could have done so well in face
678
of such difficulties. All of us who have been connected with the project deplore his departure.
Now comes the thorny problem of finding his successor. In our view, it is this that makes it so urgent to free the project from its Civil Service trammels. For unless this is done, I am sure it will be extremely difficult to induce anyone of sufficient eminence and ability to accept the post. When Lord Portal patriotically stepped into the breach, it was hoped that things might work out satisfactorily. Now, people know they have not, and suitable men will be very chary of letting themselves in for such an ungrateful task. The outlook is rendered all the darker for Lord Portal's successor owing to the departure of Mr. Perrin. From the very beginning, when Sir Wallace Akers took over executive control under Sir John Anderson in 1942, Mr. Perrin, a distinguished chemist from Imperial Chemical Industries, has been second-in-command. Not only does he know all the hack history, the personalities involved, and the details of our negotiations with America, but he is the only man in the Ministry of Supply headquarters, I should say, who has a really profound knowledge of the scientific aspects of the work, as well as of the chemical engineering and economic problems involved. I do not think the Minister quite realises how hard Lord Portal's successor will find it to become acquainted with, and to understand, the extremely difficult and recondite questions involved in atomic energy work without someone with Mr. Perrin's qualifications to advise and help him. However great his previous knowledge of this subject, anyone who accepts the post in such circumstances will be a brave, even a foolhardy, man.
It is these impending changes that make it so urgent to secure, if not an immediate change in the organisation, at any rate the promise of a change. If things are left as they are, it will be next to impossible to get the sort of man who is needed to take charge. And this is vital. For, unless we do, the whole project will atrophy. I do not say it will collapse: it will just run down. Nor do I claim that the change that I advocate will instantly transform the situation and produce for us an atomic bomb in a matter of weeks. Things have gone too flit for that. But

679
it will certainly give a new impetus, and will thus make a great difference in the long run. Failure in the atomic energy field will stamp us as a second-class nation. Without the prospect of reorganisation, this great undertaking, on which so much effort and money has been lavished, will disintegrate and decay. It will certainly take some months of preparation before the actual changeover can be made. I ask the Government, therefore, to put the matter in hand quickly. The course advocated in this Resolution has been adopted by all the other countries interested in atomic energy, and has been recommended here by those best able to judge. I beg the Government to accept it and not to let the amour propre of any Minister or Ministry stand in the way. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House regrets the slow progress made in this country in developing atomic energy for peaceful and for war-like purposes and calls upon His Majesty's Government, whilst maintaining broad general control, to transfer work on this subject from the Ministry of Supply to a special organisation more flexible than the normal Civil Service system under the direct control of the head of the Government.—(Lord Cherwell.)

THE SITUATION IN PERSIA
3.56 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before we go on with this debate, I think it will be the desire of your Lordships that I should take this opportunity to make a Statement about Persia similar to that just being made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Since my last Statement to the House about the situation in Persia, on June 27, the International Court at The Hague has heard our application for an interim injunction requiring the Persian Government to do nothing which would prejudice the case which we have brought before the Court. That hearing took place on June 30, and the Court's decision is expected this afternoon. I should make it clear, perhaps, that this decision will treat only with our application for an in
680
junction and will not touch on our main case.
"On June 30, His Majesty's Ambassador at Teheran delivered a Note to the Persian Minister of Foreign Affairs. The text of this has been published in the Press and therefore I would say only that its main point was to emphasise that responsibility for the withdrawal of tankers and the progressive closing down of the Company's installations which would be necessitated thereby resulted solely from the present intransigent attitude of the Persian Government.
"The next step was the suspension by the Persian Government of the so-called Sabotage Bill which, as I mentioned in my statement on June 26, had recently been introduced in the Persian Lower House. This indication that the Persian Government were becoming aware of the need for restraint was welcomed; but it has been offset, unfortunately, by other action against the Company. The Information Offices of the Company have been closed down by the Persian Government, and the documents that have been taken away have been distorted to suggest that they were incriminating. The documents in question were such as one would expect to find in any information office, official or commercial, in any country. The house of the Company's representative in Teheran has also been occupied, apparently on the personal instructions of the Persian Prime Minister, and the Company's papers that were on the premises have been taken away. Mr. Mason, who became the Company's chief representative at Abadan when Mr. Drake was compelled to leave, has been evicted from his offices, and the so-called Temporary Board of Directors which the Persian Government have sent down to the oilfields refuse to recognise the Company's representative; instead, the Board have nominated one of their members as General Manager. One of the Company's representatives elsewhere has similarly been evicted. There have also been other unwarranted interferences in the Company's affairs, such as the requisitioning of the Abadan Manager's motor cars and house for the personal use of Mr. Makki, the leading member of the Temporary Board.

