HL Deb 19 May 1954 vol 187 cc778-804

4.53 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1 [The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority]:

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I listened with great interest to the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, which turned on the issue of whether this work could better be done by private firms or by a Government Department. We had a remarkable debate, with my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, with his great administrative experience, on one side and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, probably our most experienced civil servant, on the other. Of course I do not propose to go back on that now, but on looking at the Bill one or two other points occur to me. There are times when I wonder what is going on. Since the Bill was introduced and since the Lord President became Chairman of the Committee for Scientific and Industrial Research, a gigantic thing has happened, the like of which has not happened in thousands of years—namely, the invention of the hydrogen bomb. And power to decide primarily—not finally—in this matter is laid upon the Lord President by the new machinery that is being set up. He carries it on, together with the other duties he had under the old authority. Therefore, I am tempted to ask, and I think I am justified in asking, the Lord President one or two questions on that general issue before examining other matters in the Bill which will fall to be discussed as the clauses are put from the Chair.

May I ask the noble Marquess, as the head of scientific research for this purpose and as representing the Government in this matter, this question: Would he agree that the explosion which took place in the Pacific recently marked, not a development, but a complete revolution in these matters—that is to say, are we faced with something the like of which has never been known? Because, if so, we cannot treat this as if it were a Service matter when we might decide, for instance, whether we should have 8-inch or 12-inch guns. We must treat it in quite a different manner. I would also ask the noble Marquess, further, whether this new machinery is suitable for this new task. I will not go back on what was said about commercial development. I do not think it is possible to stop research in these matters: human nature would not tolerate it. And it well may be that the Government are right in handing this work over to private scientists and private industrialists. But the effect of so doing on the military side is very serious, and people are thinking about it. We may be silent here, but people are very disturbed about this matter and want to know where we stand. Would the Lord President be willing to give an overall answer in reply to the few remarks I shall make on this clause?

I would ask him first, if he would agree that the hydrogen bomb represents something which is completely new. Since the Creation, what has been like it? From that we shall be able to see some of the problems that arise. There are all sorts of questions which the noble Marquess has to consider. He has to consider, for instance, the great political issues to-day in Asia, whose people are apt to regard themselves as the guinea pigs of the world. We did not let off a hydrogen bomb in the Azores or in the Atlantic: it was done in Asia. I think that that fact is one of the elements which makes for the passionate nationalism which is sweeping over Asia and has been since Hiroshima and the development of the Pacific as a private shooting reserve. That is one of the things that falls for consideration, primarily through the Lord President but also, of course, by the Cabinet. It is, indeed, a major issue.

Then there is another consideration. Under the North Atlantic Treaty we have a number of American air bases in this country. It will be possible to deliver hydrogen bombs by aircraft. I believe that when the Air Estimates come forward in a few days my noble friend Lord Douglas of Kirtleside intends to raise the question of how to use this bomb by aircraft—that is, indeed, the bounden duty of an efficient airman. Whether or not we use these bombs, I want to ask the Lord President: Does the Treaty obligation which binds us in respect of America permit them without our consent to store hydrogen bombs at their bases in this country? That is extremely important. It might well not be worth while for the enemy to bomb an air base to get only a few aircraft, but it might be important to bomb an air base that had hydrogen bombs stored in it. And I think the public is certainly entitled to have a plain answer on that question. Under our Treaty obligations are we to receive these bombs to be planted at American bases in this country?

I do not know whether Clause 1 is the appropriate clause on which to hang these few remarks, but as regards subsection (5) of Clause 1 there is an interesting procedural point.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

I think I must tell the noble Viscount, here and now, that the points which he is raising are totally irrelevant to the Bill and totally inappropriate to this Committee stage. I do not propose to answer any of his questions. That may shorten proceedings.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

It may be shortening the proceedings, but it will not prevent my putting questions which the public are asking and about which they feel disquiet. The noble Marquess may be silent here and it is quite easy to snub me, but that will not prevent the general disquiet in the public mind. The Lord President may be sure of that. Perhaps in his present frame of mind the noble Marquess would not be willing to answer matters trifling in kind. But I ask him to look at Clause 1 (5) of the Bill. We are creating a new class of semi-civil servants, who may sit in this House but may not sit in the House of Commons. That is an interesting point, and if he would make an observation on that, I should be glad to hear it. A civil servant normally cannot sit in the House of Commons; I do not know whether a civil servant can sit in your Lordships' House. I do not know whether a member of a national board can sit in the House of Commons. I understand from my noble friend behind me that a civil servant cannot sit in the House of Commons. But Clause 1 (5) says: A person shall be disqualified for being appointed or being a member of the Authority so long as he is a member of the Commons House of Parliament. So that a member of the board may not be a member of the House of Commons, but may be a Member of your Lordships' House. It may be a good arrangement, but I think it is something on which those (if there are any) who, like myself, are ignorant on the matter, would like some observations to be made. There are other things which I intend to ask, which I hope and think will be appropriate, but I will reserve them until we roach the clauses on which they appear to be most appropriate.

