HL Deb 09 July 1981 vol 422 cc894-917

8.6 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD AMPTHILL in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Extension of power of Atomic Energy Authority and Secretary of State to dispose of shares etc.]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill)

Before calling Amendment No. 1, I should inform the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("in") to end of line 11 and insert ("the Nuclear Fuels Company and Amersham International Ltd.").

The noble Lord said: It may help to shorten these proceedings if, by way of introduction to the series of amendments standing in my name, and particularly as a preface to Amendment No. 1, I say at once that in my view the Government, by this quite unnecessary Bill, are dealing in a slovenly and potentially dangerous way with activities relating to atomic energy, including research in, and production of, explosive nuclear devices. They are dealing with the commercialisation of shares in these companies in the field of atomic energy in entirely the wrong way, and without due regard to the effect of their proposals internationally. It will be difficult for the Government to complain about action by foreign governments in regard to proliferation of atomic energy devices if they persist with this Bill with its vague generalisations. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has asked me to say that he strongly supports the views that I am putting forward today, but, in view of his recent operations, he apologises for not being present here so late this evening.

The main object of Amendment No. 1 and other amendments in my name is directed to trying to ensure that the proposal of the Government in this Bill shall not lead to any reduction of the degree of safety and control of atomic energy—research in this field of safety and control being so absolutely essential. Safety and control in this field are paramount and can only be achieved by Government action. This Bill, of all Bills, should be specific in its proposals. My Amendment No. 1 is directed simply to the fact that there should be mentioned the names of those companies with which the Government are proposing to deal, without any reference to their activities. There is a great danger in having included in Clause 1 of this Bill the scope of the activities of this company set out in such a wide form, whatever may be the attempted control later to be found in vague generalisations in the Bill.

The activities of the companies concerned are announced generally in this way: activities include the development of atomic energy or research into matters connected therewith or the production, treatment, storage or disposal of radioactive substances". The term "atomic energy" is defined in Clause 4 of this Bill by reference to Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Act 1946. That section of the Atomic Energy Act 1946 defines atomic energy in the following extremely broad way: Atomic energy means energy released from atomic nuclei as a result of any process, including the fission process, but does not include energy released in any process of natural transmutation or radioactive decay which is not accelerated or influenced by external means". If, for the purposes of the Bill, atomic energy were defined so as to include only those processes concerned with the release of natural transmutation or radioactive decay, there would not be so much difficulty about the Bill. The position gets worse when one considers the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954, which gives further powers to the Atomic Energy Authority and includes in Section 2(2), dealing with the functions of the authority this extraordinarily broad definition in relation to atomic energy: 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"— and those words are quite clear, but then the danger arises from the next words, the proviso: 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". When, in this Bill, the Government use a definition of the activities of any of the companies—and the names of the companies are not so far mentioned—in such wide terms as in lines 8 to 11, with which we are here concerned, then serious danger arises for the future. Thus, the amendment is directed to deleting any reference at this stage to the activities of the company together with a precise indication of the companies covered by the Bill.

At one stage I had thought that the title of the Bill was totally inappropriate because, by its reference to atomic energy, it raises, as I said on Second Reading, a great many suspicions and anxieties. I thought that perhaps the Bill should have been referred to under the names of the particular companies being considered. However, that might be somewhat difficult to do at this stage and therefore my amendment refers to both the companies with which the Bill is supposed to be concerned without any reference to their activities, coupled—as they are in the Bill as at present drafted—with a wide reference to atomic energy as defined in the 1946 and 1954 Acts. I beg to move.

8.14 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has stated the ground rules for this Committee stage very clearly and I am glad to follow his lead. At Second Reading I said specifically: I ought to emphasise that Amersham International's products —namely, radioactive substances for use in medicine, industry and research—are not, I repeat, not, relevant to the nuclear power programme".—[Official Report, 23/6/81; col. 967.] Further to that, nothing in the Bill—and none of the companies; incidentally, there are three companies involved in it—applies to weapons construction in any way, and I cannot say it more clearly than that. I have already explained the position of Amersham International. BNFL manufactures fuel and reprocesses spent fuel, so that has nothing to do with weapons. The National Nuclear Corporation is a design and construction company of nuclear power stations. I promise noble Lords—and I can give this assurance—that nothing in the Bill has anything to do with nuclear weapons; so I have stated my ground rules.

The purpose of the amendment is to limit the Secretary of State's disposal powers to BNFL and Amersham, as the noble Lord said, thus excluding the third one, the National Nuclear Corporation. The main purpose of the Bill is to clarify the present state of the law—that is, principally the 1971 Act—and currently it is unclear (so our legal advisers tell us) what exactly are the powers of the Secretary of State in terms of the disposal of shares. We think—but, as I say, it is unclear—that the Secretary of State's present powers are to dispose of a minority of shares in Amersham International, and the extra bit we are putting in is to take powers for him to dispose of all the shares if the Government wanted to do so. While we were at it, it seemed sensible also to clarify his present powers to dispose of a minority of shares in BNFL as well, so allowing a disposal of up to 49 per cent. of those shares. But as I stressed on Second Reading, the Government have no such plans at present.

The noble Lord quoted from Section 2(2) of the 1954 Act. Those provisions were repealed by Section 6(2) of the Atomic Energy Authority (Weapons Group) Act 1973, about which we shall no doubt speak further on a later amendment. The effect of all this is that the authority can do nothing connected with weapons, except in accordance with arrangements with the Secretary of State. Having stated my ground rules, and I think having stuck to the amendment under discussion, I hope the noble Lord will see why it is not an appropriate amendment in this case.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I am grateful to the Minister for reminding me of what he said on Second Reading; I had re-read it. I am glad to hear him give a pronouncement that none of these companies will be con- cerned with anything relating to the nuclear power programme. However, in my view an announcement from the Front Bench in your Lordships' House is not adequate. If that is the position of the Government it should be made clear in positive words in the Bill, and the object of my amendment was one stage in a clarification of the position.