681
"I do not understand what the Persians hope to gain by these tactics. They keep professing that they want to retain British technicians and that they treat foreigners in Persia with traditional courtesy. At all events, it is clear that conditions are becoming intolerable. Our attitude remains the same. The Company has no desire to withdraw from an industry which it has built and brought into a high state of efficiency. Yet this, with all the disastrous consequences to Persia that would ensure, is what the Persian Government seem bent on forcing the Company to do.
"As regards the physical safety of our people in South Persia, we have again reminded the Persian Government of its responsibility. At the same time, we leave nothing to chance. H.M.S. "Mauritius," as the House is aware, is lying close to Abadan, and all practical measures to protect British lives, should the Persians fail to discharge their responsibilities, have been taken."
4.0 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for repeating this Statement that has been made by the Foreign Secretary in another place; but I must say that I have formed a most unhappy impression of it, and especially of that portion dealing with evacuation. If the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me for saying so, I could not help feeling that it was deplorably weak. After dealing with continued and humiliating interferences with British citizens, which the Government themselves say are intolerable—and I am sure we all agree with that—the Statement goes on to say:
"The Company has no desire to withdraw from an industry which it has built and brought into a high state of efficiency. Yet this…is what the Persian Government appear bent on forcing the Company to do."
Why this deliberate dissociation between the Company and His Majesty's Government in this matter? Surely, if the Company does not desire to withdraw, it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to protect British citizens, who are remaining at present, under great provocation, to carry on their lawful avocations,
682
which in fact constitute, as every one of us knows, a vital British national interest.
I do not want to ask His Majesty's Government this afternoon to give any detailed statement as to the precautions which they may be taking against emergencies. But I do suggest that it is, I will not say desirable, but almost vital, that they should make here and now, or in the very early future, a statement, both for the purpose of making our position clear to the Persian Government and, indeed, sustaining the spirit of our own people in the oilfields in Persia, who are subject to such odious pressure. They must say—-and the sooner the better—that they are strongly opposed to the evacuation of the British oil personnel in Persia, and that they will take all steps necessary, if the situation requires it, to protect them. If that is not done, I believe that the whole situation will slip away and a position will arise in the Middle East which none of us would wish or hardly dare to contemplate. As I say, I do not like to ask the noble and learned Viscount to give such an assurance to-day, since I gave him no notice of what I was going to say. But I reserve the right to raise this matter on an early occasion, arid I beg the Government to take some account of what I have said. For I am sure that I represent a very large body of opinion in this country.
4.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the statement just made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will have taken the Flouse somewhat by surprise, as it has taken me and no doubt the members of the Government. The noble Marquess's observations raise very grave issues on which your Lordships would not wish to decide without careful deliberation. When he says that the Government ought to make it clear that they are strongly opposed to evacuation, and that they would be willing to take any measures that are necessary to protect the officers of the Company who are carrying out their duties, it involves, as I take it, military occupation, in such a contingency, of Abadan and the neighbouring districts. As I say, I feel that your Lordships would certainly wish to consider in a very serious spirit such a grave situation from the point of view of national and of international interest, before endorsing a proposition made without previous notice to the House.

683
Furthermore, when the noble Marquess condemns the Government for drawing a distinction between the Company and themselves, from the legal standpoint and the standpoint of international law there is a distinction. The interests of the Company have been brought before the United Nations, who now have the matter under their immediate consideration. The question is sub judice, and I am not at all sure that it would be advisable suddenly to take the matter out of the hands of the Company, so to speak, and to make it directly a Government matter all through. It is a legal question, which raises points of international law. As believers in the upholding of international law and the authority of the United Nations, and, therefore, of the International Court, we should bear in mind the present situation before making any such change. For the rest, I would only express gratitude to the Lord Chancellor for having once more kept your Lordships' House so fully informed of the stages of development of this unhappy question; but I cannot associate noble Lords on these Benches, and those who think with us outside, with the full observations of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in view of what the noble Viscount has said, perhaps I might be allowed to point out that where I said that the interests of the Company and His Majesty's Government coincide was in the protection of British citizens. That was never mentioned at any point in the noble and learned Viscount's Statement this afternoon.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Perhaps not, but it has been mentioned again and again by the representatives of the Government in this House and in another place. The Prime Minister, I know, has said it. It is not my business to defend him—it is probably more for the members of the Front Bench opposite to intervene, if they so desire but the Prime Minister has said again and again that the Government would make it their absolute duty to protect, so far as they are physically able, the lives and limbs of the servants of the Company should they be attacked or endangered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords. I should just like to add that this
684
Statement is made on the eve of the decision by the Hague Court. It is quite obvious that that decision may profoundly affect the matter. Therefore, I anticipate that it is quite possible that early next week a fuller statement will be made. I should also add that I have made it plain in this Statement that the position which I previously explained to your Lordships remains what it was; and in the last Statement, I said, in a perfectly unequivocal way, that His Majesty's Government were prepared to go to all lengths and take every possible step open to them to protect the lives of their subjects who are working in Persia. There can be no question but that that statement still holds. For the rest, I would say that the interests of His Majesty's Government and the Company are, in this matter, of course, identical; they are in concert the whole time, and taking every step together.

ATOMIC ENERGY
4.10 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, in reverting to the matter that was before your Lordships prior to the noble and learned Viscount's Statement, I should like to make two observations on the remarks that fell from my noble friend Lord Cherwell. From the background of wide knowledge and, I thought, with great persuasiveness, he drew a picture of a situation which, I think, those of your Lordships who have frequently pondered how sharply, in certain circumstances, the fate of our nation and of Western civilisation might depend upon these issues must have found very disturbing. I have no doubt that in all parts of your Lordships' House there will be readiness to consider, entirely dispassionately, and from the single point of view of what may be judged to be national advantage and interest, the issue that he has raised.
It is a very special subject which the noble Lord has brought before us, and certainly I can claim no special knowledge in regard to it. Indeed, I should be utterly unqualified to follow much of the more technical side of the discussion which my noble friend has led. My only claim to intervene for a moment or two is the fact that during the war I had the