5.2 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Perhaps I should say a few words to the noble Viscount, although I have already explained the position, as I see it. The noble Viscount gave me no notice that he proposed to raise any of these questions. He told us just now that he was present in this House during the Second Reading debate on the Bill, when, by Parliamentary custom, any questions of principle should be raised. He did not raise them. He now comes here and puts a number of questions which, as I say, are inappropriate to the Committee stage and ought not, by proper Parliamentary procedure, to be dealt with on Committee stage. I do not propose to answer them; and I believe I shall have the support of the House in not answering those questions at this stage. If the noble Viscount wishes to raise the question of whether it is proper for this Government, or any other Government, to manufacture the atomic bomb or any other of these modern weapons, then I suggest that his proper course would be to table a Motion on the subject, when I can assure him it would receive the closest attention and the fullest answer. It would be quite wrong, I think, that this matter should be dealt with now.

There are many other Members of your Lordships' House who would no doubt wish to make a contribution on a great issue of that kind, none of whom has had notice that it is to be raised; none of them has had any time in which to prepare what he would wish to say; and, indeed, I would feel myself, speaking for the Government on a matter of that kind, that it would require much more consideration than it is necessary for the noble Viscount to give it, he speaking—I do not say this in an offensive sense—in an irresponsible position, speaking for himself and nobody else. Therefore, as say. I shall not deal with that matter now, or any of the questions he has raised. If he is unhappy about the membership of the Board, it was open to him to put down an Amendment on that point.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I am not unhappy; I am merely asking for a little disquisition on it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I will take note of what the noble Viscount has said, and if I can give him the proper information I will do so in due course. But I am distressed by what the noble Viscount has done this afternoon. We are a body where it is most important that everything we say should be carefully considered, and indeed, that is particularly true of the Government. He cannot conceivably have thought that, without consultation with any Government Department, I should make a Government pronouncement on the matters he has raised. The noble Viscount is one of the most experienced Members of your Lordships' House: he has been in the House of Commons or the House of Lords for a large part of his life. He knows very well the position of responsibility in which Ministers stand, especially at a time like this. I do not want to be rude to the noble Viscount, but I am deeply shocked at the lack of responsibility he has shown.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I would only say this to the noble Marquess. I should not have made my remarks if I were not deeply moved in this matter, as the public are also deeply moved. Something has happened in the world which has raised a great moral issue.

I left the Second Reading alone because we were discussing the technical side of the machinery. First, the noble Marquess says it is improper to raise this matter on Clause 1 of the Bill; then he suggests that I should give notice to the other Members of the House who would have wished to speak on Clause 1. Those two arguments do not dovetail—but that is not important. What is important is that the whole public are deeply moved by this matter. I am going to raise later on the question of whether in this Bill we are retaining any vestige of Parliamentary control. If the noble Marquess is angry with me I am sorry, but I ask him to believe that I do not raise this matter in an irresponsible way; I raise it because millions of people in the country are disturbed.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Viscount talks as if the hydrogen bomb has been discovered since the Second Reading debate took place in your Lordships' House. That is not the case. Everything he knows to-day he knew then. He has deliberately come here in order to make, without notice, a speech to which there can be no reply. I think that is a most discreditable performance. Having said that, I feel that we should now proceed with the Committee stage of the Bill.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Functions of the Authority

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Authority shall, as from the appointed day, have power (whether within the United Kingdom or elsewhere)— (a) to produce, use and dispose of atomic energy and carry out research into any matters connected therewith;

Provided that— (i) the Authority shall not, save in accordance with arrangements made with the Minister of Supply, develop or produce any weapon or part of a weapon, except that nothing in this proviso shall limit the power of the Authority to conduct experimental work which may lead to improved types of explosive nuclear assemblies for atomic weapons;

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON moved, in proviso (i) to subsection (2), after "weapon," where that word occurs a second time, to insert: and shall make available to the Minister of Supply such research establishments as are necessary to discharge those functions,

The noble Lord said: I would say at the beginning that I attach no importance to the actual wording of this Amendment, but I have endeavoured to put down on the Marshalled List of Amendments in some tangible form, as best I can, the essence of a point which I raised on the Second Reading, and to which I believe noble Lords other than myself attach considerable importance. As your Lordships know, this Bill transfers all atomic work from the Ministry of Supply, under whose ægis it has so far been carried on, to this Atomic Energy Authority. That Atomic Energy Authority will ultimately be responsible to the Lord President of the Council—and about that I make no complaint, particularly while the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, occupies that office. But there is a point here which I believe is of some substance. Your Lordships will be aware that under Clause 2—and for brevity's sake I use the words of the Explanatory Memorandum: The Authority are to develop and produce atomic weapons only under arrangements made with the Ministry of Supply"— which means that the Minister of Supply still has the duty of procuring atomic weapons on behalf of the Services— but are free to conduct experimental work which may lead to improved types of warheads for such weapons. In other words, the duty of procuring atomic weapons remains with the Minister of Supply, but the duty of carrying on all the research work appertaining thereto passes from the Ministry of Supply to the new Authority. It seems to me to be a most dangerous thing to dissociate research and development from the duty of procurement.

