I do not propose calling any of the proposed Amendments to Clause I. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble)—in page 1, line 8, at end, add:

"by assisting and fostering private research and development and by a programme of Government-conducted research and development, in order to encourage maximum scientific progress "—

could perhaps be discussed on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell)—in line 8, at the end, to add:

"(2) There shall be established a General Advisory Council of not less than seven persons appointed by the Minister to advise him on the exercise of all his powers and duties under this Act"—

could more properly be put forward in the form of a new Clause.

I have very little to add to what I said on this subject during the Second Reading Debate. Of course, I put down the Amendment on the Paper before the Second Reading, and, as I said in that Debate, I did consider the Bill was a little unbalanced on the side of encouragement for research; there was a large negative side of the Bill, with very little encouragement. In view of the assurance given by the Prime Minister in presenting the Bill, and in view of what the Minister of Supply said, I realise that although it is not in the Bill the Government have it very much in mind. I hope the Minister will be able to give us another assurance today, and I also hope he will think of including some words such as those which I have put on the Order Paper.

I should like to ask the Minister for a little clarification on the wording of the Clause. In line 8 there appears the word "development." My hon. Friends and myself put down an Amendment, in page 1, line 8, after "development," to insert "manufacture and supply." I am given to understand that from the legal point of view "development" in fact includes "manufacture and supply." I was a little surprised to hear this, because in the accountancy profession, at any rate, a development is something considerably different from manufacture and supply. If the Minister would give us a little clarification on that we would be very much indebted.

I very willingly give the further assurance for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) has asked. That would, I think, make the Amendment which he put down on the Order Paper quite unnecessary. Clearly, the duty of fostering research is laid on the Minister by the Bill. As I said during the Second Reading Debate, I can give an absolute undertaking that that duty will be pursued with every energy possible. I do not think it would in any way strengthen the position if the words the hon. and gallant Member originally sought to include were accepted, because it would merely require the Minister to do what he is already required to do. With regard to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce), I am told the word "development" does, in its legal meaning, include sale and production, and that in fact to put in the extra words might limit the generality of development and defeat the object which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind.

I beg to move, in page 1, line,10, to leave out the first "and."

While discussing this Amendment, I should also like to consider the next Amendment standing in my name—in page 1, line 10, after "use," to insert "and dispose of."—I have been all through this Bill, and have been at some pains to endeavour to ascertain whether there exists in it any power for the Minister to dispose of atomic energy if it is in fact produced. It is important that the Bill should give the Minister that power. In the Second Reading Debate some doubts were expressed on when the early production of atomic energy was likely to take place. I believe five years was the time mentioned. The Minister himself seems to think that early development is possible. He said:

"The recent report to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission by Mr. Baruch shows that a body of American experts consider that electricity can be generated in the near future at atomic energy stations at a cost comparable with that of using coal or oil fuel"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th October, 1946; Vol. 427, c. 145.]

It may well be that it will take considerably longer than this Commission thought. Scientific development, although proceeding frequently on a slow basis, very often makes fairly quick jumps. I am advised that it would be very unsafe to predict that atomic energy might not be produced in the very near future. I therefore think that it is absolutely indispensable for the Minister to take power in the Bill to dispose of it. If the produc- tion of atomic energy in the reasonably near future is to become a practical proposition, it will undoubtedly have very beneficial effects within this country. It will reduce our dependence on coal and it will also ensure, if it is produced in sufficient quantity, that a far mightier means of power is available to the nation as a whole which, in the course of its development, may well increase the leisure available to the bulk of our people. It is therefore very important that the Minister should have power to dispose of it once the energy is produced. As the Minister himself said:

"Of one thing we can be sure, that the new discoveries have in store great things for mankind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th October, 1946; Vol. 427, c. 146.]

It is particularly important that the Minister should have the power, because the very nature of the product makes it absolutely essential that a powerful body, responsible to public opinion, shall have control of it. In view of the fact that the programme of the Government for the next few years includes a large number of measures of nationalisation, particularly in the fuel and power sector, it seems to me to be necessary for the Minister to have power to dispose of this energy through the Ministry of Fuel and Power.

There are, however, other reasons why specific power should be put into the Bill. A new process of power always, to some extent, displaces obsolete forms, and as our history in these islands has frequently shown those who produce the older forms of power frequently object to the passing of the old ways of production. To put it at its mildest, there is very often an inertia on the part of those private firms which have been producing one commodity to give way to the new. It is, therefore, very necessary that no objections by any private body of individuals, whether organised as a company or as a corporation, should be allowed in any way to retard the absolutely full development of this new power. The State, and the State alone, is capable of overcoming these obstructions which in the past, I am bound to say, have all too frequently been the characteristic of private enterprise in the years between the wars with such disastrous effects upon our country. The Amendment is not only designed to give the Minister power of disposal, it is also on the Order Paper so that we on this side of the House may gather some idea as to the Minister's intentions in regard to the disposal of atomic energy in its commercial form as and when it is finally produced. We shall ask him—we shall press him—for an assurance that no private concern shall be given a monopoly of its disposal.

I have so far dealt with the powers of the Minister to dispose of atomic energy, and I have been talking of atomic energy in, if I may use the term, its popular sense: that is to say, as a new mass means of generating power for commercial use. But there is another aspect of atomic energy which must receive our attention. Atomic energy not only includes the popular definition to which I have referred, but may also be held to include certain radio-active by-products produced by an atomic pile. The House should be aware that such radioactive emanations are already in fact being produced by the atomic piles which this country now possesses. A mild form —if I may use the term in a rather unskilled sense for the moment—of atomic energy is therefore in existence, and I ask the Minister for an assurance that he will take power to dispose of this type of atomic energy which is already with us.

11.45 a.m.

At the present time, in the experimental plants in this country, radioactive phosphorus and radioactive carbon are being produced, and they are of considerable value in medical research, particularly as tracer elements. I am not a scientist myself, but I am given to understand that the absorption of some of these tracer elements into the system enables the medical profession more easily to trace the whole metabolism and other processes of the body, and I am also given to understand that it may be of tremendous use in getting at the causes and progress of that dread national affliction, cancer. There are also, of course, uses for this particular mild form of energy or radiation in therapy and industrial research. I think the Minister himself made some reference to this when, in the Second Reading Debate, he said:

"It is certain already that atomic energy can be used to produce new radioactive materials in considerable quantities, and that with their aid new fields of research and application are opened in biology and medicine and in many branches of industry where these radioactive atoms can be used to follow reactions and other processes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th Oct., 1946, vol. 427, c. 145.]

What we on these benches would like to know is, how are these mild forms of atomic energy or radiation, whichever one prefers to call them for the moment—and one does require a rather firmer definition, if one could get it from the Law Officers of the Crown—how are these radioactive bye-products being disposed of at the present time? I am advised that the Minister's exclusive agency for the disposal of these radioactive elements at present is Messrs. Thorium Ltd., a private limited company which, I think it should be known, is a subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries. I feel that we should know, first, the financial terms on which this has been accomplished, because, after all, as was stated during the Second Reading Debate, this industry is to become nationalised, and, therefore, Parliament and the people should be able to know some of the terms on which this disposal is taking place. Secondly, we should like to know the duration of the contract, and thirdly, what rights the Minister has reserved to himself to determine the contract.

These questions are to be asked for two principal reasons. The first reason is, of course, an international reason, and here I desire to measure my words very carefully because in this House one must be conscious that one's words, on occasion, may be capable of misinterpretation in countries other than our own. But, if I can put it mildly, the reputation of Imperial Chemical Industries in the years between the wars, in the armaments field, makes it very necessary indeed for the Minister to explain exactly the present relationship with that company. We know that before the war Imperial Chemical Industries supplied both sides in the Japanese-Chinese war, and we know that that was done, as Lord McGowan said at the time, without any particular delicacy of feeling.