685
opportunity of seeing a good deal in the United States of the way in which they handled this particular problem, and of noting their approach to this very highly technical and extremely vital side of production as part of the great war effort. That was at a time when the co-operation between the United States and this country was more intimate and more complete than I suppose it has ever been. Their handling of this question was entirely sui generis—it was something entirely by itself and, in the words of my noble friend's Motion, it was certainly flexible the extreme. The idea of hurdling this question on the model of an ordinary production problem was poles re noved from what the Americans actually did and I should have thought that it was safe to say that had they treated it in any way as an ordinary production problem they would never have been able to achieve the results, either on the scale or at the pace which they did achieve. It is very difficult, of course, and I am inclined to think almost impossible, to compare American administrative methods with ours. They are very different, and I am bound to say that do not always want your Lordships to imitate them. In the politico-constitutional field, the differences are often apt to be as great as they are in the field of industry, and therefore any narrow comparison of methods is apt to be misleading and largely irrelevant.
For these reasons, in my view it is only on the broad lines of general principle that one can usefully attempt comparison. By that test, the argument of my noble friend that the American special methods of treatment should be operated, and are better calculated than our own to secure the results which we all want to be quickly achieved, is irrefutable. I have not made sufficient research into some fields of modern political ac tivity to say how the administrative methods employed in this field might compare with those employed by the Government in other cases. In some special ventures into which this Government have gone, they have been prepared to relax the strict canons of Treasury administration with great liberality and that has presumably been done in the interests of achievement. It may not always have been successful, but that was the laudable purpose the Government had set before them. Far he it from
686
me to say that in all cases he who would relax the strict canons of Treasury administration would be wrong. In many cases he might be right. At all events, that is what the Government have done in some cases, though not always successfully. It is a simple point and not a controversial one that I am trying to make. There is no comparison whatever between the urgency of producing groundnuts, shall we say, in East Africa, and relaxing all the canons in order to get atom bombs quickly made. What is possible for one is very much more urgent for the other. If, therefore, the noble Lord is right in feeling and arguing that the Government have unconsciously and I emphasise "unconsciously"— been placing the interests of Treasury security before the interests of national security, he is abundantly right to bring the matter before your Lordships for the expression of your views.
May I say one other word on a point upon which he touched, but on which I should like to touch from another angle? Apart from the question of production, on this matter I should expect United States opinion—which is the most intimate and sensitive point of the collaboration between the two nations—to be very sensitive indeed on the side of security, especially after recent events here. Whether or not such thought is well-founded, I venture to submit, with all respect, is not the real point. The point is that that thought would be held, and, not at all unnaturally, would exercise very considerable influence on American thinking. Therefore, I would hope, as the noble Lord said, that he was preaching to the converted, and that when the noble Viscount replies for the Government he will be able to give reassurance to the House on the broad case which my noble friend has presented to him.
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords. I am sure that what has already been said shows that this matter is urgent both in importance and in time. It is seven months since we last debated this subject in this House. We were then debating it in relation to security, though the efficiency of the orgarnsation was also touched on. I then ventured to make much the same proposal as my noble friend Lord Cherwell has made specifically in the Motion which is before your Lord

687
ships to-day. The Lord Chancellor then said that this plan had obvious advantages though there were certain disadvantages; and he said that the matter must be regarded as in no sense closed. That was seven months ago. Seven urgent months have passed, and evidence has accumulated in favour of the flexible organisation. Indeed, not only is evidence accumulating but an acute crisis has been reached. But, all through, the Government have let this business drift. I hope that my noble friend Lord Halifax is right and that the Government are going to agree to make this change. If so, no one will attempt to make a Party score, and we shall all rejoice. I do not mind where the credit goes. But, from all I have been able to learn, not only has there been a drift but the drift has been in the wrong direction.
On the scientific side Lord Cherwell speaks with very great authority. On what has happened within the organisation he speaks, I know, with first-hand knowledge. Throughout he has done his best to help. Technically his case is unanswerable. So far as I know, every scientist who has expressed an opinion, either in public or in private, has supported him. On the technical side his case is, as I say, unanswerable and it certainly is unanswered. I think I am justified in saying that a crisis has been reached. Mr. Perrin, who has been the Deputy, possessed of the most universal knowledge throughout, has gone. It is perhaps wrong, as a rule, to use the word "indispensable" of any man; but if ever the word were justified in connection with a great and difficult project, I take it that that adjective could be applied to Mr. Perrin in connection with this work. Lord Portal is going. Both are leaving a vital task to which they have given their great abilities and whole-hearted service; and they are leaving, as I understand it, because after full trial they are convinced that the Government plan will not work.
May I say one word as an ex-Minister—like my noble friend Lord Halifax—on the question of financial control, because I understand that that is a strong Treasury argument? There are ample precedents for doing what is now proposed. Of course, the nationalised boards have far less Treasury control than the proposed organisation directly responsible to the Government. We passed yesterday a Bill
688
to give another £150,000,000 to the Coal Board. There will be no Treasury control over that. We had a formula read out about something which would happen; frankly, I could not quite follow what it was. The Paymaster General, who was the Minister in charge of the Bill, said that, generally speaking, the money was spent before one could inquire about it, and I agree that that is so. But may I take a parallel with which I myself was very closely connected, and which I think is exact? At the beginning of the war the Prime Minister sent for me and said that the Government felt that no Government machine could adequately conduct economic warfare. They knew what they wanted to do; the policy could be settled on the highest level; but if they wanted the policy carried out an entirely new organisation would be required.
At his request, a number of very able colleagues and myself founded the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation. It was charged not only with the whole of the executive side of economic warfare, in the sense of buying vital materials and denying them to the enemy, but with a much wider field—sustaining the economies of many neutral countries. Turkey, for instance, was sustained by it throughout the war. It had a vast variety of activities. It had a capital, provided entirely by the Treasury, which varied from time to time from £80,000,000 to £90,000,000. It had a turnover in a single year of, I think, over £150,000,000. It selected whom it would employ and paid whatever it thought necessary: some of the best were paid a dollar a day and some not even that. But where necessary it paid large salaries to people all over the world and that was done with the fullest Treasury approval.
It is quite true that it had two sides: the commercial side, on which the Corporation made a profit of something like £20,000,000; and another side, wholly uncommercial, which was at all costs to deny the enemy vital material. You could not make money by buying wolfram against the Germans at £5,000 per ton when the price at which you could sell it was well under £500—I think nearer £200. Of course on that side of the business there could be no question of making profits. The Treasury entrusted all that to the Corporation and indeed pressed for it at the time, because they knew—and they