A parallel situation exists in the aircraft field. The duty of procurement of aircraft for the fighting Services rests upon the Minister of Supply; but he has at his disposal the vast research organisation in the Royal Aircraft Establishments at Farnborough and elsewhere. It is because of the existence of these research establishments, the work done in them, the knowledge obtained and the progress made that he is able to place his development contracts which, after much experiment, lead ultimately to the production of the best type of military and, indeed, civil aircraft. We have resisted in Parliament and elsewhere every attempt to part the duty of procuring aircraft from the management of the research establishment. It is essential that they should be in the same hands. But here we do it.

It is a matter of the utmost sadness that in dealing with this vast new human power we should have to consider it as a weapon of destruction; but, as things are, we must so consider it. We cannot ignore the fact that this is the dominating weapon of war, and although it remains the paramount duty of every Government to find a way of getting rid of this danger of war by atomic methods, until we have got rid of it we must try to retain the lead. Therefore, it seems to me of the utmost importance that, if the duty of procurement of an atomic weapon for our fighting Services rests upon the Minister of Supply, he should not be hampered by being denied the necessary research establishments. Now which is the best way to do it? Obviously, the expense in men, resources and money in this field are so enormous that you cannot duplicate where duplication is unnecessary. Some way must be found to make the powers of research available to the procurement authority. I will not weary your Lordships by belabouring the point. As it seems to me, it is obvious, and I would ask the noble Marquess, the Lord President of the Council, if he can tell us by what means it is proposed to meet it. I beg to Move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 4, after the second ("weapon") insert the said words.—(Lord Wilmot of Selmeston.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

As I understand it, the purpose of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment does not really depend upon the wording of the Amendment. He wishes to raise a broad point and to get a fairly broad assurance.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

That is so.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

As I understand it, what the noble Lord seeks to ensure is that that type of research in which the Ministry of Supply is properly interested shall be carried on in the future as it has been carried on in the past. It was a point the noble Lord made in the Second Reading debate and to which he has reverted now. I entirely agree that it is a point of considerable substance. If I read his intention correctly—and I understand that I have—I think his Amendment is unnecessary, and I hope to be able to give him assurances now which will be all he needs.

As the noble Lord knows from all his past experience, which is very great, there are two types of contract into which the Ministry of Supply and the Atomic Energy Authority might enter: there are production contracts and there are research contracts. I would entirely agree with the noble Lord that, if the extent of the collaboration between the two bodies were to be limited to the production contracts, then it is perfectly true that the Ministry of Supply would come into the picture far too late, and the situation would be impaired by the change which is taking place. But in fact there are also research contracts, and it is the intention of the Government, and of the that under the research contracts the Minister of Supply shall be brought into the picture very early in the proceedings.

In fact, as I understand it, I go so far as to say that the great bulk of the work which will be done at Aldermaston is likely to be done under contract with the Ministry of Supply. There will remain, of course, what I may describe as a residue, and that residue will be composed of research of a basic or speculative nature—feeling out into the far future. This the Atomic Energy Authority will carry on, on their own initiative. This research, one may hope, will lead ultimately to the improvement of weapons generally. But it certainly will not be linked at that stage with any individual weapon. As soon as anything is discovered which would or might be of value to the Ministry of Supply, then the Ministry of Supply will be brought into consultation. Indeed, the Ministry of Supply will normally be already aware of the lines of thought on which the research is proceeding, and that, I hope, will always continue to be the case. In conclusion, I assure the noble Lord that his intention and the Government's are exactly the same, and in view of this explanation I hope he will not find it necessary to press his Amendment.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

In view of that explanation and assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Clause 2 (1) (f) of the Bill says that the duty of the authority shall be: to distribute information relating to, and educate and train persons in matters connected with, atomic energy or radioactive substances. This is the centre and source of knowledge about the effect of radioactive substances. Now this new bomb has an operative area, I understand, of 400 square miles—10 miles in every direction from the centre. Will the Lord President tell us what steps have been taken to prepare the public in case such an attack took place, on how to prepare the material to give any shelter that may be possible, or any action or remedial help to those who will suffer under such an attack? If he will tell me that—and I think it arises directly on the clause—I am sure the public would be interested to have the information.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think the answer to that is that the noble Viscount is misreading the purpose of paragraph (f). That paragraph is really a power of the new Authority to distribute information relating to, and educate and train persons in matters connected with, atomic energy or radioactive substances. It is not really concerned with attacks. What it is mainly concerned with is the civil uses of radioactivity. We hope that it is going to be a great boon and benefit in many ways. We hope that British industry may be brought in at an early date in order to help in the construction of power stations and the use of isotopes, and matters of that kind. That is the purpose to which paragraph (f) is directed. It is not the duty of the Atomic Energy Authority to give directions to the general public as to what they should do in the event of the dropping of an atomic bomb. That is a matter for the Government and Home Office; it is nothing to do with the Atomic Energy Authority. Nor, I would say, is it directly the job of the Lord President. If I understood the noble Viscount correctly in what he said, the duties he was discussing were duties primarily of the Home Secretary, and no doubt the Home Secretary is considering these duties very carefully and thoughtfully at the present time.