I was aware that the section to which I had referred in the 1954 Act had been repealed or modified at a later stage, but I had not been able to find a reference earlier to the precise provision. Nevertheless, these provisions exist and countries abroad will be reading this debate and deciding what is meant by "atomic energy", and it would appear from the vague generalisations in the Bill that the Government are giving way on this question of safety and security in terms of control in this field, and therefore there is the possible danger of increasing the desire of other countries to proliferate their activities in this field. However, I will read what the noble Lord said today and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.19 p.m.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 8, after ("company") insert ("listed in the Schedule to this Act").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 15. The object here is that the Government should state in the Bill the list of companies with which they are dealing. At present we know of only three companies in which there are shares owned by the Atomic Energy Authority or the Government. Instead, therefore, of leaving the matter generally as "any company associated with activities" with which the Government are concerned, they should be listed so that we may know in the future what companies the Government are concerned with. I beg to move.

Lord Strabolgi

I should like to support this amendment for the reasons which have been explained so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. This is a very difficult Bill to understand. The wording of the Bill is extremely complicated even by the standards of much modern legislation. Also, in the interpretation there is a sentence I have never seen before in any legislation, where it says in Clause 4(1): 'The Radiochemical Company' means Amersham International Limited, formerly known as The Radiochemical Centre Limited". Yet all through the earlier parts of the Bill, the company is referred to as the "Radiochemical Company." I believe that the suggestion made by the noble Lord is a distinct improvement and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it. It does not in any way alter what the Government are trying to do; it just makes matters clearer for people to understand when the Bill becomes an Act.

Lord Skelmersdale

I am afraid that the amendment would not make matters much clearer. The purpose of this amendment would be to limit the Secretary of State's disposal powers to companies named in the schedule. I notice that only two of the three named companies are in the schedule. At best, this would exclude the powers to sell shares in the third company and it would also exclude powers to sell shares in any company that the Secretary of State might acquire in the future. Again, it is a matter of clarification hung over from earlier Acts. It seemed to us sensible to clarify the Secretary of State's present powers to sell shares in any company connected with radioactive substances which he might acquire in the future. Not to do so would require the Government to keep coming back to Parliament merely to seek clarification of the law. I am sure noble Lords would agree that this would be both wasteful and impracticable. Furthermore, I am sure that noble Lords will understand why I cannot accept this amendment, which would strike at an important subsidiary purpose of this Bill.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I completely fail to understand the arguments made by the noble Lord the Minister—probably due entirely to my own limitations. It seems to me to be only right to explain to the public what these companies are. When I first drafted this amendment I wanted to leave the schedule completely blank so that it could be filled in with the names of all the companies with which the Government might be concerned in this field, but I was advised that Amendment No. 15 would be better drafted in the way that it now appears. In all the circumstances, I do not propose to press this amendment. If the Government desire to keep secret the names of the companies in which they own shares in this particular field, then that is a matter of policy for the Government.

Lord Skelmersdale

These are the only companies which the Secretary of State currently owns. There is no secrecy about that—it is a fact. If I might clarify a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, Amersham International Limited became Amersham International Limited on 5th May this year, which is why it was necessary to change its name, because the earlier name was in the earlier legislation. That is why we have this rather confusing statement in Clause 4 of the Bill.

Lord Strabolgi

What I still fail to understand is why, if the company is now called Amersham International Limited, it cannot be called this in the Bill. Why cannot the Government move an amendment, either during its later stages in the other place or when it comes to your Lordships' House at a later stage, if the Government so wish, to substitute for the words "Radiochemical Company", which is now obsolete, the company's present title, which is Amersham International Limited? I do not understand why it is necessary to refer to the company by its old title and then have to explain in Clause 4 that the Radiochemical Company means Amersham International Limited.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I support entirely what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, but also I cannot understand why the third company is not mentioned in the earlier part of the Bill. Why not mention it by name? If these are the only three companies concerned, why is Clause 1(1) couched in such general terms? It states: the power of the Secretary of State to dispose of shares held by him in any company". Then only two companies are mentioned in the Bill. Now there is a third company; and now we are told that they are the only three companies in existence. Why cannot subsection (1) be limited to the three companies concerned?

Lord Skelmersdale

For the reason which I thought I had explained. It is that I cannot tell your Lordships at this moment what companies the Secretary of State might acquire in the future. We know that legislation now has a very long life, and with the pressures on parliamentary business does it not seem sensible at this precise moment, without knowing whether there will be any more companies concerned in the future, to clarify the position in respect of them as well as for the companies we are already talking about?

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I would have accepted with a certain amount of reluctance what the noble Lord the Minister has just said if we were directing our attention at matters other than those concerned with atomic energy, safety and control. I quite agree that it is not a good thing always to be coming back to your Lordships' House for new powers in respect of additional companies but, having regard to what the noble Lord has said, I ask leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.27 p.m.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 11, at end insert— ("Provided always that such activities are not relevant to any nuclear power programme and are not directly or indirectly related with the development or production of any weapon or part of a weapon or explosive nuclear assembly as defined in the Atomic Energy Act 1946 and section 2 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954.").

The noble Lord said: Having regard to the helpful observations which have already been made by the noble Lord the Minister, I should have thought that there would have been very little difficulty about the Government accepting the general theme of this amendment, if not the actual wording. The object of this amendment is to make it quite clear that none of the companies concerned, whether in the past or in the future, will have activities which are relevant, to any nuclear power programme and are not directly or indirectly related with the development or production of any weapon or part of a weapon or explosive nuclear assembly". The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has quite fairly said that none of the companies concerned with this Bill will be concerned with these aspects of nuclear power, development or production. In order to make it clear not only to people in this country but also internationally, surely the wording that he introduced at the beginning of his speech on Amendment No. 1 should be incorporated in Amendment No. 7—if not in exactly the same words, then in similar words? I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale

The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, being a lawyer, will understand that I am absolutely terrified of lawyers, and he will also under- stand why I had this particular amendment looked at very carefully when he first put it down. I am advised that the wording of this amendment is so sweeping as to exclude virtually all companies remotely connected with radioactive substances. Any company involved in the production, treatment, storage or disposal of radioactive substances", could be subject to technical legal arguments that they were connected with the nuclear power programme in some way, because some of their products could be used in that programme.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I cannot find the words which have just been quoted by the noble Lord the Minister in my amendment. As I understand it, we are dealing with Amendment No. 3, and I cannot find in that amendment the words, the production, treatment, storage or disposal of radioactive substances". I believe that the noble Lord is referring to Amendment No. 4—so he need not be frightened of lawyers, because I am the most amiable kind of lawyer and I am trying to help the noble Lord the Minister to get on the right track, without any legal intentions whatsoever.