I do not wish to attack this particular private company in this House, although experience has always shown that it has never lacked its supporters on the other side of the House if it has ever come to a question of argument. In fact I should be the first to hope that there has been a very considerable change of heart in the minds of armaments manufacturers since the last catastrophe through which we have but lately come, but it should be remembered that radioactive dust as such is a weapon of war. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), during the Second Reading Debate, asked:

"Can they produce radio active dust next year, which may be almost as terrible a weapon?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th October, 1946; Vol. 427, c. 79.]

In other words, he made a statement that radio dust was a terrible weapon. That statement was not challenged by the Front Bench. I am unskilled myself in matters of science, but if radio dust is a very lethal weapon, and if Imperial Chemical Industries or one of their subsidiary companies is being granted a monopoly for its disposal, then, at its lowest, it makes it very necessary that this House and the country, and our Allies in the East with whom we have a 20-year Treaty, and our Allies in the West with whom we have so much in common in terms of language, should know precisely what is the connection at the present time, and how the Minister intends in the future to carry on this relationship.

It is also necessary that this question should be asked for domestic reasons. With the enormous potential behind these radioactive substances—and I gather that they can be derived from the majority of elements at the present time—they should be under the control of the Minister, this House and the nation. The value to humanity of these radioactive substances is so great that the danger of any private enterprise restrictions forcing up prices in a scarcity market could not be possibly tolerated. No one can say that such restrictions for the purpose of raising prices have not operated in the past, even in the armaments field. It is very necessary that the Minister has full powers to be able to dispose of them, as these substances have such value in medicine and in industrial research. It may well be that in discussing radioactive by-products under the heading of atomic energy I have not been accurate, but I would ask the indulgence of the Committee, because a definition of atomic energy is a very difficult thing to express in legal terms. If radioactive by-products are not legally included within the term "atomic energy", then we shall require an assurance from the Minister that he will take powers under the Bill, by the introduction of a suitable Amendment on the Report stage, which will enable him to dispose of radioactive by-products. Finally, we should like some indication of the Minister's plan for the future dis-tribution of radioactive materials.

The hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment has dealt very widely with this subject. It is clear that we cannot have another full discussion on these lines, on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

I wish to speak for only a few moments in support of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce), and to put three specific points. Firstly, it is quite obvious that radioactive by-products come under Subsection (1, b)—

"to dispose of any articles manufactured, produced, bought or acquired by him;"

Radioactive by-products are obviously such articles. The second point I wish to make is in connection with my hon. and gallant Friend's reference to Thorium Ltd. being a subsidiary of I.C.I. I am sure that no one is trying to suggest anything improper has been done. We are merely trying to elicit information. The Minister has stated in the House on many occasions, and it is a recognised fact, that radioactive by-products are the first and greatest immediate benefits to be derived from nuclear physics. They are in fact available on a colossal scale. Elaborate machinery has been devised in the United States to see that these radioactive byproducts are allocated in accordance with need. If I.C.I. are given exclusive management, as I understand they have been, of the sales and disposal of these radioactive by-products, I hope that the Minister will indicate on what terms I.C.I. have these exclusive rights. I hope that he will indicate that no profit is being made out of it, and that appropriate machinery has been devised to allocate these substances in accordance with need. I hope that liaison has already been obtained with the Medical Research Council, and that as a result, a proper plan has been devised to see that research into the metabolism of the human body is to proceed at the greatest possible speed.

Thirdly, I should like to support my hon. and gallant Friend in his statement that these radioactive by-products also have an extremely dangerous angle. It is true that the Germans were not working on the atomic bomb but on the use of radioactive poisons, and upon the problem of distributing these radioactive by-products in the form of dust—that is in the Smythe Report. I hope that the Minister will explain what security provisions there are to see that these substances are not used for the wrong purpose.

As I understand it, the purpose of the Amendment is to give the Minister power to utilise or dispose of such power as is produced in the course of the development of atomic energy. A number of by-products have been mentioned, some of which may be available in the near future, and some of which may be available in the not-too-near future. There is one point on which I should like to touch and which may be of practical importance. The largest separation and production plant in the United States was built on the banks of the Colorado River, so that they could use the waters of the river for cooling purposes. I understand a doubt was raised in the minds of some people about what would happen to the fish in the river if radioactive particles were discharged into it after the water had done its job of cooling. I am glad to be able to say that the latest reports show that the salmon in the Colorado River were bigger and more numerous than ever.

The point I am making is that the heat of the water which had been used in the pile could very well have been used for industrial purposes. It seems to me that this is a possible line for the Minister to take to reduce his overhead charges. It was not an important point during the war in the States, because costs were no object. Has the Minister power, if he so wishes, to utilise this power generated by the pile for industrial purposes? Some loose talk is used about deriving electrical power from atomic energy. It may in future be possible, but what is possible now is the use of water, in the ordinary course of engineering processes, to drive a generator which would deliver the electricity. As I say, it may well be that the Minister could utilise this in order to reduce the overhead costs of producing this fissionable material. I would like to know whether my right hon. Friend had power to do that. If he has not, this Amendment would give him that power.

I would like to refer for a moment to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) about the connection between the Minister and Messrs. Thorium, Ltd. My hon. Friend suggested that the company were acting as managers of an establishment on behalf of the Minister, an arrangement with which we became familiar in the build-up of industry during the war and in certain types of industry two or three years before the war. If what my hon. Friend said is correct it seems a pity that we should perpetuate into peace years, almost as a matter of permanence, this rather unscientific arrangement of private companies managing establishments on behalf of the Government.

It is easy to understand how this arrangement came about. In the early years of the war we had a large scale job of reconversion to do, at very short notice. There was the creation of shadow factories, because one was faced with the difficulty of building up a war industry among firms which were engaged on peacetime products, and it had to be done without drawing too much public attention to the fact. But as a matter of general practice, this arrangement of a private firm acting as a manager for a Government Department has all the disadvantages of both private enterprise and State ownership, without any of the advantages. It gets the worst of both worlds. In peacetime, when the Government have time to make plans—I will not say at leisure, but with more deliberation open to them than in 1940—on a large scale, and to operate them in successive stages in accordance with their original ideas, I refuse to believe that it is impossible for the Minister to create, within his own purview, an organisation capable of managing such an establishment.

There is reason to believe that the continuation of this practice of a private company managing a Government enterprise is partly the result of laziness, or perhaps a disinclination on the part of Government Departments to go to the admittedly additional and considerable trouble of building up their own organisation. There is a lot of loose thinking which takes for granted that we ought to perpetuate a practice which was built up for a special purpose. If the Minister is incapable of running a by-products establishment let him be frank about it, and say so. But if he is not, why should he pass over to a private company the job of managing what ought to be his establishment, thereby incurring, as a result, the disadvantages, in some measure, both of private company operation and public ownership?

The main Amendment which we have been discussing seeks to insert the words "dispose of", and as it is quite likely that, in time, developments of power and distribution may arise I think it would be wise to accept the suggestion which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce). It gives the Minister complete power to dispose of any energy which, in time, may be manufactured and disposed of. I accept the Amendment, in case there should be any doubt on the matter, because it may be that the energy would not be held to be an article. I have power, under Subsection (1, b) of Clause 2, to dispose of any articles manufactured, produced, bought or required by the Minister. That would certainly cover radioactive substances. It would cover hot water, or even hot air if it were available. These would be articles, but if we were to arrive at a discovery whereby it is possible to distribute energy without some vehicle which could be described as an article, then my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment covers that point.

With regard to the question of radioactive substances, and the method by which the Government propose to handle them, I say at once that the fears of Members on these matters are entirely without foundation. The Government have no intention whatever of granting a monopoly to any private firm; in fact, the process is exactly the other way round. We have decided to establish a Government Radio Chemical Centre for the handling of radium and artificial radioactive substances which are being produced. For a long time, there has been a need for a centre specialising in the manipulation of radium and radon, work which has so far been carried on with inadequate and temporary facilities. There are not at present in this country any facilities for packaging and distributing the new artificial active substances which will be by-products of the atomic energy power. So we have to take steps at once to deal with this matter, and provide them.