5.20 p.m.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I believe that that answer will be disappointing to the people who fear this attack if it comes. The Home Secretary has produced a leaflet in which the only recommendation that I can find is that a writer of wide popular appeal should be asked to produce a cheap book in pocket size which could be issued on this matter. But how can the Home Secretary possibly know how to deal with the scorching effects, the burning effects, of the new bomb? He cannot know anything whatever about it. It is not in his ken. The man who knows is the Lord President of the Council: he is at the head; he controls all the scientific thought in this country. And it now appears that not only has he made—I retract at once if I am wrong—no preparation to tell the public what to do or to prepare at a long distance what the public should do to protect themselves, but he repudiates any responsibility for giving that information. I say that that is a shocking state of affairs. I suppose it means extermination when this thing happens—I do not know. Does the noble Marquess wish to intervene? Certainly I would never fail to give way.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think the noble Viscount is, either wilfully or unintentionally, totally misleading both the House and the country. If he reads again through the Second Reading debate, he will find that the subjects which he is now discussing are not within the purview of this Bill. The noble Viscount has been a member of the Cabinet; he knows how the Cabinet and Government work. When I say that it is primarily the responsibility of the Home Secretary to deal with Civil Defence, that does not mean that that absolves other members of the Cabinet or other Departments from considering the matter. Nor should the noble Viscount give the public the idea that these new dangers are not at present being considered by the members of the Government. Of course they are. No responsible Government would think of acting otherwise. But to raise the matter on a clause in the Committee stage of a Bill, the limitations of which have been explained to the House several times, is to my mind an abuse of Parliamentary time.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

The noble Marquess has his remedy. I would invite him to use it if he wishes. He can move that what I have to say be not heard. I would invite him to use that procedure if he thinks it right. I contend that, in a Bill which sets up a Ministry to deal with atomic research, we are entitled to ask whether that Ministry is making any sort of research into the protection of the public against this new form of attack. I say that this pamphlet issued by the Home Secretary is ridiculous. It was issued after the explosion in the Pacific, but the truth is that the whole Civil Defence organisation is now being attacked. One or two councils—for instance, Coventry—have said that the thing is no use whatever. Other people have said: "That must be wrong. You must protect yourselves if this is coming." Every sensible person would say that. But, at the same time, we must go to the fount and origin of knowledge to ask how to do it.

Then the noble Marquess said that this was not a Committee point and not suitable to be considered with a large number of other points. I say that it is in order under this Bill. If the noble Marquess says that it is not in order, let him move that it is not in order and I shall not be allowed to pursue the matter.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The last thing I should want to do would be to move that the noble Viscount be no longer heard. Every word that he has said this afternoon is alienating the whole House more and more from him. He is behaving entirely unreasonably. The longer he goes on, the better pleased I shall be.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

We have a Standing Order, No. XXVIII, which says that speakers should address themselves to the matter and not to the person. When the noble Marquess has finished with me—for he always goes into these short biographical speeches where I am concerned—perhaps he could tell me whether his Department is concerned with finding out counter-measures. I want to know that. I think one is entitled to ask that because his Department is the Department concerned with these matters. If the noble Marquess brushes me aside again, I must leave it. He says that I am alienating the House. I regret it but, with respect to noble Lords, I am not so concerned with whether I am alienating the House of Lords; what I am concerned with is whether I am attempting to protect the public against something for which the Government appear to have made no preparations.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I would not accept for a moment the last statement of the noble Viscount, which is utterly unreasonable. If he asks me, is my Department responsible for countermeasures against atomic attack, the answer is: It is not.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Of course.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is perfectly clear—it is not.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Of course.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is not the duty of the Lord President's Department. The whole Government have a responsibility in this matter, and primarily the Home Secretary, who produced the pamphlet to which the noble Viscount referred. If the noble Viscount wishes to raise the question of Civil Defence, the course is open to him at any time to put down a Motion in this House, when he will receive a full answer. I suggest that, if my Department is not responsible, then it is a little queer that the noble Viscount should raise this matter on the Committee stage of a Bill which concerns my Department.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I do not want to weary your Lordships further. The point is this: that of course the Home Secretary must make the shelters and enlist the Civil Defence volunteers; but the Home Secretary cannot possible know what chemical or other action is required. Only the Lord President can know that. The noble Marquess says that I am out of order. I have made my point. I know that I am not in a majority in this House. I can do no more.

LORD HANKEY

If I may step in where angels fear to tread, surely the whole system of co-ordination of the Government is available for this purpose? There is the Prime Minister at the top, in touch with all his Ministers, with his hand on the whole machine of defence, through the Ministry of Defence. All the Departments connected in any way with Civil Defence would naturally be informed automatically if there was any new information available on the subject; or, if they wanted any advice, they could get it through the ordinary system of supreme control over the co-ordination of Government business.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Financial Provisions as to the Authority]:

On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?