689
were right— that an organisation of that kind was the best way of getting the business done. They thought it was the only way and, what was more, the best way of getting value for the Treasury money which was going to be spent. Indeed, Dr. Dalton claimed it as a triumph of State enterprise which was the last thing it was. It could not have begun to work if it had been a Civil Service Department —and none of the men who made it succeed would have come in to work it if they had been asked to come in graded as civil servants under Civil Service restrictions. Therefore I submit that the argument of Treasury control will not hold water.
I turn now to a matter on which I can speak with some experience. I cannot speak with first-hand knowledge of the scientific side; but I can speak with perhaps as much experience as anybody in this House on the question of security. I most fully agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, said about the importance which the Americans attach to this matter cud the way they would look at it. Like the noble Earl, having worked closely with them on security matters during the war, I say that, too. They not only feel that way, I am sure, but they are right to feel that way. Speaking with the fullest sense of responsibility, I say that the case on the security side is as strong as it is on the scientific side and the efficiency side. Of all matters, this subject of atomic energy is the most vital one in which we must keep secrecy, and no one will say that it is one in which we have been outstandingly successful.
I am not going to discuss ways and means—it would be most improper for me to do in public—but I say categorically that we cannot in this affair have the requisite security in a Civil Service stet-up, subject to Civil Service conditions. Under the Civil Service system you cannot engage a man subject to special conditions, because the Civil Service system is necessarily a sealed pattern and uniform in its methods. Let me take a few examples of conditions which I am sure such a flexible organisation as my noble friend has proposed ought to be free to impose in the interests of security. It should be able to say to a man in its employ, and ought to make it a condition of his employment "You shall not go abroad without the permission of your employers." It can say to him (you
690
could not say it to the Civil Service): "As a guarantee of good faith, you shall deposit your passport with me." Nobody, no honest man, would object to that. When I was engaged in great questions of security and charged with many secrets, I should have said: "I am the first person who should be made subject to whatever are the proper supervisions and restrictions." if those conditions had been applied to Mr. Pontecorvo, would Mr. Pontecorvo ever have left this country? He could not have done so. It should be a condition that a man's services can be dispensed with without notice and without reason. "Without reason" is as important as "without notice," and no one who knows anything about security and has had to deal with security will dream of denying that for a moment.
Those are conditions which cannot be applied in the Civil Service. Of course they cannot. I know it would mean paying a higher salary but, as my noble friend said, what is that? It would mean paying a man a lamp sum in lieu of notice. What is that to weigh in the scale against security? I believe that for some of the staff and, maybe, quite a number I am not speaking of them personally, but by reason of the work they are to do and the secrets with which they are to be charged—conditions of that sort are essential conditions, both as a term of entering the employment of this organisation and as a condition of leaving it. Of course, they are impossible in the Civil Service. They are perfectly easy in a specialised organisation; and, by applying those conditions in a special organisation, no precedent whatever is created, either of terms of payment or of conditions of service for the rank and file of the Civil Service.
I beg the Government to change their minds, unless they are of one mind with all the noble Lords who have spoken. There really is no time to be lost. This is a great national interest. I do not think it is too much to say that it is in jeopardy; certainly, it is floundering. I beg the Government to believe that they will not lose face in doing what all best informed and most responsible experience urges them to do. I understand it can be done under the Act as it stands, but, if it cannot, I can promise

691
the Government that if they will introduce a Bill to enable them to do what they ought to do, that Bill will go through this House in a day, and I am sure it would go through another place. I beg the Government to do this. We will give them all the help and support we can. But, if they still refuse—well, then I think the House must show by its vote that the majority of us consider that this change is indispensable alike to the efficiency and the security of this vital work.
4.38 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH): My Lords, we are considering to-day a Resolution by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, with regard to the development of atomic energy, and it raises issues on a problem which not only has great international complications, but is of the greatest importance to the well-being of our country. The noble Lord who opened the debate can rest assured that, the matter being of such importance, we have no complaint to make about it being discussed in the manner in which it has been dealt with to-day. The problem has been previously discussed, both here and in another place. In general, I think, the discussions have taken place on non-Party lines, and in a spirit of common endeavour to decide upon the machinery for the development of atomic energy which would best serve the interests of the nation. At any rate, I can say for the Government that we certainly do not regard such an issue as this as a Party matter. With regard to almost the last point that fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, I would say that we should never be concerned about the question of losing face if, in dealing with a matter of such vast importance, we had to change our opinion at any time. After all, a Minister's duty is always to have regard to the ultimate highest good of his country and of his fellow citizens. Therefore, we look at the problem not from the Party point of view but purely from the objective point of view of making the maximum progress through the most appropriate machinery.
This Resolution, which was so ably moved this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, alleges that atomic energy
692
progress in this country has been unduly slow, and the noble Lord has made a proposal that work on the subject should be transferred from the Ministry of Supply to a special organisation—and I now quote:
"more flexible than the normal Civil Service system."
on the assumption that such an organisation would have made quicker progress in the past and might reasonably be expected to make quicker progress in the future. In considering the progress which has already been made in the development of atomic energy in this country, I am sure that noble Lords will bear in mind certain historical facts which, I submit, are relevant to the matter.
In the first place, as the Minister of State has already explained in another place, our efforts in the development of atomic energy were deployed during the war in North America, where our scientists and experts, working in close collaboration, not only, as the noble Earl, Lord Halifax suggested, with the Americans but with the Canadians as well, contributed in no small measure to the successful development of atomic weapons. The reasons for the deployment of our efforts in this way are well known to your Lordships—to none better than those who have spoken from the Opposition Benches to-day—and no one would quarrel with the decisions which were then taken, or with the way in which our effort in atomic directions was deployed during the war. But the inevitable result was that facilities for the development of atomic energy were not deployed in this country, and apart from the valuable experience and knowledge which our experts and technologists acquired in North America, we in this country began to develop atomic energy in 1946 more or less from the green field stage. Furthermore, we began at a time when we were faced with the task of rebuilding our economy after the ravages of war, the burden of which we had borne throughout the whole of the war, and without the almost unlimited industrial capacity and war-time Government powers which were available to the United States during the war, or the advantages, from this particular point of view, of the totalitarian economy of Russia. Here may I say, in reference to Lord Cherwell's remarks about the progress made by