Far from granting a monopoly to I.C.I. or Thorium Limited, or anybody else, the Government on the contrary are acquiring the business of Thorium Limited, whose premises are at Amersham, for the purpose of acquiring the plant that exists for doing the job. This company is owned as to 50 per cent. by Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, and as to 50 per cent. by the firm of Messrs. Howards, who are fine chemical manufacturers. The main business of the plant is the extraction, from the monosite, of the Thorium nitrate which is used in a manufacture of gas mantles. The firm has for some time been engaged at Amersham in the refining of radium, and has specialised in the study of the medical precautions necessary for the handling of radium and other radioactive substances. The terms of the acquisition provide for the purchase of the freehold property, furniture, and stock-in-trade at an agreed valuation, together with the acquisition by His Majesty's Government of the good will of that part of the company's business which we are now completely taking over.

Having acquired all this, the question is, how do we organise it and operate it? I am bound to tell the Committee, as hon. Members would expect, that the number of people with knowledge and experience of these highly complicated, and in certain circumstances, dangerous, processes is very limited; and for the time being, at any rate, since speed is necessary, I think the best way of getting this work well and efficiently done will be to appoint the company, who have been doing it for their own account, to be the agents for the Government in running the establishment which we are now taking over. I have chosen them because they have a unique experience in the handling of radioactive substances, and I believe we shall get quicker and more efficient operation by this means than by any other. There is no question of profit involved. The firm will be paid a management fee. It will be a fixed management fee, and a small fee. The whole property in the business will be the property of the Government, and there will be no profits accruing to anybody, except if there be profits to His Majesty's Government.

I am trying to follow the Minister's argument, I understand that gradually all the plant will become the property of the State. I brought up this matter the other day when we were discussing the industrial development of atomic energy and its by-products. Some of us would like to see this concern nationalised, but according to the Minister's statement there could be a kind of managerial organisation which would manage it in perpetuity for the State. Some of us are anxious that this should be taken over by the State as a nationalised concern.

I think the Minister said that for the time being he had asked the people who had done this in the past to continue. Is it quite clearly understood by them that it is for the time being, and not in perpetuity?

Nothing is in perpetuity. The property is not passing gradually; it is passing all at once. We are buying outright the property, business goodwill, plant, and everything else. There is a team of people who have been doing this work, who have acquired experience and knowledge in working together, and nobody else has got that experience. Therefore, I am hiring that experience for the purpose of managing this new business which we have bought. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) on this matter. I do not regard the employment of efficient managing agents of a publicly-owned undertaking as necessarily giving us the worst of both worlds. It may indeed give us the best of both worlds, because we buy the best technical experience that exists, we use it for the purposes which the Government determine, we take all the profit out of the operation, and we have a well run and efficiently managed publicly-owned undertaking—and publicly-owned undertakings can only be justified if they are efficiently managed. The important thing here is to get on with the job at once and have the most efficient management available.

Since the Minister says he is hiring the experience of these people, I take it he means there are some individuals who will be for the time being spending all their time on this project. That being so, is there any real reason why they should not be employed by this corporation? If they are spending all their time on this job, where is the sense in having them on loan? Why not employ them?

We are taking the thing collectively instead of individually for the time being. This arrangement is on six months' notice We are feeling our way and seeing how we go. I think hon. Members can be well satisfied that what we wish to achieve will be done.

Will the Minister deal with the main point that I put to him? I was aware since the Minister has published the facts, that Thorium, Ltd., have an exclusive management right. I asked the Minister whether he would do what has been done in America—that is to say, indicate that there will be proper machinery for the allocation of radioactive by-products in accordance with need, so that professors in universities, doctors, and so on, can apply to a particular body and know that it will exercise a semi-judicial function in allocating substances in accordance with need.

Certainly, we shall see to-that. It is most important. One other question which my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) asked, and to which I did not reply, was whether we had proper consultations with the General Medical Research Council. We have.

There is one point arising out of this Clause on which I should like to have some guidance from the Minister or the Attorney-General. Under the Clause, any person, providing he has a sort of blanket authority from the Minister, can enter any premises, inspect the premises, and anything found therein. He can make copies of or extracts from any drawing, plan or other document that he finds, and the only conditions that have to be fulfilled are, first, that he has the blanket authority from the Minister, and, secondly, that ho has reasonable grounds for believing that work of this character is being carried out. I would like to know what constitutes reasonable grounds. Is it purely a subjective test, or is there any objective test that can be applied? If an official goes into the premises, if he has clearly made a mistake, and if in the mind of any reasonable man his grounds for assuming that work of this character was being carried on were quite unreasonable, is he cleared entirely by the fact that he says, "To me it seemed to be reasonable, and that is all I have to say"? If that is the position, and if the test is a purely subjective one and depends purely upon the personal opinion of the official concerned, not reinforced by any kind of objective evidence, it seems to me that the ordinary citizen is being subjected to a very serious infringement of his liberties. In the case of Regulation 18B, the test was, I think, purely subjective. Is it exactly the same in this case? If so, it seems to me to be very unsatisfactory.

These matters are not perhaps easy but the wording of this Clause is not exactly the same as that of the Defence Regulation to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred and which was, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, the subject of litigation which went right up to the House of Lords and in the course of which the late Lord Atkin expressed a dissenting opinion. My own view on the construction of these words is that an objective test would be applied to them, in that there would have to be, in fact, reasonable grounds to justify the entry of the inspector and I prefer to apply the reasoning which led Lord Atkin to his dissenting view in that case.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, after "time," to insert "not being less than twenty-eight days."

The purpose of this Amendment is to provide a minimum period of 28 days which must be allowed for lodging objections. This Clause empowers the Minister to do work on land for the purpose of searching for minerals and before the powers are exercised notice in writing must be given to the owners who then have their right to lodge objections. There was a drafting omission in that we did not provide a period and the present Amendment provides a minimum period of 28 days for their further protection.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, at the end, to insert:

"Provided that, if such objection is duly made by a person carrying on a statutory undertaking on the ground that the exercise of powers under subsection (1) of this section may interfere with the proper carrying on of the statutory undertaking and such objection: is not withdrawn, the Minister shall, in the exercise of such powers, carry out the work specified in the notice referred to in subsection (2) of this section in such manner as may be agreed between the Minister and the person carrying on the statutory undertaking or, in default of such agreement, in such manner as may be determined by a person appointed by the Minister and the appropriate Minister."

As the Minister is aware the public utility undertakings in this country, through their associations, have already represented to him that they have a certain apprehension as to the working of this Clause as it stands. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that as the Clause stands he has the last word in deciding whether the work is to be undertaken or not. In the ordinary way there would be no objection to that but in the case of public utilities acting under statutory powers a question may arise as to the relative priority in the public interest of the work that the right hon. Gentleman desires to undertake and of the work being undertaken by these public utilities. What would certainly reassure a great many of the people concerned would be either some inclusion such as that proposed by the present Amendment or, indeed, some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that where a public utility is concerned there will be consultation with the Government department interested in the subject matter before an irrevocable decision is taken. May I give a somewhat extreme example? Supposing the right hon. Gentleman wants to burrow under the Great Western Railway. Will he, before undertaking that operation and disrupting the railway services, see perhaps whether the Minister of Transport has any views on the subject? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give some assurance on the matter but I am sure he will appreciate that a certain amount of genuine apprehension exists.

I very willingly give the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman seeks. Of course we should consult not only the statutory undertakers but anybody whose property was going to be affected by the projected operations. Anyone who is familiar with the machinery of Government will know that ministerial consultations would certainly take place as a matter of course before any of these operations were begun, not only with the Minister of Transport in such a case as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but with the Minister of Agriculture if a farming interest were affected or with the President of the Board of Trade if other industrial interests were concerned. It is unthinkable that operations of this kind would be entered into without such consultations. I think it would not be wise to accept this Amendment, which puts the statutory undertaker in a special place, but I willingly give the much more general undertaking that there will be consultations with the appropriate departments before these operations are begun.

In the light of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, at the end, to insert:

"(7) If any person wilfully obstructs or interferes with the exercise of powers under this section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."

This Amendment arises from an omission, since no sanction was included in the case of a breach of possession in regard to this Clause. The Amendment inserts the same provision as that which exists in other parts of the Bill.