Lord Skelmersdale

The noble Lord is quite right. Yes, I am dealing with Amendment No. 3, but unfortunately I misread my notes on this particular subject. What I should have said is that any company involved in the production, treatment, storage or disposal of radioactive substances —those are the words in the Bill, not the words in the noble Lord's amendment—could be subject to technical legal argument that they were connected with the nuclear power programme in some way because, for example, some of their products could be used in that programme. Indeed, arguments could be mounted that Amersham itself was so connected because of its birth from within the Atomic Energy Authority (which I described at length on Second Reading)—a body whose very purpose is heavily engaged with nuclear power. The amendment would, I fear, greatly muddy the present powers of the Secretary of State, which is the precise opposite of the purpose of the Bill.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

Here again, I fail to understand how a simple, straightforward amendment of this kind can muddy any Bill. In words somewhat similar to those that the noble Lord introduced in his speech on Amendment No. 1, this amendment states that none of the activities of the company is associated with the nuclear power programme. If that is true, why not make it clear, so that everyone knows the position in regard to the company's atomic energy activities? It would also make it quite clear that the company is not directly or indirectly concerned with the development or production of a weapon, part of a weapon, or an explosive nuclear assembly—

Lord Skelmersdale

We must get this right, if we are to stick to the ground rules, as it were. I said that the Bill does not in any way apply to weapons construction. As I said on Second Reading and have repeated, Amersham International's products are not relevant to the power programme. The other two companies are relevant to the power programme, but none of them has anything to do with weapons. That is what I said.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I note what the noble Lord the Minister has to say on this matter, but it seems to me that the Government do not want to make quite clear that all the companies with which the Bill is concerned are not connected with the nuclear power programme. Assurances are given here, but the Government are not prepared to make clear to the world at large what is the position. I had hoped that the noble Lord would be more sympathetic to the amendment. However, he has taken a very firm line, no doubt under instructions, as part of the policy of the Government in this extraordinarily difficult area, where environmentalists are proving very troublesome and foreign countries are proving difficult. Some of us are aware of what is happening in regard to the American situation and the situation in other countries, which I need not name at this stage. However, it is the policy of the Government not to make their position clear as to what is the range of the definition of "atomic energy" and of the activities of the companies, a substantial part of which at any rate they propose to pass to the private sector. Again I say that the private sector cannot provide the safety and control so essential to the carrying on of activities of this kind in companies with which the Bill is supposed to deal. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.33 p.m.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 1, line 15, after ("functions") insert— ("Provided always that the exercise of such power shall not lead or tend to lead to the proliferation of activities of whatsoever kind related to the production, research, development, treatment, storage and distribution of explosive nuclear devices, or any parts thereof.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 contains another form of words that is intended to try to clarify what should be the activities of the companies. The amendment provides that always the exercise of any powers by the Secretary of State or the authority, shall not lead or tend to lead to the proliferation of activities", relating to explosive nuclear devices, and so on. The theme behind this amendment is the same as that behind Amendment No. 3, but perhaps as time goes on the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, might become more sympathetic to the view that I am putting forward. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale

I am sorry that I took such a hard line (as the noble Lord described it) on the last amendment. I did not mean to be quite so fierce as I seem to have got into the habit of being, and I shall try to correct my ways. The purpose and the effect of the amendment is to limit the Atomic Energy Authority's powers under the Bill by preventing it from selling shares in a company which would result in a proliferation of nuclear weapons. I said that we would get back to the Atomic Energy Authority (Weapons Group) Act 1973, and indeed that is exactly what we are about to do. In that Act the authority (that is, the AEA) has not had power to do anything of the kind mentioned in the amendment, except by arrangement with the Secretary of State. No such arrangements have been made.

I do not know whether the noble Lord has a copy of this Act, and perhaps it would be helpful if I were to read part of it to him. I refer to Section 6(1) of the Atomic Energy Authority (Weapons Group) Act 1973, which states: The Authority shall not by virtue of anything in section 2 of the Atomic Energy Act 1954 (general powers in relation to production, use and disposal of atomic energy and to carrying out research, etc.) have power to engage in any work, whether by way of research, experiment, development, production or otherwise, on any explosive nuclear device, whether for war-like applications or otherwise, except in accordance with arrangements made with the Secretary of State.". That was what I was referring to. As I say, no such arrangements have been made. There is no other power that the authority can use to get round this very basic concept; and I agree with the noble Lord that it is a very basic concept.

The Government would certainly not permit the authority to dispose of interests which might lead to nuclear weapons proliferation, but the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, should be aware that the authority is not connected with research and development or manufacture of nuclear assemblies for weapons, following the transfer of Aldermaston to the Ministry of Defence under the 1973 Act. I hope that the noble Lord will see, with a little more light on this occasion, why I am unable to accept the amendment.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

It was very good of the noble Lord to apologise for taking a hard line, but there is no need for him ever to apologise to me for taking a hard line. But the sting of his speech was very much in the tail, as stings usually are, where he asked me to be more enlightened than I am. Perhaps that rather tempts me to be a little lengthier in my explanations of my theme, but looking at the members of the Committee around me, I do not propose to be tempted in that way. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for reading out the section of the 1973 Act. I am sorry that I came here ill-prepared, not having myself studied the Act. I shall study what the noble Lord has said, and I reserve the right to deal with the question later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

8.38 p.m.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 16, leave out ("promote") and insert ("not be contrary to").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 6 I shall at the same time speak also to Amendment No. 8. The amendment brings us to that part of the very lengthy Clause 1 which provides that the Secretary of State shall not take certain action unless it will promote the national interest. I need not trouble your Lordships by dealing with the scope of the exercise of powers by the Secretary of State. It is very difficult to define what is meant by the "national interest". The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is later to move an amendment in relation to this matter. Time and time again when the words "national interest" have arisen I have had experience of the courts asking, "What is the national interest? What are the parameters that the Government have in mind?" In the courts we are not entitled to refer to, to read, speeches made in either House of Parliament, though there are methods of indicating what kind of argument has been put forward.