693
Russia, that I, at any rate, should not like our country to have to rely upon some of the methods of labour organisation used by the Russians to achieve what they have done in the time.
Now may I turn to the general charge that developments in this country have been especially slow? Of course, what the Government look for is evidence which can be assessed and checked. A colleague of mine in the Ministry received a letter, quite unsought, just two days ago from Lord Adams. one of your Lordships' colleagues in this House. Lord Adams is the chairman and managing director of the West Cumberland Industry Development Company. He has done great work there, and he was connected with the original negotiations and the subsequent development of a place which I am sure Lord Cherwell knows all about—namely, Sellafield. Unfortunatey, although he would have liked to come and take part in the debate himself. Lord Adams is too unwell; but he says in his letter that he regards the Resolution on the Paper today as dangerous. He says that when the decision to develop Sellafield was announced in July, 1947, he, like many other people, thought in terms of an ordinary factory. But he goes on to say:
"During the last four years, I have been amazed by the size of the project and the rapidity with which work has proceeded. There have been occasions when, because of this factory other projects in the development scheme have been affected adversely. … Other work has suffered from a shortage of bricks, structural steel, etc."
Here is one of our colleagues doing great work in that area, and paying tribute to the speed of the development there. In the same letter he goes on to say that it was all completed well within the time schedule. That demonstrates to your Lordships that the present system, which the Resolution desires to change, is not in any way interfering with the proper and speedy use of the top priority which has always been accorded to matters relating to the development of our atomic energy processes. I do not think I need say more about that side of it at the present time; I will merely refer to tile letter again on another question.
Undoubtedly a great deal has been done in this country since the beginning of 1946. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate, and none better than the mover of be Motion, that for security reasons I cannot go into great detail. But
694
a great research establishment has been set up at Harwell; a number of large production establishments, each one of them a major industrial enterprise, have been planned and built, and some of them are now operating; and much progress has been made in the development of atomic weapons. On the civil side, a great deal of work has been done on the design of power reactors and design studies, and pilot plant works are in progress or in early prospect, both for the production of power and for new methods of propulsion. As the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell knows, perhaps better than any other member of your Lordships' House, a very large business has been built up at Harwell for the production and distribution, not only in this country but in many overseas countries, of radio-active and stable isotopes.
The Government are of the opinion that, considering the circumstances in which arrangements for the development of atomic energy in this country were made, very good progress has been achieved, especially having regard to the fact that we have had to work largely on our own. The tripartite partnership between ourselves, the United States and Canada continues for certain purposes in the atomic energy field, and we co-operate with those countries under arrangements made from time to time by the Combined Policy Committee, which was set up in 1943 by the three Governments, and which meets periodically in Washington. Naturally, the Government are ready at all times to examine with the United States of America the possibility of extending the area of co-operation in the atomic energy field. The United States Government are fully aware of this fact. But it must be remembered that the exchange of information between ourselves and the United States has been restricted since the passing by Congress in 1946 of their Atomic Energy Act, commonly known as the McMahon Act. The present restrictions, of course, cut both ways. We have had to solve technical problems in our own way. We have been able to allow for certain technical advances, and to incorporate modifications necessitated by the limited area and physical resources of this Island, and we believe that in some respects we have even improved upon what might otherwise have been only a replica of American processes.

695
The burden of the Resolution before your Lordships' House, however, is that the development of atomic energy in this country would be more effective in the hands of a special organisation, "more flexible," as the motion puts it, "than the normal Civil Service system." I should like to make it clear that nobody has yet finally made up his mind as to what would be the most effective organisation for the ultimate development of atomic energy. I believe that it was the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who suggested that every prominent scientist was in favour of the method set out in the Resolution on the Order Paper. I must say, however, that, whilst I know that a great many scientists have expressed that opinion, it is not by any means an opinion which is universally held. We know that from the results of inquiries which we have made. I should like to make it clear, therefore, that whilst no one has yet finally made up his mind as to what would be the most effective organisation for the ultimate development of atomic energy, at the present time the Government are not convinced that a special organisation would be any more effective than the present arrangements.
I would remind your Lordships that although the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, voiced certain doubts this afternoon, and said that he also expressed some doubt at the time of the passing of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, the Opposition as a whole did not, at that time, object strongly to the present policy of the Government as embodied in the Act—that is, the policy of giving responsibility to the Minister of Supply and making the atomic energy organisation a part—though in practice rather a special and separate part—of the Ministry of Supply. It is, of course, easy to speak in general terms of a special organisation "more flexible than the normal Civil Service system," and to imagine an organisation, with unlimited funds and unlimited power, free to do whatever it liked. But in the real world such an organisation would have to work to a budget, and with funds provided by Parliament. In that connection I was very glad to note that Lord Cherwell did not complain that the Government had at any time not been helpful or sympathetic, nor did he complain that through Government action any handicap had been imposed on this project by reason of lack of funds.
LORD CHERWELL: Full of good intentions.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I understood him to say that the work had not been hampered by lack of funds at any time. That shows rather more than mere good intentions on the part of the Government. A special organisation would have to work among the same difficulties, the same shortages and the same frustrations which have confronted not only the Civil Service but every department of industry in this country, because of our post-war economic circumstances. Ask any section of industry or any section of life in the country at the present time what they have to face because of the tremendous sacrifices we had to make during the war and the enormous burdens which we have had to shoulder in our effort for economic reconstruction. As a special organisation entirely dependent on public funds, it could not attract staff by offering salaries and conditions so widely different from those in the Civil Service as to appear almost to amount to bribery. I recognise that it has been suggested to-day that, by the payment of much higher salaries, we should merely be compensating employees for the far greater lack of security of tenure of employment, and that the offer of higher salaries would be an inducement to people to join the organisation.
As to the likelihood of improving recruitment of people of the types we desire, people from the top and from the middle scientific grades, people from the higher technological and engineering grades, as well as people qualified to fill vacancies on the staff lower down, I think this is very doubtful indeed. To suggest that you are likely to improve recruitment by offering such salaries and conditions as have been mentioned to-day with engagements subject to termination at any time, and contracts containing a break clause, seems to me to be a mistake. Much higher salaries, attractive though they might be in themselves, would not bring in men when they knew that the break clause might operate to bring about their dismissal at any time. In fact, I think that what has been suggested might easily operate in the other direction, and the result might well be that recruiting would be less satisfactory and we should not achieve what we all, from our dif