I suggest that the Minister should think again with regard to this Amendment, which appears to be creating a new offence and introducing inordinately heavy penalties. In these days the creation of a new offence should be scrutinised with the utmost care. People find it difficult to know what they may not do, and every additional offence that is written down is a source of worry to the general community. In this case I think it is very bad indeed. The Minister has the right to send his emissaries over people's land for the purpose of discovering minerals and working minerals, and penalties are threatened for anyone who obstructs this process. The words are:

"For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this section any person authorised by the Minister in that behalf may pass, with or without animals or vehicles, over any land."

Let me take a possible case. An emissary of the Minister has the idea that something may be found on a Welsh farm— perhaps in a mountainous district where minerals are more likely to be discovered. He goes in his sumptuous car over the farmer's land and wants to know all about it. The farmer is annoyed by this and next time the car is about, he locks up a gate. The emissary comes along, finds himself obstructed, and says, I am going to put the law in motion." He does so, and what can he achieve? If he can prove his case the farmer can be sentenced:

"(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to penal servitude for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to both such penal servitude and such fine."

It seems to me that this desire to acquire powers and impose penalties is completely out of hand, and I ask the Minister seriously to reconsider the Amendment.

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is under a misapprehension because while such a ridiculous case as he instances might be possible, I think we must pass Acts of Parliament on the assumption that the people who carry them out are intelligent and use common sense. Secondly, there are other cases which would not come within his description at all. For example in my own experience there was, at the beginning of this war, an old lady who, because she would not pay the taxes on a piece of land described as a golf course, refused to allow anyone on it even to grow food. Under the processes of the law it took a con- siderable time at the beginning of the war even to get cattle grazing on the land, which had been derelict property. The owner had pot the golf course people off it six years before, and would not allow anyone to use it until the long processes of the law had been gone through. This might be an urgent matter in the search for minerals, and there might be some obstinate and obstructive person—we have a few of them in this country—who would refuse to assist. Penalties have therefore to be prescribed. It is an offence which will be covered by the general power of imposing up to £100 by way of fine and three months by way of imprisonment. We have to assume that the courts would exercise those powers with good sense. We cannot specify particular fines for particular degrees of offence. We must give general powers, and rely upon the courts.

During the Committee stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked the Minister of Supply who would be responsible for surveying for the raw materials with which this Bill is concerned in the Dominions of the Crown outside this country. The Minister of Supply replied that the Colonial Secretary would have that responsibility. I think it is common ground that there is not much likelihood of the Minister of Supply discovering the prescribed substances in this country in large amounts, while the likelihood of discovering them in other parts of the Commonwealth and Empire are very much greater. In the Dominions, that is a matter for their own Parliaments, of course. While the Colonies are very largely self-governing, it appears that the Colonial Secretary has a responsibility under the Bill—.—

On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Major Milner, for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the Colonies in this Debate, in view of the fact that the Bill, I believe, deals only with prescribed substances in this country?

I understand that the Bill is restricted in application to this country, and I doubt if questions affecting the Colonies are in Order.

Am I not entitled to ask the Minister what provision will be made, and what duty will be imposed upon the Colonial Secretary, for the implementation of this part of the Bill, in the regions that come under his command? I think it would have been in Order for me to put down an Amendment suggesting that the Colonial Secretary should have certain duties. In preference to doing so I am asking the Minister to what extent the Colonial Office is in this field, and to what extent the Colonial Secretary will have responsibility to do in his area what the Minister is required to do in this country.

If you will be so good as to allow me, Major Milner, I shall be very pleased to answer the question which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to me. The responsibility for survey and control in the Colonies rests with the Colonial Governments, under the direction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Colonies in which radioactive raw materials are thought to be likely have already made regulations governing the survey and exploitation of them. Those regulations follow a pattern suggested by the Ministry of Supply and they are designed to secure control to the Colonial Government, in respect of survey, exploitation and export. In addition, the official geologists who advise the Ministry of Supply on surveys for radioactive materials and minerals are in close touch with geologists responsible for such work in the Colonies.

Has the Minister similar arrangements with the Secretary of State for India?

Yes, Sir, that is the case.

This is an extremely important aspect of the matter. It is most unsatisfactory that the right hon. Gentleman should have raised it, but I thought the Minister ought to make some statement in order to make it clear to the House which is being done.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, to leave out from "compensation" to the end of line 18, and to insert:

"in such cases and subject to such conditions ELS may be specified in the order or determined thereunder, in respect of loss suffered as the result of the acquisition or exercise of rights under the order, but no account shall be taken, in calculating the compensation payable as aforesaid, of the value of any minerals present in or on land affected by the order, being minerals specified in the order as those from which in the opinion of the Minister any of the prescribed substances can be obtained."

The Amendment proposes to substitute a new compensation Clause for that which is in the Bill. It is compensation respecting the acquisition of minerals for which uranium and so on may be obtained. The essential difference in the words now proposed is that no compensation will be paid for the minerals themselves. Worth while deposits of uranium are not thought to exist in this country, but, if some were found, it is felt there would be no reason why the State should pay for a deposit which had not been thought of, discovered or exploited. Its expropriation would cause no loss to the person concerned, who would have had no knowledge that it was there. These substances have only just become of interest at all.

Compensation will be paid, of course, for any loss that is suffered. Thus, if the minerals sought were embedded in a tin mine, and the taking of the minerals interfered with the working of the tin, obviously, there might be a case for compensation for loss of tin or of the tin mine, and in similar cases for disturbance of existing property rights. I feel sure that the Committee will accept the view that it would not be proper to saddle the State with compensation for something which is not known to exist and which is of no use outside its use for these particular purposes. The precedent for this is in the vesting in the Crown of possible petroleum deposits, as was done by another Government. I trust the Committee will accept the Amendment.

Not only does the proposed Amendment exclude from compensation the value of the minerals concerned, but it provides that compensation is to be payable only as may be specified in the order. To prevent misapprehension, could the right hon. Gentleman give some assurance that it is his intention to pay full compensation for damage suffered and that he intends in all cases to provide compensation in respect of all matters other than minerals? What I have in mind is the question of subsidence. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in all mining operations it is a most serious matter, and merely to leave, as this Clause does, the question of the payment of compensation for subsidence to the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman, would give rise to a good deal of alarm and despondency in many quarters. I hope he does not apprehend the possibility of non-payment of compensation in any such cases but if that is his attitude, perhaps he would tell the Committee at once?

I am quite sure that the Clause, as drafted, includes full compensation for loss suffered, including subsidence and the sort of cases which the hon. Gentleman has cited.

To prevent any possibility of misunderstanding may I point out that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the drafting of the Clause as providing that compensation. It is possible that opinions may differ on that, but it would relieve apprehension if the right hon. Gentleman would say that if he is left discretion by the Clause, he will always exercise that discretion in favour of compensation for subsidence.

I think we want to define this question more carefully. This is just the kind of Bill Governments smuggle through on a Friday afternoon hoping no one will understand its true import. I understand that this metal may be found anywhere—may I have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman for a moment? It might, for example, be found under a house in a town and then it would be necessary to pull the house down, because it is a very valuable metal—

rose—

I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be favourable to the point I am putting. I do not think that what I suggest is an impossible situation at all. Supposing it were necessary to pull down a house in a town; what compensation would be paid? Would it be on the basis of the 1939 value of the house? Sup- posing it was a new house built since the war, what would be paid? We ought to know these things. It is not a small matter. The material might be found in a town in large quantities; what compensation would then be paid? It is not a party question. I am not concerned with compensation paid to landowners but with the general question. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will answer more definitely.

We do not want to burden the Bill with a lot of detailed descriptions. It is left to be settled ad hoc in the Orders and the Minister will, of course, give reasonable compensation. The safeguard is that all these Orders are subject to special Parliamentary procedure, and therefore within the control of the House. If a Minister, acting under this Clause, were to award unreasonable compensation, or failed to take account of such factors as have been mentioned, then it would be open to the House to insist that the matter should be adjusted in accordance with reason.