Therefore instead of referring to promoting the national interest, it seems to me more commonsensical to provide that something shall not be contrary to the national interest. If the national interest is so vague a concept, how can one promote something in the national interest? One would be adding to the vagueness. On the other hand, it seems to me to be clearer to provide that something should not be contrary to the national interest. I am sure that members of the Committee will not think that this is merely a matter of semantics. There is a point involved, albeit a very nice one to argue before the courts, but probably it would fall on fairly stony ground if I were to argue it at any length here. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale

No, I would not describe it as quite a surmounting argument, but I think it is sailing a little bit close to it. Forgetting about "national interests" just for one minute, would the noble Lords perhaps accept that the word "promote" is an active forceful word, and "not be contrary to" is a rather neutral, not to say negative wording? So by substituting for "Does the sale promote the national interest", the test "Is it contrary to the public interest", it in fact weakens that particular clause or that sentence in the Bill. I really am surprised by this amendment for that reason.

I think it is right that the Secretary of State should be required to promote national interest rather than merely act contrary to it. When I did a little research into this matter, I discovered that the Secretary of State, who is the active agent of the Crown, is constitutionally the repository of the national interest, and so must be charged with the job of promoting it. This seems to me to be a rather circular argument, but then perhaps it is a rather circular amendment, and I hope that perhaps the noble Lord could consider this point.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I do not propose to argue this point any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.42 p.m.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 17, after ("interest") insert ("and any international agreement or Convention of which the United Kingdom is a party relating to the prevention of the proliferation of use of nuclear power.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 7 is basically a very important amendment. It follows the words that in the Secretary of State's opinion it will promote the national interest". It is not only the national interest which is to be considered here, but it is also any international agreement or convention of which the United Kingdom is a party relating to the prevention of the proliferation of use of nuclear power". Those words just make it clearer, in my view, that the Government have at the back of their mind always the very important matter of preventing proliferation of the use of nuclear power. The noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, has said that nuclear power, now the companies are concerned will affect safety and control of matters relating to nuclear power, and all this amendment is endeavouring to state is that not only is this in the national interest, but the international aspect of this interest should also be stressed in relation to international agreements or conventions. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale

Again this is a rather curious amendment. Its effect would be to restrict disposals made by the authority—not the Secretary of State, but the authority—under the direction of the Secretary of State to these proposals which would promote non-proliferation of nuclear power. As worded, it would restrict disposals to be made under the Bill by the authority acting under the direction of the Secretary of State to those proposals that actually help to prevent the wider use of nuclear power. The amendment would therefore effectively prevent any disposal made under a direction. However, perhaps the noble Lord is in fact referring to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Is this so?

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

The proliferation of the use of nuclear power in the context of this Bill.

Lord Skelmersdale

Well, having gone through many of the other amendments moved by the noble Lord, one can see why I had to ask the question as I was really not quite sure. But if he would continue this thought towards nuclear weapons, what therefore he would be referring to would be the United Kingdom's participation in the non-proliferation treaty, or to the United Kingdom International Atomic Energy Agency, or to the Euratom safeguards agreement.

It is absolutely inconceivable that the United Kingdom would ever be contrary to these agreements. If we ratify international agreements or conventions, obviously we become bound by them and observe them. We really cannot consider legislation which suggests we might renege from what we have committed ourselves to perform, and it is this I am advised is what this amendment pre-supposes.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I have listened very subjectively to what the noble Lord says. He says this amendment suggests that the Government are likely to renege on agreements that they have entered into. All this amendment is intended to do is to make it quite clear that this Bill, in view of its vague generalisations, has no facet which will interfere with these international agreements or conventions relating to non-proliferation. I am a little disappointed at the lack of sympathy with which the noble Lord has been dealing with these matters, and in these circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 23, at end insert ("But before such a disposal is made he shall lay a report before Parliament defining the national interest and stating in what ways such a disposal could be inconsistent with promoting or controlling the development of atomic energy.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9. At present the Bill allows the Government to dispose of 49 per cent. of the shares of British Nuclear Fuels Limited and up to 100 per cent. of the shares of the Radiochemical Centre, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has pointed out, is now called The Amersham International Limited.

The Government are permitted to do this without any further parliamentary authority. The Bill lays down that if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the disposal would be inconsistent with promoting or controlling the development of atomic energy, the disposal may only be made if in his opinion it will promote the national interest.

We had an interesting short debate on the Second Reading when the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls—I am sorry he is not in his place today—took the view that Secretaries of State of whatever party could safely be left to judge what is in the national interest. The amendment does not interfere with that right at all. All it seeks to do is to require the Secretary of State before making the disposal to lay a report before Parliament explaining why the disposal might conflict with the promotion or development of atomic energy.

If the Secretary of State of the day has full confidence that what he is doing is right, as he surely will, then he would surely be the last person who would not want to report an account to Parliament. This is in no way a wrecking amendment, although we on these Benches do not like the Bill, as I explained on Second Reading. Indeed with their full legislative programme, and a Session which is proving even more onerous than the last, I am surprised, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran said, that the Government should have introduced this Bill at all, as it seems to be totally unnecessary. It is really a piece of Government self-indulgence, and little more than a votive offering on the altar of Tory ideology. There it is. The Bill is passed through another place; it is by tradition the function of this House to accept that fact and to improve a Bill where we can. It is therefore in this constructive spirit that I beg to move the Amendment No. 9.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

May I very briefly support the statesmanlike and constructive approach which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has made to this matter. It would seem to me that when you are dealing with the subject of atomic energy defined so widely as it is in this Bill, so capable as that definition is of misunderstanding both in this country, but particularly abroad, I should have thought it would be helpful if the Secretary of State would lay a report before Parliament, not necessarily defining the national interest, as is said here, but at any rate indicating the general parameters he has in mind. I strongly support this amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale

This would appear to be an attempt to force the Secretary of State to declare whether and, if so, why a disposal would have been illegal without this Bill, and to say why he thinks it is in the national interest to use his extension of powers. This is—I do not quite know how to describe it—a startling idea. I agree I have not got the experience of noble Lords on the other side of the Committee, but I have never seen a precedent for this. The whole point of the clarification of earlier legislation is to remove doubt as to the powers of the authority and the Secretary of State to dispose of shares held by them. This amendment clearly does not aid this clarification, and is effectively unenforceable.