697
ferent points of view, wish to see achieved in the build-up of the organisation.
I take it from what has been said to-day that the Opposition recognise many of these limitations. What they appear to have in mind is a corporation operating under statutory powers. I am confirmed in that by the view expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who said that if it were found necessary to have new legislation they would facilitate its passage. Such a corporation would certainly have to have statutory powers. Their case in that respect is based on these two broad arguments. First, that so long as the organisation is part of a Government Department responsible for its detailed actions to a Minister, who is in turn accountable to Parliament, there will not be the necessary speed on decisions of policy and freedom from day-to-day interference which are essential if the development of atomic energy is to proceed as fast as it could do and as it should do. The second argument is that so long as the project remains part of the Civil Service, such matters as recruitment of staff and remuneration of service will have to conform with normal Civil Service rules, and this makes it difficult to attract the man of exceptional qualifications who demands a high salary of some special concession to attract him from industry.
I will return to these matters later, but I think it would be well to put the other side of the balance sheet—that is, the arguments against a special organisation for this type of work. The principal argument is that a special organisation or corporation would be a purely spending body, operating on voted moneys and producing no revenue. This would distinguish it from the other public corporations which have been referred to by, I think, all the three speakers on the other side, and which are expected, taking one year with another, to meet expenses out of the revenue they earn. It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Parliament might well feel difficulty about giving to a body of this kind a large measure of freedom to spend large sums of public money. The noble Lord who moved the Motion cited the example of the Medical Research Council. That Council does great scientific work which we all appreciate, and I suppose no one has greater inner knowledge of that work than the nettle Viscount the Leader of
698
the House, who has been associated with it for so large a number of years. But no one could compare an organisation of that kind, working on a basis of grants in aid of research, with the kind of project we have here for the development of atomic energy. So, generally, I say that while it is possible to have a special organisation to conduct research on grants paid out of public funds, the development of atomic energy involves not only research but very large undertakings of an industrial character.
I make no complaint of the fact that the noble Lord who moved the Motion made some jocular reference to things that were said in the debate yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and myself, among others. But I think that it is only right that we should look at the reverse side of what he was suggesting by his jocular references. He is in favour of a special organisation in this instance, but he and his colleagues on the other side of the House yesterday supported Lord Strabolgi when he called for a greater measure of pubic accountability and Parliamentary control in relation to nationalised industries. That side of the matter seems to have been overlooked altogether this afternoon.
To come to the second point with regard to a special organisation, legislation would be required to bring such a special organisation into existence, and the resultant change-over would inevitably cause much disturbance of the atomic energy project and would certainly set its progress back by some months at least. Thirdly—and the importance of this, I think, tends to be under-estimated—there is the doubt whether the staff now employed on the project would be prepared to be transferred to a special organisation outside the Civil Service. Whether scientists, technologists and engineers, as a whole, would prefer to work for a corporation or directly for the Government is a matter of opinion. No doubt some would prefer the more competitive atmosphere exiting outside the Civil Service, where individual contracts of service can be negotiated, and this in itself might attract a small number of additional recruits to the project. But many would certainly prefer to remain in the direct employ of the Government, particularly in view of the nature of the project, and would not seek or accept service with a special organisation of the

699
kind which noble Lords opposite have advocated.
Nor must we forget that a project of this kind needs a considerable number of administrative and executive staff for such work as accountancy, the letting of contracts and the vast number of other administrative details, and I should very much doubt whether civil servants at present employed on atomic energy work would be prepared to go over to a special organisation and lose the security of tenure they now enjoy and the more attractive prospects that would be open to them in the Civil Service as a whole. Moreover, under present arrangements there are advantages to both sides of mutual transferability, and this would be lost if a special organisation were set up. Finally, there are advantages in associating the atomic energy project with the Ministry of Supply, because that Ministry, by the nature of their other work, are in a position to provide to the atomic energy project a great many common services in a skilled, experienced and economical way. This association does not in any way preclude a close degree of personal attention by the Prime Minister.
Such seem to me to be the pros and cons of the case for a special organisation such as noble Lords opposite have in mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, knows, this whole question has been given careful consideration by the Government within the last year or so. We do not deny that there have been minor troubles and difficulties, particularly as regards staffing and recruiting, but I can assure your Lordships that there is no record of any action or, indeed, inaction by the Ministry of Supply which has impeded progress or development on any major issue. I do not know to which project the noble Lord referred when he said that after the date on which approval had been given on a scientific basis, it was three years before bricks began to appear above ground. I do not want necessarily to discuss this openly and I am quite prepared to have a talk with the noble Lord about it, but, so far as I know, in post-war circumstances the work would not have been done more quickly by a different organisation.
I challenge anyone to say that this project has not received top priority in re
700
gard to labour and materials. That has been testified largely by the noble Lord, Lord Adams, in what he said in his letter about the atomic energy project in the north-west. On the instructions of the Prime Minister (and I notice the noble Lord wishes to have any special organisation set up under the direction of the Prime Minister) the atomic energy project has always enjoyed the highest priority. It is on the largest scale possible, having due regard to the availability of the fundamental raw materials, to our limited resources generally, and to our other inescapable commitments. There has been no delay in policy decisions, and each constructional project has been started immediately the design was sufficiently well advanced to enable building to commence. The project has never suffered from lack of money; nor, generally speaking, has it been unable to recruit its due share of the limited number of scientists and engineers in the country. The work has not proceeded in a departmental ivory tower. Research development contracts have been placed with universities, and with industry as widely as possible, although, naturally, much of the work is neither technically attractive nor financially remunerative to industry, which is already fully committed in other directions.
Every effort has been made, and I think with the greatest success, to make the present organisation as flexible as possible, and to give those responsible for the development of atomic energy a free rein to take such action as is necessary to achieve the objects which we all have in view. I have said that our minds are not closed on this matter, but we are not satisfied that a special organisation would have been any more effective than the present one. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, will take it for granted that I looked into this matter as closely as I could from the moment I knew that I was to reply to the debate on this Resolution—although I should much have preferred to have my noble friend the Leader of the House present to reply himself. As the noble Lord will also know, my noble friend had not finished his inquiries into this question at the time he went into hospital. I have not so far come across any example of delay in decision, or in development or progress, which would have been in any way