In the light of that statement, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give the assurance for which I asked—that it is his intention to pay some compensation in all cases of subsidence?

Yes, certainly.

Thank you.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, to leave out "their natural condition," and to insert "a natural state."

This is a drafting Amendment to bring the words "a natural state" into conformity with Clause 7. If the words were used differently here, it might lead to the suggestion that there was some different meaning, whereas the meaning is the same.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, after "therewith," to insert:

"not being a contract for the rendering of personal services."

I think this Amendment will commend itself to the Committee without any long argument from me. Under the Clause, as it stands, it is possible that the Minister might secure the transfer to himself of a contract for personal service and so be able, in effect, to conscript into his service private individuals who, although under a contract to serve their existing employer, might not wish to enter into the service of the Minister. I say it is possible that the Clause as framed may have that result. Under similar, but not exactly comparable Clauses in the Companies' Act, the House of Lords has held! that Parliament could not have intended to affect contracts for personal service in that way without some express words indicating an intention so to do, but His Majesty's present advisers always anxious, where so to do is not inconsistent with the public interest, to protect and advance individual liberty want to make this position perfectly clear from the beginning, and therefore we desire to amend the Clause in this way so as to put the matter beyond the possibility of doubt.

Could I ask the Attorney-General for a little more information? The effect of the Amendment upon a person holding a contract of personal service with a company on which the Minister had served notice to take over its assets, is not quite clear to me. I think the Government are right in saying that they should move an Amendment to ensure against that person being directed willy-nilly into Government service, but is not this person then put in the position in which he loses his rights under his-contract of personal service with his employers? Clearly they cannot continue to employ him since they lose their plant and equipment to the Minister. Equally he has no claim upon the Minister. Does not the operation of this Amendment, in fact, deprive any person with a contract of personal service to an employer who receives a notice under this Clause, of any protection either from the Government or his employer?

The answer to that question is that if the Minister made a direction requiring a company to transfer its assets, that direction would not involve the transfer of contracts for personal service. Whether it effected a termination of those contracts as between the servant and the company concerned is a matter which would depend on many circumstances, of which the direction would be only one. I contemplate that it might have that effect in such cases, but the remedy of the individual concerned would be against the company and not against the Minister in such a case.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 25, to leave out "Minister", and to insert "Lord Chancellor".

I am very conscious of rushing in where legal archangels fear to tread. I know it will be said that we have many precedents for a position in which a Minister may appoint a judge to hear a dispute between himself and another party, and in which in fact a Minister of the Crown is the only person given the right unilaterally to appoint an arbiter between himself and some other party. But it seems to me that in a matter of such importance, we should not be overswayed by precedent. In two places in this Bill the Minister is given power to present certain facts to a person, and that person has the right to offer objections. If he refuses to avail himself of the right the objctions to the proposed action of the Minister are to be heard by an arbiter chosen by the Minister. It may be argued that in many fields of our legislation, such as inquiries under the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, there are cases in which persons and tribunals are set up by the Minister to hear objections. They do so very impartially and judicially and have a very fine record. I do not think that should be allowed to blind us to the fact that it is improper, in any case in which it can be avoided, for a man to be the judge in his own cause, or to appoint a judge In his own cause.

This Amendment is an innocuous little Amendment which merely ensures that one of the legal members of the Government, rather than the Minister himself shall be the authority for selecting the arbiter in any dispute between the Minister and any person on whom he has served the notice. I am aware that this may not be held to accord with precedent, but it seems to me that the function of Parliament is not slavishly to tie itself to precedent, but gradually to introduce departures from principles which, although they may have a long history, are clearly not in accordance with present day ideas of relations between Government and subject.

If in fact this provision dealt with the appointment of an arbiter or a judge, there would be much substance in my hon. Friend's argument. But it deals with the person who is to ascertain the facts—a fact finder. If there is an objection to the notice which has been served, the person who feels aggrieved can state his objections, and this gives the Minister power to appoint someone to consider the facts, and report to the Minister who acts on that report. It is entirely within his discretion. I do not think it would be an improvement to ask the Lord Chancellor to find a person who would consider the facts and report to the Minister. It is better for the Minister to appoint some person who is knowledgeable about the subject to be discussed. There are precedents for this. Recent Statutes giving analagous powers of compulsory acquisition, such as the Acquisition of Land Act, have adopted this procedure. I do not think there would be any improvement effected by adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 3, after "substances," to insert:

"or of any minerals specified in the order, being minerals from which in the opinion of the Minister any of the prescribed substances can be obtained and not being minerals in a natural state or contained in a deposit of waste material obtained from any underground or surface working."

This Amendment extends the control which is in the Clause as printed in the Bill. As part of the control which the Minister can exercise over the production and use of atomic energy, Clause 10 enables him by an Order to prohibit except under licence, the acquisition, production and use of prescribed substances, or of atomic energy plant. It is thought desirable to extend this part of the control to include acquisition not only of the substance? prescribed, but of the minerals from which the prescribed substances can be obtained, for instance, the mineral pitchblend, from which comes uranium, or monosite, the mineral from which thorium is derived. This Amendment excludes minerals in their natural state, still in the ground, because it would be an offence to buy or possess land under which some minerals lie. Control over minerals in their natural state, or in heaps, is obtained under Clause 6 by the power to acquire and the right to work. This Clause extends the control beyond the substances prescribed to the minerals from which those substances can be obtained. Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, after "shall," to insert:

"in consultation with the Lord President of the Council."

I think the purpose of this Amendment is self-evident. We on this side of the Committee, and I think hon. Members opposite, are extremely keen that the powers of the Minister to encourage research under this Bill shall be utilised and exploited to the full. Research and development are among the most important functions the Government are taking over in respect of atomic energy. We suggest the introduction of the Lord President of the Council in this matter, not because we wish to cast doubts upon the ability of the Minister of Supply to conduct research, but because the Lord President of the Council has certain functions in regard to research generally. The Minister of Supply is mainly a production Minister. He is a Minister with a great many other irons in the fire, and has many duties to perform. It is conceivable that in the rush for production, research and development may be rather sidetracked. We therefore suggest that the Lord President of the Council should be associated with the Minister in regard to Subsection (2) of this Clause.

We fully sympathise with the object behind this Amendment, but it does raise interesting constitutional issues, and we hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to press it. Nowadays it is common to hear people say that a par- ticular Minister has done this or another Minister is going to do that; the personal pronoun, is, perhaps, too frequently used in these matters. The decisions and actions of Ministers are the decisions and actions of the Government. We think it a very important principle of our Constitution, and one which should be strengthened rather than weakened nowadays, that all Ministers are collectively responsible for the acts of any one of them, and that all Ministers are entitled to be consulted on any matter which affects their collective responsibility. Any statutory provision, such as the right hon. Gentleman here proposes, that some particular Minister should always be consulted in regard to a particular matter, might tend and, I suggest, will tend, to detract from that overriding principle that every Minister is entitled to be consulted on any matter which concerns him.

Clearly, matters of research would concern the Lord President of the Council under Subsection (2) of this Clause. It is perfectly true that in one or two recent cases, Statutes have provided that particular Ministers, who have been regarded as possessing some special and statutory function in regard to particular matters, shall be specifically referred to, and provisions have been made that their consent is to be obtained before this or that is done. The two cases I have in mind are those of the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Secretary of State for Scotland, also in regard to planning matters. But the general principle in regard to this was laid down by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison), then Minister of Agriculture, in 1937 in connection with a Bill which affected agricultural matters, and we accept what he then enunciated. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also accept it.