All we are trying to achieve is a position where, unless there are specific restrictions on share disposal, or such a disposal were contrary to the national interest, the Atomic Energy Authority and the Secretary of State have the ability to dispose of shares held by them. There is nothing in the least sinister about this. We are merely returning the situation to what it was thought to be at the time that the TRC was set up as a limited liability company. We think that as a result of earlier legislation there are doubts as to whether this situation exists at present. What we are trying to do, as I say, is to clarify the present law.

This amendment, therefore, is asking the impossible. It demands that the Secretary of State decides exactly what his present powers are in what is already a grey area of the law, and states that he should declare how the Bill extends these powers. The situation is not so clear-cut as this, and, as I said, such a provision would be effectively unenforceable. The requirement to define the national interest is meaningless, as it is the job of the Government of the day to respond to what they see to be the national interest at the time.

The noble Lord accused me, in effect, on Second Reading, and I think rather accused me again today, of having no fire in my belly.

Lord Strabolgi

I must interrupt the noble Lord. I never said anything of the kind. In fact, I rather praised the way he dealt with the Bill. I did criticise his party's ideology, but I was not criticising the noble Lord personally in any way. I have the highest respect for him.

Lord Skelmersdale

I am sorry, but, having read his remarks again last night, that, I thought, was the effect of what he said. I do not want to cross swords with the noble Lord, because I know he did not mean it in a personal way, but what he seemed to say was that I had little enthusiasm for the Bill. But I will read his speech again, and I certainly apologise to the noble Lord for misreading it the first time.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

In view of this exchange of words, I must confess that I said that I thought the noble Lord was not producing the kind of enthusiasm that one would expect from a noble Lord presenting a Bill of this kind.

Lord Skelmersdale

Be that as it may, after that little interchange I am afraid I really cannot see any way to accept this amendment.

Lord Strabolgi

I am disappointed with the noble Lord's answer. I must say that I was very surprised when he said it was a startling idea—those were his words, "a startling idea"—that a Secretary of State should have to report to Parliament. This is a most extraordinary point of view, I think. What does the noble Lord think Parliament is for? I do not know what another place would think of that kind of remark; I do not know the impression which would be given to the elected Chamber. All the time in both Houses, and continually in your Lordships' House—and I am glad to see the Government Chief Whip in his place—we have orders and statutory instruments laid before Parliament which ask Parliament to approve, under delegated legislation, what Secretaries of State of all Governments are doing. There is nothing new or startling about this; it is part of our democratic procedures—and they are procedures which I hope will long continue.

What this Bill is basically trying to do is to bring in privatisation, and from what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has said it appears the Government are trying to bring in privatisation without parliamentary accountability. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not prepared to accept my amendment. It is not attempting in any way to alter what the Government are doing; all they have to do is to account to Parliament for it. But if the noble Lord thinks that this is startling, there is nothing very much I can do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.56 p.m.

Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 10: Page 2, line 28, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 30 and insert ("continue to have effect in the case of both the Radio-chemicals Company and the Nuclear Fuels Company.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment allows the Secretary of State to dispose of shares, if he wishes, in Amersham International. It also ensures that the Secretary of State and the AEA must retain more than half the voting rights; in other words, a controlling interest. Amersham International has been a remarkably successful company, and this has been recognised by all sides, including the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. What evidence is there that the company would be better by changing its structure, finance and organisation? It is still the same company, and has the same people working in it. Amersham International also has a fine record in industrial relations.

There is—and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, recognised this on Second Reading—considerable concern among the staff about the Government's desire to sell off the company to outside interests, perhaps even to a foreign-based conglomerate, for all I know. Will this make it a better company? Of course not. Then why dispose of Amersham in this way, causing worry and alarm to the loyal, dedicated and hardworking workforce? The amendment allows some outside interests to hold shares in both companies, but it also ensures a majority Government shareholding in Amersham as well as in the NFC, which is not being changed by the Bill. There is nothing at present in the Bill to stop a foreign competitor from taking over Amersham International and closing it down for commercial reasons of their own, which would be scant reward for the people working in it who have contributed to this splendid record—a record which I described on Second Reading and which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, accepted.

I see no reason—except, perhaps, one of Tory dogma—why the company should not remain in the public sector. The Government must really try to be more objective and less hidebound about this. In the present state of industry, we cannot allow any company that is doing well, such as Amersham, to be put at risk. When in doubt we should leave well alone and not tamper with a successful public company just because the Government want to prove (mainly, I suppose, for their own propaganda reasons) that no state-owned enterprise can ever be a profitable undertaking. I beg to move.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I do not want to be too closely associated with that wonderful peroration that he voiced in moving this amendment. But the main point in his speech is that if you sell all the shares of the Amersham company and it gets into the hands of a foreign firm, for instance—or, indeed, any firm—they can close it down, and it could be detrimental, it seems to me, to the employees.

But, as I mentioned on Second Reading, it could be detrimental to the national interest, too, because the products of the company, particularly in the medical field, would not be as readily available in this country either for use in this country or for export, as they are now. People in this country would lose because they would not get the products, and people in this country would lose because they would not get the foreign exchange arising from the sale of their products. I think 80 per cent. of the products concerned are sold abroad.

For those reasons, therefore, as well as for the reasons so ably put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I would ask the Government to reconsider the situation, and that they should retain a controlling interest in both the companies; that the two companies mentioned should be treated in the same way, and that all the shares in the Amersham company should not be sold in the way at present envisaged.

Lord Skelmersdale

I know that it is bad form to quote from one's own speeches in this House, so I shall not do so. I shall quote from what I rapidly wrote down of what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said: that there is no reason why the company should not remain in the public sector except for Tory dogma. I can see no reason why, except for Socialist dogma, it should remain in the public sector. What is there that says that, because something has once got into the public sector, it should stay there for all time? I cannot see the logic behind that, perhaps in the same way as Lord Strabolgi cannot see the logic behind my argument. May we turn to the amendment?