5.28 p.m.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

In another place, an Amendment was moved seeking to give direct Parliamentary control over the manufacture of the hydrogen bomb. That attempt did not meet with the support of my Party and it did not meet with the support of the other place. I am not going to renew or even to discuss its merits. But I think the noble Marquess, who himself is a very old Parliamentary servant, will agree that Parliamentary control should be protected. Let us see where we are. I remember a great many debates on defence. One of the earliest was on the question of the eight battleships in 1908— We want eight; And we won't wait. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, will remember that. I remember the full and open debate as regards the issue, between Mr. Balfour and Mr. Wyndham and Mr. McKenna and Mr. Asquith. Therefore, I do not consider that it is at all improper that we should discuss here detailed matters of defence. The more strong and violent the weapons are, the more important it is to retain Parliamentary control.

So far as I can judge from this machinery, Parliamentary control has just disappeared. We are not in a democracy at all. One man advises the Cabinet as to the priorities—that was in the last clause—between the offensive and industrial uses. It is very doubtful whether the hydrogen bomb could ever be a defensive weapon. But he advises, and then a decision is made by the Cabinet. Naturally, the Cabinet do not tell the Commons or the Lords what action is to be taken. That is an action by a few men which is far more effective than many Governments and many nations could take in many centuries. So I would not say that, if we ever reached the hydrogen age, we could consider it an age of Parliamentary democracy. In the meantime, however, it is the duty of Parliament to try, subject to considerations of national security (I cannot imagine that they arise very much in this country so far as the hydrogen bomb is concerned), to retain so far as possible, and according to our conventional training, control of this affair.

I may be asking questions that are founded on complete ignorance, because I am not very clear in my mind about this, but I understand that in Class 9, Vote 7, of the Estimates, the Atomic Energy Estimate amounted to about £53 million; and this Estimate would, of course, come before Parliament. We do not discuss Estimates here, but we can discuss questions of finance. In another place I should have been free to put down a Motion to reduce this Estimate by an amount, and then I should have persisted, because it is in Committee, until I received a satisfactory answer. Am I right in supposing that Class 9, Vote 7, Atomic Energy, disappears, or is it going to appear in the Estimates? Is it going to be transferred to some new account, to be inspected and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General? If the Estimate remains, I have nothing more to say, because then, either in another place or here, the matter can be raised. But from what the noble Marquess said in his speech, and from what Clause 4 sets out, it would appear that the whole Estimate is to be removed from Parliamentary inspection and passed to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who will make a report to Parliament. I may be quite wrong about this. Perhaps the noble Marquess would clear up the matter at once. If he says that the Estimate remains, then, of course, I have nothing more to say. If the Estimate is to be removed, then I should like to be allowed to offer one or two observations.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I should have thought Clause 4 was quite clear, though I may be entirely wrong. Subsection (1) of that clause says: The Lord President of the Council may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay to the Authority such sums in respect of the expenses of the Authority as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine. That is to say, he pays it over, but he has to get the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he does so. Then the clause goes on: (2) Any revenues of the Authority for any financial year … shall be applied by the Authority in such manner as the Lord President of the Council may, with the approval of the Treasury, direct, and any such direction may require the whole or any part of those revenues to be paid into the Exchequer. (3) The Authority shall keep proper accounts and other records and shall prepare in respect of each financial year statements of account in such form as the Treasury may direct and those statements shall … be transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who shall examine and certify the statements and lay copies thereof, together with his report thereon, before each House of Parliament. This House can debate those statements. The noble Viscount thinks that obscure, but to me the clause is as clear as it can be made. Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to remind him that the late Government (I am not complaining of it at all) spent a large amount of money in research into the atomic bomb, about which Parliament and the nation knew nothing. I am not complaining of that—I think it is probably one of the wisest things they did. He is suggesting that suddenly Parliamentary control is removed, but I should have thought that under this system there was more control than there was before.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

I am obliged to the noble Marquess for his explanation. It is a long time since I sat on the Public Accounts Committee and I do not remember what was the form of words. But would the noble Marquess give me an assurance that the amount of Parliamentary control over the expenditure of money in this case is no less than it is over the expenditure of money for any other purpose in any other Department?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

As I understand it, so far as these moneys are concerned, the control will be the same, and they will come before the Public Accounts Committee in the same way.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