Unless it is clear that a particular Minister has a special and overriding responsibility under some Statute, such as the Minister of Town and Country Planning or the Secretary of State for Scotland may have, in regard to certain definite matters, provision for consultation with any particular Minister is unnecessary because it ignores the wider obligation to consult all interested colleagues, unconstitutional because it weakens the doctrine of collective responsibility, and undesirable, if I may say so, because it tends to establish a precedent which might either lead to the introduction of similar provisions protecting the position of a similar Minister in every other Bill or, on the other hand, might tend to imply that there was no need to consult one's colleague unless he was specifically referred to in the Bill concerned. In these circumstances, and with the assurance that in the operation of this Subsection of the Clause there would, of course, be the fullest consultation with the Lord President, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

There is obviously a great deal in the constitutional argument put forward by the Attorney-General. The only reason why we put down the Amendment in this form was simply to underline and stress the overwhelming importance, in our view, of research over this whole field. However, I think it is clear, for the reasons which the Attorney-General has just given and in which he quoted a precedent from an Administration more respectable than the present one, that it would be unwise to seek to insist upon these words. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 11, after "education," to insert:

"for medical and biological purposes."

This Amendment is one which, I am sure, will commend itself to the Committee generally. Clause 10 (2) places a duty on a Minister, if control over a mineral substance or plant is imposed, of securing, as far as possible, that he shall, by the issue of licences, see to it that these mineral substances or plants are available for purposes of research and education and for commercial purposes not involving atomic energy. The purpose of this Amendment is to extend this dispensation to minerals required for medical and biological purposes, and to require the Minister, as far as possible, to issue licences so that they may be used for those purposes also. As has been mentioned in the discussion, radioactive substances are already used as trace elements in medicine and biology. The radioactive properties enable such substances to be traced through human and plant systems, and they may be of very great value in medical and biological research. I am sure that the Committee would wish to put everything possible in the Bill to strengthen the use of these materials for these purposes.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 12, at the end, to insert:

"(3) The Minister shall present a report to both Houses of Parliament at least once in every session of Parliament showing the names of persons and bodies to whom licences have been issued under Subsection (1) of this Section and the number and character of such licences."

One of the difficulties which this Bill raises is that of reconciling secrecy, in certain circumstances, with the paramount need that Parliament should always have control over the actions of its Ministers. This is a difficulty of which there were many instances during the war. Many of us who were outside Parliament at that time noted with admiration the way in which that Parliament, which may or may not have been more respectable than the present one, safeguarded its rights in the matter and insisted on a very large degree of Ministerial accountability to Parliament, even in matters where it was very difficult to demand from the Ministers disclosure of what they were actually doing. We have the same problem in this Bill, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when moving the Second Reading. What we have to do is to find some means of allowing the Minister to go his mysterious way in the development of atomic energy, because that necessarily must be the case, without altogether escaping the duties which rest upon him as the basis of his accountability to Parliament. The Committee know that, whenever we talk about these things, we are never talking about the present Minister; we are always envisaging a successor greatly inferior to him both in competence and in his respect for the rights of this House and the nation. It is entirely in regard to this hypothetical successor of my right hon. Friend that I am speaking at this moment. Clearly, the feeling is very strong in all parts of the Committee that, in this matter of the development of atomic energy, there should be no equivocation about its being carried out under a very close public control, a degree of control which can be achieved only by public ownership. We are all agreed about the necessity for nationalisation.

In this Clause, the Minister takes unto himself—I think we are agreed, quite rightly—powers to deviate from this general principle by giving licences to other persons and organisations to do some of his work. I repeat that we are all agreed that this is no doubt a sensible thing in the present initial stage of development, and, perhaps, at some future stage, when it might be highly desirable for the Minister to farm out some of his responsibilities in this way, and I think it would be a mistake for the Committee to try to prevent him. But I also think that it is sensible and does nothing to break down the barriers of that degree of secrecy which is necessary if we ask the Minister to come and tell Parliament once a year how far he has gone in subcontracting his responsibilities for the development of atomic energy. We shall want to see whether the number of proposals for which it is decided in the early stages to grant licences under this Clause increase or decrease, for then we shall have some measure of asking for information, without asking the Minister to disclose scientific secrets, simply by watching the incidence of the issue of licences. That is really all that we are asking the Minister in this Amendment, and I warn my right hon. Friend that my hon. Friends and myself will not go quite so quietly over this one as we did over the previous one.

All we are asking him to do is to come along once or twice a year to tell us the number of persons or companies or individuals to whom he has given licences under Clause 10 (1). We are not asking him to tell us what the licences are for or their terms, because he may have extremely good reasons in the national interest for not disclosing them, but, at least, Parliament is entitled to know who are the receivers of his responsibility under this Section and to see whether the Minister is carrying out, in spirit as well as in the letter, the wishes of Parliament, and, particularly, to know that the Minister has assumed the major, and, as far as possible, the whole, responsibility for the development of atomic energy.

I should like to support what my hon. Friend has said in moving this Amendment, and I very much hope that the Minister will accept it. This Clause is one of the few Clauses in the Bill which places a positive duty on the Minister-Parliament is directing the Minister to secure, as far as practicable, that licences shall be issued for the purposes of research and education, and for commercial purposes, not involving the production or use of atomic energy, as well as to the other purposes for which this Clause has been amended on the suggestion of my right hon. Friend. It is always desirable that, when Parliament places duties on a Minister of the Crown, Parliament should be able to see that those duties are being carried out, and this has been made particularly necessary in this case, where we are dealing with a subject which, for purposes of national security, must be enveloped in a certain amount of secrecy.

It is most desirable, in my opinion, that, wherever possible, the secrecy surrounding this subject should be lifted and that we should be given the widest possible information with regard to the progress made in research on atomic energy, so that the public may know what developments are taking place and the kind of bodies and organisations that are working on them, and, generally, to reassure the public that the fullest use is being made by the Minister to develop atomic research for the eventual benefit of the nation. While I think that, in any event, it would be desirable that Parliament should insist on periodical information from the Minister on how he is carrying out duties of this kind, it seems to me to be especially necessary in this case, because, unless Parliament has such information, it will be impossible for the House of Commons to do its duty in criticising the Minister, commenting upon his actions or raising the matter in the House at all, in connection with the progress that is being made. I feel that it would require some far more convincing reasons than have yet been given to the Committee to justify us in not insisting upon this Amendment.

I would be inclined to advise the Minister not to accept this Amendment. We all know the importance of this Bill and the secrecy which is attached to it. I have been reading through the further Amendments on the Order Paper, but, of course, I would be out of Order if I referred in more than a word or two to the last Amendment, where, for the first time, we see that the Irish Land Act, 1907, and another Act, are to be disregarded in regard to the disposition of mining rights. It is very obvious that the Minister and his Department think that great secrecy must be maintained, or they would not go so far as to introduce such an Amendment as they have proposed to Clause 20. We know that, at the present moment, America has offered to make the whole of her work on this atomic power public to the whole world provided that the same inspection is allowed in Russia as in other countries, and that Soviet Russia has refused it.

I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member would not desire to say that Soviet Russia has absolutely refused, because this matter is now under negotiation in New York, and nothing should be said here today to imperil the extremely important negotiations which are going on in New York.

I would be very glad if I were proved wrong and if it were the fact that Russia had accepted that position. Perhaps the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) has more information than I have. However, at the present moment, with international negotiations in progress, the Minister would be very wise to refuse to accept this Amendment.

I feel that the hon. Gentleman who spoke before me is under a misapprehension about this Amendment. There is nothing here to suggest that any technical details should be made public. There is no possible danger of any secrets being given to foreign Powers as the result of this Amendment being accepted. There is one point which I want to stress, and that concerns the amount of money involved in this Bill. The Bill makes an initial provision for £30 million. On the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) stated that in the United States £200 million had already been expended. In point of fact, the amount of money which has already been expended in this field in the United States is in the region of 2,200 million dollars, and it is likely that the sum of £30 million will be exceeded by a very large amount in this country. Obviously, therefore, although we should not know the financial terms as between the Ministry and any particular firm or person to whom a licence is issued, it is advisable, on this ground alone, to know which industrial concerns or persons are engaged in work of this character. The fact that the day to day supervision of financial expenditure cannot be exercised, does not mean that we should not have some general idea as to who is handling the very large sums of money which might be involved in this connection.