The Government wish to have the option of selling more than half of Amersham's shares. We do not believe that the Government should be involved in direct investment in companies unless there are particular overriding reasons. Amersham certainly does not need the support of the Government to survive and this is proven by the fact that it has operated successfully as an independently-managed concern since it was set up in 1971 as a limited company. There is no strategic reason such as national security why the Government should be involved in such a company. Therefore we see no reason why there should be a statutory provision as to the number of shares it has to hold.

The purpose of this Bill is twofold: to reduce public involvement in a company which we wish to benefit from full commercial freedom and to reduce the Government's need to borrow money. In this context, I cannot support this amendment. First, bearing in mind that there is no strategic reason why the Government should own shares in Amersham, I do not think that a limitation on selling more than half the shares could be regarded as allowing full privatisation of the company. And secondly, limiting the proportion of shares that could be sold to 49 per cent. would limit the potential level of sale proceeds to the Government.

The fundamental reason for introducing this Bill is to enable the Government to sell shares in Amersham. Given that we have to legislate to do this, obviously we want to keep open all options for share disposal. The Government have not decided how many shares should be sold, but wish to have the ability to sell up to 100 per cent. I agree with what I understand the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, to have said; but I do not think that it would be in the national interest for a foreign conglomerate to acquire this company.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

If I may interpose, what the noble Lord is saying is that he is not only going to preserve the rights of the employees but is going to control in some way, in the national interest, the availability of products at present produced by the Amersham company for export purposes and for medical purposes in this country. If that is what he is going to do, he should make it clear that that is what he is going to do, because that would affect the sale of the shares very considerably. As your Lordships are aware, on these Benches we have always believed in liberalisation or privatisation of presently publicly-owned shares. We have always advocated that policy as a general principle; but, in this case, when dealing in the field of atomic energy, if the Government controlled the company by having 51 per cent. of the shares, as in the case of BP, that might enhance the value of the shares. I do not want to give reasons for all this, but it could do so for Government purposes and therefore more money could be obtained by the Government in relation to this proposed sale.

Lord Strabolgi

The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked why this company should remain in the public sector. I think one reason would be because of its links with the AEA. This is one of the reasons for the company's success: that it has been closely associated with AEA and the fusion of scientific talent and research associated with the Atomic Energy Authority. This is one of the reasons why I think it is of importance that the company should remain closely linked with the AEA. I can understand why the Government do not want to increase their borrowing capacity: because the PSBR has gone up so greatly since they came into power and started mismanaging our affairs. But this is not a very big company and I do not think it will make a great difference to the amount of the PSBR.

The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that it was of compelling importance that the company should be privatised. There is a gulf between us and I know there is little I can do to convince him, as I am afraid there is little he can do to convince me. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 2, line 30, at end insert— ("( ) Before disposing of shares carrying more than half of the voting rights in the Radiochemicals Company the Secretary of State shall hold a consultative poll of all employees of the company to ascertain their wishes and the results of any such poll shall be included in a report, a copy of which shall be laid before Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to ensure the before the Radiochemicals Company is disposed of, the wishes of the employees should be ascertained by means of a consultative poll and that the results of this poll should be laid before Parliament. The party opposite, I understand, believes in industrial democracy. I hope the Government will look favourably on my amendment, which ensures that the staff are consulted and that Parliament is kept informed. The Government, I assume, intend to behave in a responsible way, so that there should be no difficulty for them in either of these courses of action. I beg to move.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

In order to save time, I may say that I support the amendment. It is one of a series of amendments coming forward in relation of trying to help the position of employees in the event of a sale. I would say briefly that any amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, as regards the disposal of shares in relation to the activities of employees has my support.

Lord Skelmersdale

I should like to make it quite clear that the Government are perfectly willing to discuss the sale with the staff. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made one visit to Amersham for this reason and has met the staff on another occasion. I do not think that a statutory provision of this type is necessary or desirable. To my knowledge, there has been no precedent in other disposals. I feel that it would be an unproductive use of public money and Parliamentary time to lay such a report before each House. I should like to emphasise the assurance that was given in another place and I repeat what I have already said this evening —that the Government would not agree to plans which jeopardised the future of the company or its staff. I recognise that there is bound to be some uncertainty among employees but I can assure them that the Government have their interests very much at heart. We shall certainly take their views into consideration. With that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Strabolgi

I am somewhat encouraged by what the noble Lord has said and by some of the guarantees he gave, which, I think, will give some encouragement to the staff, who have been worried about the situation and about their future. Anybody who has been involved as a member of a company which has been taken over by another company against their wishes, will appreciate what I mean. In view of what the noble Lord has said and of the attitude of the Government, which I welcome, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]

9.8 p.m.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 2, line 30, at end insert— ("( ) Before the completion of any disposal of shares, the Secretary of State shall (under the powers described in subsection (1) above) make provision, in response to the declared wishes of a majority of the UK based employees of Amersham International Ltd., for them to acquire a substantial minority of such shares held by the employees either collectively by an industrial and provident society or individually in an employee share ownership trust.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I must declare an interest because I have received advice from a small firm known as Participation Consultants Limited, of which the chairman and managing director, Mr. Ball-Wilson, is a friend of mine, and I have some small interest in it. This company has always been interested in formulating opportunities available on denationalisation to improve industrial relations. I have also spoken to the secretary-general of the Co-operative Development Agency in the same way.

The Government should give positive encouragement for employee initiative in spite of the successful activities of this company. I understand that it is intended to give a gift of £50 of shares to each employee. This seems to me to be a very meagre amount to give to the employees. What is required, it seems to me, even in the case of Amersham, is for the Government to encourage the interest of the workforce in the continuing profitability of the company by enabling them prior to the launching to buy a significant number of shares through some kind of loan arrangement. This could be guaranteed by the company and, as it was repaid, an equivalent number of shares could be made over to the participating employees.