The Public Accounts Committee is not Parliamentary control in the detailed sense. I understand the situation now to be this. We are going into the hydrogen age. It will be very expensive to experiment in this matter. Suppose that the Lord President, who has the say, decides that, in view of the national need, the military rather than the industrial side should have priority. That being so, it is open to him, with the consent of the Treasury, which is the Government, to give money to this Corporation to go ahead with the hydrogen bomb. Of course it would be very desirable that that decision should be subject to review or challenge in another place. But that is not the position in this Bill. Under it, the answer to my question is that the whole of this Estimate that I spoke of, the £53 million, disappears from the Estimates and a report is made by the Corporation to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who then certifies that it is in accordance with—I do not quite know what; I suppose the directions given by the Lord President. Therefore, it appears to me that unless the noble Marquess has something to add, what I feared is true—namely, that the whole of this enormous, uncharted and terrifying territory is being withdrawn entirely from criticism or control by the Houses of Parliament.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I honestly think the noble Viscount has not studied this subject with the full care which I should have expected of him. It is not the Lord President of the Council who will give these instructions to manufacture the hydrogen bomb. Of course if there were a decision with regard to the hydrogen bomb, that decision would be taken by the Cabinet as a whole. But under proviso (i) of Clause 2 (2) it is the Minister of Supply who would be really the ultimate source from which the instructions would come. I can read the proviso to the noble Lord: the Authority shall not, save in accordance with arrangements made with the Minister of Supply, develop or produce any weapon or part of a weapon, except that nothing in this proviso shall limit the power of the Authority to conduct experimental work which may lead to improved types … That I have already discussed on the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, and I think I have satisfied him as to the intention of those words. But certainly it is not myself, or my successor, who will give the ultimate instructions—that is to say, I should not act in a matter of that kind except on the initiative of the Minister of Supply. That may not satisfy the noble Viscount, but I think it puts him straight on a point in regard to which he was imperfectly informed. Then, with regard to the whole question of whether Parliament will have control, this matter was dealt with in another place, and I have nothing to add to what was said there. It is not possible, in a matter of this immense importance and secrecy, to say that everything shall be publicly discussed in Parliament. If Parliament is dissatisfied with the policy of the Government, the ultimate resort it has is to remove that Government. I am sure that those who were members of the late Government would accept exactly the same position. Therefore, in regard to details of that kind I do not think any responsible Government would take into account what has been done in other cases. I do not think any sensible person would expect it. But, within that limitation, the explanation I have given as to the responsibility of Parliament, and the opportunity of Parliament to discuss the expenditure, applies. I do not withdraw anything that I have said, and, as I say, I think Clause 4 is really completely clear on this question.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

The short answer is that, whereas where we have Estimate No. 9, which deals with atomic energy, on which any Member of another place can move a reduction, that Estimate disappears from the list of Estimates, and we are given a report which we may debate if we can find the time, or we may not. That is the short answer to that measure, to the measure of £53 million—and, of course, perhaps a greatly increased sum, if we go into the hydrogen bomb field. Parliamentary control disappears.

EARL JOWITT

Is that right? I am getting confused about this. I am not arguing. I quite understand what the noble Marquess said, but I should like to understand whether the gloss which the noble Viscount has put upon it is right or not. I am really in a state of confusion.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not think it is right. It would be open to either House, in that situation, to move that my salary be reduced. That would present an opportunity for a debate. I think that is the way it should be done.

5.40 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

Is it not even clearer than that? I assume that the Lord President of the Council may use moneys provided by Parliament to pay that Authority. Does that not go on his Vote? Does not Parliament therefore know how much money the Lord President is providing for atomic energy? It goes into the Estimates, and if any Member of Parliament thinks that the amount which the Lord President is providing is excessive he can move a reduction. Therefore Parliament has control of the overall sum. The amount of detail which the noble Marquess gives to Parliament is, I imagine, a matter for the discretion of the Government. They may not think it right to give to Parliament exact details of how this overall sum is going to be spent. That is a subject which all Governments have to consider, and in a matter of security naturally they are not in a position to give all the details. But the overall sum is under the control of Parliament and it can reduce it or can refuse to permit any of it to be spent. Is not that so?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not want to dissent from what I said at all, and I think that what is said in paragraph (c) is absolutely clear and definite.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

This is a very important matter, and I am much indebted to the noble Marquess for the trouble he has taken in explaining it. Moneys voted for these purposes will be voted on the ordinary Parliamentary Votes either of the Minister of Supply or of the Lord President of the Council. So far as the Ministry of Supply is concerned it would be accountable to Parliament in the ordinary Departmental way—not that that way always gives Members of Parliament much information as to how the money is going to be spent, as we have seen in the use of atomic money hitherto. But so far as the Lord President's Vote is concerned, he is authorised to hand over to the Authority such money as is required to carry on their authorised functions, and they will be subject to the Comptroller and Auditor General and will report to him in such form as the Treasury will require. Parliament can require the Treasury to do that, and it seems to me, and I hope the noble Marquess will be able to confirm it, that these arrangements are not diminishing in any way the control of Parliament over the expenditure. In some respects it seems there will be rather more than less light.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is quite correct. There is an ordinary Estimate first, and that will be subject to debate or a Motion to reduce it, if Parliament is not satisfied. Then there will be an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and an examination by the Public Accounts Committee. I think the noble Lord is right in saying that in the old days, when it was all wrapped up among a million other items in the Ministry of Supply, it was perhaps even more difficult to distinguish what was being spent on this subject than it will be under the Lord President's Vote.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I was confused in my presentation of the case and I understand now. It is quite simple. I am not asking for details—no one can ask for details in these intimate matters of security—but I understand from what the Lord President says that there will be an overall Vote of the sum, and if people are asked, "What is this money, and how are you spending it?" it will then be as in the case of the Home Office and the Secret Service: they will not answer at all. If that is the situation, that leaves Parliament with at any rate this amount of control: that it can measure the growth in the overall expenditure in this field. Parliament will be able to watch the growth, although it may not know the details.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Powers as to purchase of land, carrying out works, etc.]:

On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

There is something I should like to say on Clause 5 although there is no Amendment down. I refer to a comparatively small point raised in another place. During the debate on Clause 5 (3) in the Report stage in another place, the Solicitor-General undertook to inquire whether the position as regards damage to fishing rights from pollution of rivers was substantially the same in Scotland as in England. These inquiries have now been made and I can give the House the result. The Lord Advocate's Department has advised that there is no doubt that the owners of salmon fishings can take legal action to protect themselves against damage by pollution. In the case of other fishings it has not been possible to find any case where the point has been specifically tested in an action brought solely in respect of damage by pollution to fishing other than salmon, but the position is thought to be the same. In these circumstances no Amendment is being put down; but in view of the Solicitor-General's undertaking I should like to take the opportunity to explain that Clause 5 (3) will afford protection for the owners of salmon and probably other fishings in Scotland from pollution of rivers by radioactive waste discharged from the Authority's premises, and I am prepared to give an assurance that the Authority will not seek to base a defence in any action on the possible distinction between salmon and other fishings. I hope that this statement will make the position quite clear.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

5.47 p.m.

First Schedule [Provisions as to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority]:

LORD SILKIN moved, in Paragraph 7 (4), to leave out all words after "not" down to the end of the sub-paragraph, and to insert: terminate on security grounds the employment of any officer of, or person employed by, the Authority. In this sub-paragraph the expression 'security grounds' means grounds which are grounds for dismissal from the civil service of Her Majesty, in accordance with any arrangements for the time being in force relating to dismissals from that service for reasons of national security. The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. If noble Lords will look at the First Schedule, Paragraph 7 (4) they will see that this provides for the dismissal of persons in the employment of the Authority on the grounds of national security. It provides that: Except with the consent of the Lord President of the Council, the Authority shall not dismiss any officer or other person employed by them on the ground that his political associations render his continued employment undesirable in the interests of national security. I raised this matter on Second Reading. I regard the test of political associations as being quite unsatisfactory, and I think that the noble Marquess, in his winding-up speech. agreed that it was not altogether a satisfactory test to apply. For one thing, it suggests that inquiries should be made of a person's political associations, and I think it is a very short step from that to asking point-blank, as a condition of employment, what are a person's political associations. Otherwise, it seems to me that it would be very difficult to judge whether or not a person was unreliable. Furthermore, to base a person's reliability or otherwise on the question of what are his political associations is, in my view, not the right test at all. A person can belong to any political association and be unreliable or belong to none at all and be unreliable. Therefore I feel—and I think this is also the view of the noble Marquess opposite—this test is not altogether a satisfactory one. The Amendment which I move in a sense evades the question, but it applies the same test to persons employed by the Authority as to civil servants. Whatever may be the arrangements made in the Civil Service, it is suggested by this Amendment that they should be applied to persons employed by the Authority. It is the best Amendment, I think, that can be devised, and I have every reason to hope that it will be accepted by Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 8, leave out from ("not") to end of line 10 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Silkin.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am happy to say, quite briefly, that the Government will be ready to accept this Amendment. Indeed, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for tabling it in the form which he has done, for it is clearly important, in a matter which is obviously of very real importance, to get a solution agreeable to all Parties. Actually, I do not believe there ever was very much difference between us. As I indicated in my Second Reading speech—or in the winding-up speech—I was never entirely happy about the words "political associations," to which the noble Lord has referred—indeed, the question has already been under examination, as a result of the raising of the matter in another place, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Works made it clear there that the object of the Government (I use his own words) was to: write in the Bill what is the practice in the Civil Service. The only doubt was how this was to be done. The Amendment which the noble Lord has now put forward, I think, entirely meets the case. If, of course, the Civil Service practice changed then the practice of this Authority would change, too. The important thing is that they would continue to be identical with each other. In these circumstances, I am ready to accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

I am greatly interested to note that the Amendment is being accepted. The point is very important. I do not know whether the words "political associations" appear in any existing Statute—perhaps the noble Marquess can say—or whether we should be writing on the Statute Book for the first time a disqualification arising on account of political associations in those terms. Whether this would be a new precedent or not will not now arise, because, owing to the vigilance of the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench, the point has been raised and, I think, has been met by the Government in the most satisfactory way.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I was pleased to hear what the noble Marquess said, but I am not surprised, for the Conservative Party, in the matter of civil liberties, has a record which commands respect. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether it would be possible, if I gave notice of the Question, for me to ask for some information about the probable numbers of people who will be coming under the new rule, and also to ask, from time to time, the numbers of those employed and how far the rule has been applied. I do not know whether this will concern thousands or hundreds of people. As the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party has said, this is a very big issue. Would the noble Marquess consider giving us from time to time details of how many new people are brought under the new conditions, how many, from time to time, have been transferred, and so on? If the noble Marquess could do that I think it would help.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If the noble Viscount will put down a Question I shall be very happy to give him what information I can. I do not know how far it would be possible to give details in these matters. My impression at the moment is that the number is a pretty limited one.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Third Schedule [Adaptations and Modifications of Enactments]:

5.54 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in the part of the Schedule headed "Other Enactments," at the beginning to insert: In section ninety-seven of the Explosives Act, 1875, references to a department of the Government, except the second such reference in paragraph (5) of that section, shall be constructed as including references to the Authority. The noble Marquess said: I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that the Explosives Act, 1875, shall not be applicable to the Atomic Energy Authority. The Explosives Act, as your Lordships know, is an Act—I quote the words: to amend the law in respect to manufacturing, keeping, selling, carrying, and importing gunpowder, nitroglycerine, and other explosive substances. It contains the statutory provisions under which the storage and transport of conventional explosives are controlled and under which the explosives inspectors of the Home Office work. Section 97 of that Act provides that it shall not bind the Crown and it has not, therefore, so far applied to the Atomic Energy Project, which has been within the purview of the Ministry of Supply. But by virtue of Clause 6 (5) of the Atomic Energy Bill, which says that: save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Authority are not to be treated for the purposes of the enactments and rules of law relating to the privileges of the Crown as a body exercising functions on behalf of the Crown … the Act will henceforward apply to the Authority unless a special provision is made in the Bill.

There are, I suggest, three reasons why the Act should not be applied to the Authority. First, by Section 3 of the Act, the term "explosive" means gunpower, nitro-glycerine, etc. … and every other substance … used or manufactured with a view to producing a practical effect by explosion. … The provisions of the Act might therefore be held to apply to "atomic" explosives—that is to say, fissile material. That would be totally erroneous in present circumstances. Secondly, the provisions of the Act (which require licensing of magazines, hearings by local authorities, and public inquiry into accidents) would be entirely out of keeping with the stringent security requirements which are necessary in this particular case. Lastly, the classifications in the code of practice laid down in the Act do not accord with the classifications used in the project. The project establishments, which have grown up in the Ministry of Supply, base their practice on that of the Service and Supply Departments, and in particular on the Ammunition and Explosives Regulations (Land Service), 1953, issued by the War Office, and other prescriptions as to the safety distances et cetera as laid down by the Inter-Departmental Committee.

The matter was fully examined by the Department concerned and it has become evident to the Government that this old Act almost belongs to a different world, and is entirely inappropriate to the Atomic Energy Project, and the Amendment is necessary. At the same time, I should not, of course, suggest to the Committee that the Authority should by this Amendment both be exempted from the civilian code and, by ceasing to be a Government Department, escape from the administrative control of the War Office code, which is observed by all Service and Supply Departments. I should therefore like to make it clear that I intend to ensure that the Authority shall comply in detail with such Magazine and Explosives Code of Practice as is from time to time in force in Service and Supply Departments. We mean merely to harmonise it with them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 6, at beginning insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

Before we leave this matter, I would say that I think there are certain aspects of what the Lord President has said which affect the safety of people working in these establishments. I am not quite sure how the old Explosives Act applies, but it applies in some regards—indeed, the noble Marquess the Lord President intends in devising his rules of conduct, I understand, to have regard to that.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Oh yes; very much so.

LORD SILKIN

I was going to raise an analogous point, and that concerns the question of public inquiries in the event of serious accidents, which I fear must inevitably occur from time to time. Under the Explosives Act, I gather that in such an event a public inquiry is bound to take place. In this case, I imagine, it will be in the discretion of the Lord President. I realise that it may not be practical politics to have a public inquiry in which all sorts of secret information might have to be disclosed. Nevertheless, one of the safeguards that the public expect is that, in the event of a serious accident, there should be an inquiry. While I do not expect the noble Marquess to be able to give a specific reply upon the matter to-day, I hope that it is one of those matters which will be taken into account, and that consideration will be given to the question of how to reconcile the interests of security with the general safety of the public.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord has said. Of course, it has great validity. We all like to have public inquiries where they are possible. I should not like to give an advance opinion, but in matters where secrecy is vital it might be better not to have a public inquiry. I should have thought it was a matter on which the Lord President must use his discretion, and I should have thought that any Lord President, who I hope would be a person of mature experience, would use his discretion so as not to rule out an inquiry should that be at all possible.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

There is one final point that I should like to make, with your Lordships' permission. In handing over the whole of this work to a new Authority, we have to remember that it is a new Authority and will not carry with it quite the same traditions, powerful, though short in time, which have grown up in the Ministry of Supply, particularly in matters of the health and safety of the people involved. It is a highly creditable thing that within the Ministry, often in the most dangerous work, the highest records of health prevail—higher, in fact, than among the general public. This is due entirely to the discipline and public spirit, the research and good work which has become an inalienable tradition of this Department. I have no doubt that under the Lord President's guidance the benefit of that tradition will be handed to the new Authority.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I give the noble Lord an absolute assurance that, so far as it lies in my power, it will be. Of course, he will know that the main establishments of the Authority will be, fortunately, under the same highly trusted management as they have always been.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.