701
lessened by the existence of a special corporation in charge of the business. Such an organisation would have had to contend with every one of the same difficulties with which we have had to contend. We should need some convincing that, in the present stages of development of atomic energy, and in the present world situation, it would be in the public interest to make a change in the present organisation. We think that this is not the best moment to change horses in midstream. That would cause an upheaval which would inevitably check the progress which the organisation is making, and would lead to more delays. If concrete evidence were produced that the present arrangements were causing delay and inefficiency, or any conclusive evidence produced that an independent organisation under broad Government control would be more efficient, noble Lords may depend upon it that we would give it every possible consideration. In view of what I have said, I think the onus of proof (if the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, will forgive nay putting it in this way) is upon him to show that a special organisation can do the job better. We have heard only talk about general principles and what might be done. Until a case is made for a change of organisation in that direction, we feel that it is wisest to adhere to the existing arrangements.
There is one other point of substance which has been raised in this debate, particularly by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, on which I should like to say a few words—namely, the question of security. As the noble Viscount knows, security has been a matter of much concern to me during my years of office, both at the Admiralty and as Minister of Defence. No one who thinks anything of the interests of his country could complain if stiff measures, even drastic measures, had to he taken to make security in vital matters really operate. When it is suggested that the experience of special or semi-Government corporations in maters requiring special security is more efficient in that direction, I should find it difficult to prove that.
The noble Earl, Lord Halifax, has referred to the matter this afternoon. He says that the Americans might be particularly anxious and tender upon such points, and I can well understand that. But I do not know how many of your
702
Lordships have, like myself, read from beginning to end the Report of the Royal Commission in Canada in 1946 on the breaches of security, which were by no means confined to Canadian subjects but were widespread into the American organisation. That would hardly seem to show that this special organisation in charge of atomic energy development in the United States has been any more successful than the other methods of security and maintenance which have been employed from time to time. I should not like it to be thought that there was any special virtue on the security side in that direction. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was a Service Minister for some time, and he will know that, when it comes to looking after security in a Service Ministry, there are great differences between what can be done in the actual Service sphere and in the outside industrial sphere. It is by no means in the outside industrial sphere that the easiest task lies.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was not proposing an outside industrial sphere. What I was proposing was a special organisation, responsible to the Prime Minister, and able to impose security conditions which the Civil Service cannot impose. I say without hesitation that that would give a much greater security than we have to-day, and a security which we need.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: These matters are of vital interest, and I always think that we can all have opinions about them, based upon our experience. Certainly, in dealing with matters of security, I have found that activities in a sphere which is generally regarded as being outside the Civil Service have been by no means the easiest part of my task. If there were set up a special organisation, of the kind visualised by the noble Viscount, engaged very largely in outside industrial activity, I cannot see, apart from the general power to sack individuals, that it would provide any greater method of security than the Civil Service Las.
Reference has been made from time to time to the urgency of this matter, and the reason the debate has been pressed forward by the noble Lord in the absence of my noble Leader is the impending retirement of Lord Portal from his position of Controller, and the impending

703
retirement of Mr. Perrin, the very able and well-informed deputy who has been acting under him. I would say at once that it would be quite wrong not to pay the highest tribute to both these public servants. Lord Portal has rendered very great assistance indeed, and we very much appreciate his services. He undertook this work under some pressure. As we know, from 1946 onwards he would have liked a little more freedom than has been possible. But he took the job for three years, and, having gone on with it for well over five years, it is not surprising that he would like the opportunity now to retire.
LORD CHERWELL: Before the noble Viscount leaves that point, I take it that he is not suggesting that Lord Portal is content with the present set-up, and has not asked to have the project taken out of the Ministry on the lines I have suggested.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I refrain from making reference to Lord Portal's opinions. What I am saying is that we owe him a great debt for his services, and we can well understand that, after having outstayed his first intentions of taking the position for three years, he would now like to retire.
LORD CHERWELL: But I take it that the noble Viscount does not deny that Lord Portal has put forward to the Ministry a similar project to the one I have put forward?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: It is not for me to Confirm or deny that kind of matter, which is produced to the Minister of Supply and the Prime Minister. I have made no reference here to Lord Portal's views, and I am sure the noble Lord does not think that I am in any way misinterpreting him. On the other point, there is no doubt at all of the greatness of Mr. Perrin's service, or of his ability and knowledge. We are sorry to be losing him. But to suggest that his retirement is the kind of overwhelming disaster that has been mentioned this afternoon would, perhaps, be making rather too much of it. My information is that there will be no difficulty in securing from our other resources the necessary person with the ability to carry on that particular job.
704
I would say to noble Lords opposite that we in the Government are most anxious that this work should continue completely upon non-Party lines, because the development of atomic energy is so vital to all our interests. I say again today—and I say it particularly bemuse my noble Leader is still absent—that we have not closed minds. I shall, of course, see that every one of the speeches and arguments which have been raised by the three noble Lords who have addressed us from the opposite side is brought to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Supply, and that all the points which they have raised are duly considered. But until further evidence than we have yet had is adduced, we feel, as at present advised, that it would be a mistake to make a change. We will give the matter further consideration if any specific and special evidence is brought to our notice.
5.18 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I am, of course, most grateful for the full reply given by the noble Viscount, the Chancellor of the Duchy. I cannot help admiring the noble Viscount's bulldog tenacity which prevents him from surrendering to evidence, however overwhelming. He said that one of the reasons why we had been slow in producing atomic weapons was our postwar reconstruction problems. Had Russia no post-war reconstruction problems? If Russia could get her bombs going in two or three years, why has it taken us so long? The noble Viscount also said that Russian labour conditions are much worse. We have never been short of labour; it is not the inability to get labour that has held up progress. Surely, the noble Viscount does not pretend that slave labour is more efficient than free labour.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think I ought to make clear what I meant. What I meant was that we do know about the conditions of impressed and slave labour in Russia which was used in the major developments; it is to the use of that labour that I attribute the speed with which some of these things were developed.
LORD CHERWELL: The noble Viscount apparently holds that slave labour is more efficient than free labour;