I should have liked to see a full co-operative arrangement being entered into with the employees of the Amersham company. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and myself put down an amendment to the Companies Bill regarding the functions of a new form of company, a co-operative kind of company, and that was sympathetically dealt with by the Government at that time. Some encouragement was given by the Government to the formation of such companies.

In the case of the Amersham company, it does not seem to me feasible to suggest a full co-operative association because of the amount of money involved. But it seems that here is an opportunity for the Government to improve industrial relations and give a lead to industry, provided the company's employees agree—that is to say, the declared wishes of the majority of United Kingdom-based employees of Amersham International are in favour—that to have a substantial minority of shares held by employees, either collectively by an industrial and provident society or individually in an employee share-ownership trust, would be the way to deal with these employees at this stage.

I, too, was encouraged by the words of the noble Lord that the Government will do nothing to damage the interests of these employees. With great respect to the noble Lord, that is a vague generalisation. Who decides whether the company is being badly affected? If the employees do not agree with the Secretary of State, what will be the position of the Secretary of State in relation to such a disagreement? There is an opportunity for the Government at this stage to show their desire to get employees participating in the profitability of this successful company. I beg to move.

Lord Oram

In rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, in his amendment, may I say that I do so not through having any particular knowledge of the main subject-matter dealt with by the Bill, nor do I know whether the employees of Amersham International are likely to be able or willing to acquire shares as indicated in the noble Lord's amendment. However, I am interested. My interest was aroused by the reference in the amendment to an industrial and provident society as the instrument for the ownership of shares collectively rather than by individual workers. That in general is certainly an interesting idea which I believe is well worth pursuing.

I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that I am not greatly enamoured of share-owning schemes in private companies. This does not mean that I oppose them; it means that I do not think that they have a great contribution to make. Indeed, I remember that many years ago, in making my maiden speech in another place, I dealt with such schemes perhaps a little too severely. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and his colleagues in the Liberal Party take a very different view. They vigorously propose these schemes. I recognise that in particular cases they can be of special value. My reason for being somewhat unenthusiastic about them is that I do not see that a worker's participation in the affairs of the firm for which he works can be easily ensured simply by the possession by him of a few of its shares. I rather advocate a much firmer system of employee involvement through membership of a co-operative society in which ownership by the workers is complete, and ownership and control go hand in hand. Ordinary shareholding schemes are very far from achieving that situation.

That is why, as I said, reference in this amendment to an I and P society struck me as particularly interesting, and that is why I wish to support the noble Lord. Indeed, he made a reference to consultations with the Co-operative Development Agency—and perhaps I should indicate that I am chairman of that body and am glad that the noble Lord found the consultations helpful. In the agency we have been doing some thinking about this kind of proposal that there should be a co-operative society within a firm which can manage the shares collectively. We have had discussions with the Registrar of Industrial and Provident Societies about a special form of co-operative which would put more teeth into employee-shareholding schemes. We call this an employee participation co-operative and the registrar is prepared, with certain reservations, to recognise such an institution as a proper co-operative society, according to his criteria. If the individual worker-shareholders can be persuaded to establish their own co-operative organisation within the firm and collectively organise control over that sector of shares which is held by them, in my view that would help to increase the effectiveness of shareholding schemes. For that reason, I welcome that part of the noble Lord's amendment.

Perhaps I should say that the CDA itself has had discussions along these lines with the employees of Amersham International Limited, and I am encouraged by that fact to suggest that the Government would be well advised to encourage all who are concerned with that enterprise to look at a variety of ways which are open to them, and not just one way of dealing with this matter. There are a variety of options that ought to be considered, which would certainly include the employee participation co-operative of which I have given a brief description. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and particularly to that part of it which suggests the collective ownership of shares by employees.

Lord Skelmersdale

The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for telling us about some of his great experience on this matter. However, while I believe very strongly in employee shareholdings, I do not believe this amendment is the right way, because if the shares are to be sold in a public share flotation employees, whether directly or through an industrial and provident society, or by any other means, will be able to subscribe for shares just like any other person. If they were to do so, such applications would no doubt be looked at sympathetically. However, the Government have not yet decided on the method of disposal. There is plenty of time for that—the sale cannot take place before next year.

The Government think that share ownership by employees is important and, as I said, their policy is to see it increased throughout the country. That applies just as much to Amersham as in any other case, and in the coming months the Government and their advisers will be concentrating on ways to encourage Amersham's employees to acquire shares if this is at all possible. The Government are very pleased indeed at the interest shown by the employees and their confidence in the company, which quite naturally we share. So, as I say, I do not think this is the right way to achieve the objective that the noble Lord seeks.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, who has so much experience in this matter, for his sympathetic support for the general theme of at least part of my amendment which deals with the collective ownership of the shares. I am also encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has said, as I understand it, namely, that the Government will be encouraging, or at any rate bringing to the notice of employees, various schemes of share ownership by the employees of this company.

What my advisers had been attempting to do was to safeguard as far as they could the position of the employees if there was a sale of the shares, for instance, to some larger company. One of the ways of doing this would be to have the shares owned collectively, as the amendment says, by an industrial and provident society or individually in an employee share ownership trust". Those are two methods by which the employees of this company could be helped to safeguard their future, provided that a substantial minority of the shares could be held in this way. It may be, therefore, that the noble Lord will bring to the notice of the employees of the Amersham company, once again, either through their management or in some other way, the scheme that is really embodied in the general theme of my amendment. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.21 p.m.

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

Lord Strabolgi

Before we leave this clause, I should like to raise again the point about which I asked the noble Lord earlier; that is, the question of the nomenclature of the Radiochemical Company. This company is mentioned five times on page 2, twice in subsection (6) of this clause, twice in subsection (7) and once in subsection (8) as the Radiochemical Company. When we come to Clause 4, the interpretation clause, we read: 'the Radiochemical Company' means Amersham International Limited, formerly known as The Radiochemical Centre Limited". There we have three names. We have the Radiochemical Company, Amersham International Limited, and The Radiochemical Centre Limited. Is there any reason why in the body of the Bill, in Clause 1, the company cannot be called what it is called now, which is Amersham International Limited?