I am sure we all appreciate the necessity for the most active Parliamentary control in this most important matter, and I myself am very alive to it. The Minister will be required to give to the House of Commons frequent and full information about what he is doing with the vast powers which are entrusted to him and in accordance with the duties which are laid upon him in this Bill, but I do not like the method suggested in this Amendment and, although I feel, as does the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), the necessity for securing information, I hope he will not press this Amendment. I will explain why. The Minister will, of course, be here to answer any Parliamentary Questions. This very information can be obtained from time to time, as often as any hon. Member may desire it, by putting down a Question on the Order Paper. There will be Debates and reports from time to time as Parliamentary occasions arise. But that is different from inserting in the Statute a requirement that at least once in every Session there shall be a published report of all the names of the persons and bodies to whom licences have been issued, and the number and character of such licences. In the nature of things, as this matter now stands, the number of leading persons concerned in the work is so limited, that the publication of a list of persons to whom licences have been granted to do development and research work and, to use the words of the Amendment, "the number and character of such licences," might well disclose the very information which parts of this Bill are designed to protect. I would, therefore, ask the hon. Members who have put down this Amendment, for reasons which we all appreciate and support, not to press it. There is another reason—

Would my right hon. Friend forgive me for interrupting? Is he suggesting that if an hon. Member puts down a Parliamentary Question directed to eliciting the names of persons and bodies to whom licences have been granted, that information will be given?

No. The point is this. In the case of a Parliamentary Question, the Minister has the opportunity of saying that it would not be in the public interest to give a certain part of the information which is asked for, and I think in this case the Minister must reserve that right. We all know that from time to time, for perfectly good reasons, information is sought in Parliamentary Questions, which cannot be given without involving the nation in danger. We have got that safeguard if we proceed by way of Parliamentary Questions, but if we make a statutory obligation on the Minister to do what is set down in the proposed Amendment he cannot use that safeguard. He must set it all out and very likely disclose the very information which the Bill is designed to protect.

I do not suggest that what my right hon. Friend is now saying is not just conceivably possible, but I put it to the Minister that this is a little far-fetched in view of the fact that the Smythe Report, published by the United States of America, as to the way in which the atomic bombs were produced, gives the whole of the information which was asked for by my hon. Friend, and indicates who is responsible in detail— which companies were responsible, which universities were consulted, and even the names of the persons responsible.

I am not now thinking of the past. I am thinking of the future. We all hope that not very far off in the future, these security provisions will not be necessary, but we have to face the fact that to-day they still are. I would regard it as a most dangerous addition to the Bill if this obligation were laid upon the Minister. There is another reason. Because of the subject and the limited state of our present knowledge, we have been bound to do something that is very distasteful. If the Committee look at Subsection (1) (b) they will see that even the plant designed for research has to be licensed. The Minister will, therefore, be requiring scientific men working in their own laboratories to have licences in certain circumstances and, having laid that obligation upon the scientists, I do not think it would be fair to publish to the world that he was doing certain work in a certain line of development with certain plant, which would be disclosed to any knowledgeable person if we followed the words of this proposed Amendment. Therefore, I ask the Committee to believe that it is absolutely necessary that we should exercise to the limit the Parliamentary controls which are available. All the information that the House requires will be given, save only such information as would be of danger to the State. But the Government are bound to be the only people in possession of the information which would enable them to form a judgment on that matter, and, therefore, on the assurance that nothing will be withheld which can safely be revealed if it is sought, I would ask the mover of this Amendment to withdraw it.

In the light of what my right hon. Friend has said, and with the assurance contained in his last phrase, coupled with the earnest hope that the rights of Parliament in this matter will be safeguarded by the continuance in office for many years of the present Minister of Supply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 25, to leave out "knowingly."

This is a drafting Amendment, designed both to remove any ambiguity as to the words which are qualified by the condition that the communication must be knowingly made and to bring the Clause into conformity with language which is used in other legislation.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 31, after "operation," to insert:

"(other than the fundamental physical or chemical processes on which the operation is based)."

The purpose of this Amendment is to give more freedom to educational establishments to carry on their necessary activities without having to apply repeatedly to the Minister for a special licence for particular operations. Fundamental physical or chemical processes are necessarily part of the operation, and it should be quite clear—and we think it is the intention—that this fundamental research work should be excluded. To my way of thinking the operation does include the operation of the experimental parts, generally on a small scale, which are essential to educational work. Therefore, we would like an assurance from the Minister that the intention is to exclude these educational pieces of apparatus and their use from the term "operation" now in the Bill.

We are quite in sympathy with the desire of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. However, we are advised that the Clause as it stands excludes these processes much more effectively than they would be excluded if his Amendment were adopted. One of the problems which arose was the question of defining "fundamental physical or chemical processes." He himself has had that difficulty, and we had the same difficulty when considering this matter previously. I can assure him that, as far as we know, there is no way in which this can be made clearer or safeguarded better than by the Clause as it stands. I would draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to an Amendment which follows, in line 40, at the end, to insert:

"(2) The Minister shall not withhold consent under the last foregoing subsection, if he is satisfied that the information proposed to be communicated is not of importance for purposes of defence."

That gives the Minister very definite instructions in this regard, and gives the greatest amount of freedom. It would be better than inserting any words which might be limiting as well as apparently extending the power.

I am very pleased to accept that explanation. I think what the Minister has said gives us part, indeed most, of the assurance for which we are asking. I would point out that a further clarification may be possible at a later stage, because there is an Amendment which aims at defining the particular operations more precisely than we are trying to do here. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 37, to leave out "general."

This is in a sense a drafting Amendment. There is no particular reason why it should not be possible for the Minister to give some latitude in regard to special plant which might come into existence but which is not in general use. We are advised, therefore, that it would be better to leave out the word "general."

I beg to move, in page 7, line 40, at the end, to insert:

"(2) The Minister shall not withhold consent under the last foregoing subsection, if he is satisfied that the information proposed to be communicated is not of importance for purposes of defence."

I should like at the same time to refer to the following Amendment, on the Paper—in page 8, line 5, to leave out Subsection (4).

Under Subsection (4) it was discovered that scientists might be placed under the very serious difficulty of having themselves to define the point at which they were breaking the law. Scientists were a little apprehensive, we were informed, and said that this was a responsibility which should not be put on them but should be the responsibility of the Minister. Therefore, my right hon. Friend has put in a general instruction to himself that

"The Minister shall not withhold consent …. if he is satisfied that the information proposed to be communicated is not of importance for purposes of defence."

Within these very strict limitations he binds himself to exclude all matters which have been raised—the questions of plant for scientific research, for educational work great or small. If it can come outside that definition the Minister frees it entirely from any restriction whatsoever.

The double negative in this proposed Amendment is extremely cautious. I think the Minister would recognise that himself. The deletion of Subsection (4) does undoubtedly take away something which scientists regarded as being for their protection, and the Minister has dilated before on the point that it was for their protection. Would the Minister be good enough to explain how he will come to an opinion under this proposed Amendment? How will he know whether the information proposed to be communicated is or is not of importance for the purposes of defence? I would like to put the difficulty to him. Suppose the Minister had been Minister of Supply in Germany in 1938, and that Professor Hann, as in fact happened, discovered the phenomenon of nuclear fission and discovered that uranium could be split into two parts. Assuming a new discovery of that kind were to be brought to the Minister now, would he say he thought it was dangerous for the purposes of defence?

I hope the Minister will be good enough to tell us in what way his mind is working. At what stage will he begin to think a new discovery may be a danger? Will he interpret this in the liberal sense or in a narrow sense? Will he say, as he has said in this Committee very frequently on previous occasions, "Well, of course, this is a very broad subject. Who knows in which direction this step may lead us? Who knows what the result of this new discovery may be? I cannot conscientiously say that I am satisfied this information is not of importance for the purposes of defence." That is what I am afraid the Minister will do. I am satisfied that is the way his mind will work. If the Minister will tell the Committee today, and put it on the record that he will interpret this in such a way that, if possible, he will free the information, and that he will only decide not to free it if he is absolutely satisfied it is reasonably likely to contribute to the production of weapons of destruction, then I think the attitude of scientists and the Committee would change.