705
I should be very surprised if that were true. Even so, it should not make all that difference. The noble Viscount said that, considering the arrangements, we have made much progress. That is true. It is the arrangements about which I complain. If there had been other arrangements, I think we should have made a good deal more progress. The noble Viscount said that atomic energy had always had top priority. I agree. I said that the Prime Minister had always supported this project, and had given it high priority. In spite of that, the fact remains that we started ahead of Russia, but we are now at least a lap behind; and I cannot agree that that is a satisfactory state of affairs. Then the noble Viscount said that the Government were not convinced that the other method would be better, and that the onus of proof that an alternative organisation would have moved more quickly was upon us. But, surely, the only way of proving a thing is to try it. Apart from that, the only thing you can go by is the argument and judgment of those in a position to know the facts of the situation, and in that the technical opinion is overwhelmingly on our side. That, surely, is supported by the fact that every other country is working somewhat on the lines that I have suggested.
The noble Viscount went on to say that the other organisation would have had the same frustration, even if it had been independent. I do not know. It seems to me that some of the other organisations are masters in their own house. I do not think the Food Corporation, for instance, had to obtain Treasury approval for every one of its forms of expenditure. The noble Viscount said that many people would prefer to be in the Civil Service rather than to be in free enterprise. Some would; but on the whole, among scientific and engineering people who are prepared to back themselves to make a success of their job, it is not the best ones who want a Government job from which they can never be sacked.
The noble Viscount then said that yesterday people were arguing for more Parliamentary control over Corporations. But the atomic energy project is in the hands of the Ministry. If it went out of the hands of the Ministry it would not mean more Parliamentary control, but less. At any rate, it would not hamper
706
the organisation at all. The noble Viscount said that we should have to account for all the money. I do not know whether he remembers that only a few weeks ago I asked for an explanation as to what the heading "Other," over a figure of £315,000,000 given in the Government accounts, stood for; and the Government refused to say. If they can get away with concealing £315,000,000, I think they could do the same in this instance without giving a detailed account as to how they spent the relatively small amount of money on the Atomic Energy Corporation.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I do not wish to intervene at this late hour, but the noble Lord knows perfectly well that that £315,000,000 was a completely different item. It was not an item of Government expenditure.
LORD CHERWELL: It was an item in the Government accounts. If they can get away with that sort of thing, I do not believe they would have much trouble in explaining away this particular sum. The noble Viscount then said: "This is the wrong moment. You must not swap horses while crossing the stream." That, of course, is the standard excuse of the drunkard for stopping tippling at any given time. We made that argument several times when talking about the transfer to the Government Corporation of the manufacture of iron and steel, and it was brushed aside as absolutely of no moment. But it is the same argument. At that time the Government did not seem to consider that there was any difficulty about swapping horses while crossing the stream, and I do not think they can very well bring that argument forward here.
I will not go into the question of security. My noble friend Lord Swinton, who has more experience with regard to that matter than anyone else, has already dealt with it. Nor will I go any further into the question of motives, or the reasons why the two principal people in the project have resigned. All I was concerned about, when I interrupted the noble Viscount, was that no impression should be created that Lord Portal was in favour of the existing arrangement. When it was stated that he had continued his appointment over the three years, I feared that

707
that impression might be wrongly given currency. To sum up, I believe that the situation is unsatisfactory. I think the Government will find it very difficult to find a good replacement for the two pincipal men who have left. In my view it is most urgent that something should be done to encourage people to believe that
Resolved in the affirmative. and Resolution agreed to accordingly.

FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (ADDITIONAL LOANS) BILL
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
a change will be made and, therefore, I hope that the House will agree to give its approval to the Resolution which I have moved.
On Question, Whether the Resoluticn shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52: Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENT

Devonshire, D.

Bridgman, V.

Hampton, L.

Harcourt, V.

Hawke, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Long, V.

Hindlip, L.

Reading, M.

Swinton, V.

Killearn, L.

Salisbury, M.

Trenchard V.

Lloyd, L.

Willingdon, M.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Blackford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Albemarle, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Milverton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Brocket, L.

Moyne, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Carrington, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Cherwell, L.

Palmer, L.

Grey. E.

Clydesmuir, L.

Rennell, L.

Haddington, E.

De L'lsle and Dudley, L.

Rochdale, L.

Halifax, E.

Denman, L.

Salioun, L.

Lindsay, E.

Derwent, L.

Somers, L.

Onslow, E.

Dunleath, L.

Teynham, L.

Radnor, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Tweedsmuir, L.

Rothes, E.

Gifford, L.

Wolverton, L.

Selkirk, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Crook, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Faringdon, L.

Morrison, L.

St. Davis, V.

Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Stansgate, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Pakenham, L.

Henderson, L.

Quibell, L.

Ammon, L.

Holden, L.

Rochestor, L.

Amwell, L.

Hungarton, L.

Shephered, L.

Archibald, L.

Kershaw, L.

Silkin, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Kenswood, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Latham, L.

Williams, L.

BRIGHTON EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
Returned front the Commons. agreed to, with Amendments.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minhtes before six o'clock.