The noble Lord explained to the Committee that the name was changed on 5th May, and I see that the Bill was brought from another place on 21st May. There may, for all I know, be very important legal reasons why it has to be done in this rather complicated way. I should be glad if the noble Lord could explain this to the Committee. If he cannot do it—and I know that it is rather complicated—perhaps he would look at it and explain at a later stage of the Bill. But I think that we ought to have this cleared up.

Lord Skelmersdale

I am afraid that at this moment I am unable to explain in clear and concise terms. Perhaps I might be allowed to write to the noble Lord on this point.

Lord Strabolgi

I shall, of course, appreciate a letter from the noble Lord. I am always glad to hear from Ministers and Government spokesmen. But I think that the House will want to know as well. After all, letters are private. I think that we want a record of this in Hansard. As I say, I do not want to push this too far, because it is a difficult one. If the noble Lord has the answer now, perhaps he would like to give it.

Lord Skelmersdale

I think that I can give half the answer. The phrase "Radiochemical Company" is used by the draftsman in this Bill, because that is how the TRCL was described in the 1971 Act, and there has to be continuity between the various Acts of Parliament. So it is this Bill which up-dates the position.

Lord Strabolgi

That is some of the explanation. But perhaps the noble Lord would give a fuller one when we reach a further stage of the Bill.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 14: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

("Termination of obligations

. Upon any disposal of shares of a company under this Act, any liabilities or obligations of the Atomic Energy Authority under any licence or contract with the company to supply information or technical assistance of any kind either in relation to intellectual property or otherwise which directly or indirectly relates to the development or production of any weapon or part of a weapon or explosive nuclear assembly shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Lord said: This rather long amendment is concerned largely with the difficulties of security, which seem to arise because we do not know, first, what is the connection, if any, between the Amersham company and the other companies mentioned in this Bill with the Atomic Energy Authority. On Second Reading, I raised the question of whether there were any licences under any industrial property, which obliged the Atomic Energy Authority to transfer know-how or information of any kind, or to give facilities which were concerned with the establishments over which the Atomic Energy Authority had control.

Therefore Amendment No. 14 has to be rather long. The amendment states that when there is a disposal of shares there shall be no obligation at all upon the Atomic Energy Authority, whether under any licence or contract with the company, to supply information or technical assistance of any kind, either in relation to the intellectual property concerned or otherwise, which directly or indirectly relates to the development or production of any weapon or part of a weapon or explosive nuclear assembly. Any such obligation which may arise in connection with any company in which the Government now hold shares should terminate with the disposal of any of the shares.

The answer may be that there are no such licences, but this is a probing amendment to ensure that there is no security leakage likely to result from the disposal of the shares. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale

The Atomic Energy Authority do not have any of the liabilities or obligations described in the amendment, and it is not intended that they shall. There is only one licence agreement with Amersham International and this does not involve information of use as regards nuclear weapons. The two main licence agreements with BNFL each already expressly exclude information or inventions arising out of work carried out for the purposes of national defence. The only purpose of these licence agreements with both companies was to allow them to continue what is now their present business which was previously carried on by the Atomic Energy Authority before the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1971 transferred it to the companies. There are no licence agreements with NNC involving work of use to nuclear weapons. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I hope the noble Lord can agree with me that on this occasion his fears are groundless.

To accept the amendment would also make a dis- posal much more complicated because arguments could be raised against it on grounds connected with the interpretation of a clause in a commercial agreement. This would negate the main purpose of the Bill, which, as I said before, is to clarify the present powers.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for the assurance he has given. However, the assurances do not seem to go quite far enough. What he has said may be the legal position, but the noble Lord knows quite well, as I do, that personnel in a company can have access to other institutions without it being embodied in any legal agreement. Perhaps, therefore, the noble Lord would be willing to go a little further and say that quite apart from the question of licences or contracts, employees in any of these companies will not have access to any premises where work is going on in relation to the production of any weapon or part of a weapon or explosive nuclear assembly. In the case of a company like this where there has been disposal of the shares, it sometimes happens that employees of the company go back to former institutions with which they were connected, however loosely. I assume that the noble Lord agrees with me that that position would not be allowed to arise?

Lord Skelmersdale

No, it would not be allowed to arise. I do not think I can do better than quote part of a letter which the Department of Energy received from Amersham International on this particular matter.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

If it is a long letter, I would hesitate to ask the noble Lord to read it out for my convenience. If he could send me a copy of that letter, and at the same time send a copy to the noble Lord. Lord Strabolgi, I should be grateful.

Lord Skelmersdale

Yes, my Lords, I will certainly do that. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the suggestion.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, I would accept that the procedure should be as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, subject to one matter. I hope that the Third Reading of the Bill will not be brought in too quickly and that we shall have a reasonable interval of about two or three weeks before the Third Reading is taken.

Lord Denham

My Lords, this is rather a sharp one to be put at this stage, if I may say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, because as the noble Lord will be aware there is not a great deal of time between now and, I hope, when we eventually rise for the Summer Recess. I do not know what the noble Lord would have in mind? I understood that he was prepared to accept the Report stage now, and if he is insisting on this perhaps he would give me some idea as to what he would consider to be a reasonable interval.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, at this late time of the evening I feel it is a little unhappy that the noble Lord the Chief Whip for the Government should use the word "sharp" in relation to anything that I have said.

Lord Denham

My Lords, I am sorry; I did not mean sharp.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has now withdrawn the word "sharp" and amicability is once more restored. Of course, the last thing I ever do is anything that is sharp. I have no knowledge as to when the date of the Third Reading is to be. I do not ask for any undertaking, but I only hope that the business of the House will allow an hour in, say, a fortnight's time for consideration of what is a very important Bill.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, I would accept that, too. We would be prepared to have the Report received today, provided that we are given an adequate interval of, I think, at least a fortnight before Third Reading. Then at Third Reading we shall have the answer for which I asked from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, so that the Third Reading will not be merely formal but we shall have that full reply.

Lord Denham

My Lords, if, with the leave of the House I may speak again, because we are no longer on Committee, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will give that reply on Third Reading and I must again assure the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that the sharpness I was referring to was not as it came from him but as it was received by me. But perhaps we can discuss this point and come to a mutually acceptable arrangement outside.

On Question, Report received.