ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL (Hansard, 3 December 1959)

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)
My Lords, this Bill has two purposes. The first is to raise from ten to fifteen the maximum number of members on the Atomic Energy Authority; and the second is to enable the Authority to include in its pension scheme those of its staff who are transferred to the employment of the National Institute which, as your Lordships will know, was founded a little time ago for the purpose of enabling the universities and other learned bodies to participate in fundamental research.
1162 The increase in numbers is rendered necessary by two events. The first was the splitting of the industrial group of the Authority into separate groups dealing respectively with production and with development and engineering. The head of the development and engineering group is already a full-time member of the Authority. It is clearly desirable that the head of the production group should also have a seat on the Board. The second event which has rendered the change urgent is the retirement of Sir John Cockcroft to be Master of Churchill College and it is thought desirable—and I am sure the House will agree—that he should continue as a part-time member of the Board.
Unhappily, the full establishment of the Board has been complete since 1955. One position among the part-time members on the existing establishment is vacant because of the retirement of Sir Ivan Stedeford but I hope that, with your Lordships' approval, that will be made up, with the result that unless this Bill is passed, the Board will be two over strength. Both the members have, in fact, been giving their assistance to the Authority, but obviously the situation could not be allowed to continue. That would, of course, leave a flexibility of three, because the proposal is to increase the numbers to fifteen. That was always the intention of the original Act which left a margin between seven and ten, and it is thought that this measure of flexibility is desirable for the future.
As regards the second purpose, the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science was set up independently of the Authority to provide facilities for fundamental research in which the universities could participate but which would prove beyond the means of individual universities to provide. It is managed by a Board on which the Authority, the universities, the Royal Society and other interested bodies are represented, but the staff involved are very largely interchanged with the staff of the Authority. The present statutory powers of the Authority to provide a pensions scheme are limited to providing only for those actually in their employment, and this second clause is necessary in order to enable those staff transferred to the Institute to benefit by the Authority's scheme. It is not my 1163 belief that this raises any point of controversy, certainly not between the Parties. The two remaining clauses of the Bill are purely consequential. In these circumstances, and with this explanation, I should hope that this House will give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount the Minister for Science for his explanation of the Bill. It seems pretty clear, but perhaps I might just ask him two small questions. In regard to his last statement, on Clause 2, when he speaks of the inclusion for superannuation of these people who are transferred from or to the Institute, does he mean on permanent transfer? He did not make any reference to that, but surely it is intended to refer to those who are exchanged on loan. Secondly, did I gather from what was said by the noble and learned Viscount about those people already working on the Atomic Energy Authority that the two people to whom he referred are already working as members of the Board but that their position needs to be put in order by this Bill? Are they already there, and has there been any remuneration since they were appointed members of the Board?

§ LORD BOOTHBY
My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies, may I ask whether I am right to understand that Sir John Cockcroft has already agreed to serve as a part-time member of the Board after he becomes Master of Churchill College?

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I understand that that is so. As regards the first point made by the noble Viscount, the provisions of the second clause cover both sets of circumstances. As regards the second point, of course these two cannot be members of the Authority in the full sense, but they have in fact been discharging their duties as members of the Authority because they have been designated as members-designate. But that is a very unsatisfactory situation and could be put 1164 in order only by this Bill, if passed. I am not quite sure of the position regarding their remuneration, but no money can have been payable to them, of course, except by the authority of Parliament—which would not be forthcoming until this Bill becomes law. But I am not sure how far their remuneration is dependent on membership of the Authority and how far on their appointment to the position, under the Authority, of the head of their particular section.