I find it a feat of mental gymnastics of which I am incapable to imagine myself a Minister of Defence in Germany in 1938, so perhaps I may be excused from pursuing that. I should find it very painful. If I had sought for words to define the attitude of mind in which I would approach the performance of this duty, I could not have improved upon the words which the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) has just used. I accept them in full, and I can assure the Committee that the inten- tion of this is to bind the present Minister and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) said, his possibly less meritorious successors, to withhold nothing that can safely be given. That is the spirit in which I think it should be approached.

I think it would be a pity to let this Clause pass without giving to the Committee some expression of the feelings of hon. Members on this side with regard to its dangers. I think that our feelings on this matter must be put as strongly as possible to the Committee. None of us would seek to make any exaggerated case; tribute has already been paid to my right hon. Friend, and we know that he is a Minister almost beyond reproach—that is the impression I got from some of the glowing tributes that have been paid to him—and it is unlikely that he will use these very wide and sweeping powers in any unreasonable fashion. None the less we must remember, I think, that science has progressed in the past, and is likely to progress in the future in the same way, by the full and unrestricted interchange of knowledge. It is doubtful if science can remain science for any length of time if it is half slave and half free. The powers given to the Minister in this Clause are so wide that they fill the minds of many scientific workers with considerable apprehension about the future of scientific progress.

During the Second Reading Debate I gave some idea to the House of a situation that I thought might possibly arise, and I should like to go back to it again and to have my right hon. Friend's comments upon it. It is not just existing plant that the Clause covers, but additions to existing plant and proposed plant, and it is on the word "proposed" that I want to dwell for just a moment. Let me take the case of a scientific man who is a great expert in this matter of nuclear physics and atomic energy, and to whom some new or original idea occurs. He is perhaps not working directly in a Government Department; he may be working in a university, independently, and he thinks that this new idea may be of great benefit and may perhaps even solve some problem that, until that time, lacked a solution. In order to solve his problem he must have advice from some colleague, perhaps in some other university. In the Second Reading Debate I suggested that perhaps this colleague might be an expert in hydraulics, but he might also be an expert in thermodynamics or some other branch of science altogether.

1.45 p.m.

This hypothetical scientist sketches the idea out and, in that sense, it becomes a proposed plant for the purposes of atomic energy. He takes his sketch along to his friend. I suggest that by taking that action he lays himself open to prosecution, and it is a most disturbing thought, because science progresses by the free interchange of information, by publication, and if this Clause is to be used to restrict investigation into fundamental processes I think it will be most unfortunate. I would ask, since everything under this Bill will be vital to national security, and since it is a Government monopoly, is this Clause really necessary? That might appear to be rather an extreme view, but I should be glad to have yet another assurance from my right hon. Friend on the point. Another thought also passes through my mind: Are the police in a position adequately to enforce this Clause, and just how will they enforce it? Shall we have a new legion of atomic policemen? Its enforcement must involve a considerable knowledge of very deep and complicated scientific processes; we all have great respect for the police, but we do not imagine that they are necessarily in a position to enforce this Clause intelligently, and it needs intelligent enforcement, however intelligent they may be as policemen.

There is a second point. If this Clause is used oppressively, how are the Parliamentary checks my right hon. Friend talks about to be exercised? It may be that gross blunders are made by some one in my right hon. Friend's Department, that mistakes are made that lead to inefficiency, and that some one who works in the Department thinks that it is all wrong and that some hon. Member of this House should be informed. He has to prove to the hon. Member that there is inefficiency and that mistakes are being made, and in order to do so he may need to mention some detail about a particular plant. In that case I suggest that that official or scientist working in the Ministry is liable to prosecution under this Clause. I therefore suggest, with all respect to my right hon. Friend, that it is perhaps not very fair to talk about Parliamentary checks, since the Clause may be used to prevent effective Parliamentary criticism from being expressed.

Is it not likely that the Clause will breed excessive caution among scientific men? Before they can publish anything they have to get the permission of the Ministry. The Ministry may not necessarily say "No" immediately, but it may be some months before they are in a position to say "Yes." There is certainly a great danger of delay and obstruction. Some of us hon. Members on this side who take the view I am trying to express have not reached the conclusion that we have about this Clause without a great deal of thought. Some of us worked fairly hard to see if we could define in some way the dangers involved. In the long run we came to the conclusion that it was not possible to do it successfully, because the border is always shifting. There are both black and white, and in between there is a very large grey patch. I, therefore, suggest to the Minister that probably this Clause is unnecessary. It could be done away with without seriously weakening the Bill or without seriously endangering national security. Is not the Official Secrets Act good enough? For some years this work is likely to be more or less a Government monopoly, and anything dangerous in the military sense can be quite easily placed under the Official Secrets Act. I suggest that it would be a good thing if the Clause were dropped, and fundamental research was freed from the very grave risk of legal action, and from the very grave risk of being seriously hampered.

I should like to add a few words to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) has said on this subject, because we feel somewhat perturbed about it. If we were amid preparations for war, then secrecy must be drawn as widely as possible, but if, happily, we have peace in front of us, then we do not feel that scientific progress will be as rapid as it could be with this Clause remaining in the Bill. Scientists do not flourish in an atmosphere where they are frustrated by regulations of this description. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon has quite rightly pointed out that the Official Secrets Act should be a sufficient safeguard for the Minister as things are at the moment, because scientists who are likely to work upon the wartime application of atomic energy will be covered already by the Official Secrets Act.

This Clause seeks to cast the net over private scientists who may be working on their own on applications of atomic energy for peace-time uses. If they have to observe this Clause, they will feel—and I believe that the Attorney-General would advise them to do this—that they should each and every one of them have their own private lawyer to advise them on every particular piece of private thinking and private discussion which they have with their colleagues. It puts them in an absolutely impossible position. I am pleading on behalf of the scientists of this country who want to enlarge and increase the speed of the application of atomic energy for peace time use, that this Clause be deleted. Finally, I should like to say something which has to do with the liberty of the people of this country. This Bill gives only one person liberty as we in this country through the ages have been taught to understand it. It gives liberty to the Minister. It denies liberty to the scientist and to the public. It denies liberty to the public to criticise the Minister in the carrying out of this work, which resides in Parliament, and Parliament can only criticise a Minister if Members have the ammunition with which to criticise. We all know how difficult it is in ordinary circumstances to get ammunition to criticise. One has to go through the highways and byways of the economic structure of the country and take a great deal of care and attention to obtain one single small pebble to throw at a Minister. Under this Clause, a single grain of information will cast not only the scientist who gives it into prison, but also the Member of Parliament. This is a blank denial of the liberty of our ancestors. It is adding to the already onerous parts of the Official Secrets Act. We feel, in giving very careful consideration to this subject, that the Minister has already ample powers under the Official Secrets Act, and that if we are to have the liberty still to criticise him—we hope it will not be necessary—then we must have the liberty to obtain the ammunition with which to criticise.

We all recognise that we and the Minister are confronted with a difficulty in trying to discover how to handle a problem which involves the conflicting claims of security and liberty. This is a problem which arises with particular acuteness in this case, because we are dealing with a field in which the possible repercussions are still comparatively unknown. Nevertheless, it is only an extension of the general problem of how to reconcile the interests of national security with those of safeguarding the general public from the abuse of liberty, or the possible inefficiency of the Government, and the question of safeguarding, individuals in their capacity as research workers or operatives in carrying out their task. I feel that we must begin to think here of the question of evolving some new kind of procedure to deal with this problem.

It is quite clear that a full session of this House is not the occasion when one can conduct that searching investigation. It may be that we ought to consider the possibility of instituting some special Select Committee—let us say, a Select Committee on defence—covering not only this particular problem, but other related problems, where it would be possible for those who have a grievance, or suspect abuse or inefficiency, to bring their evidence in confidence to a group of members specially chosen for the purpose. These Members should have access to the Minister, and power to call for papers and persons. It should also be possible for members of the public to apply for permission to present evidence to such a committee. In any possible redrafting of the Clause, I suggest that between now and the Report stage, the Minister might consider inserting an Amendment providing for the possibility of the introduction of such a procedure at a later stage. He should make it possible,, for example, for information to be disclosed to a Select Committee appointed by this House. I am not suggesting that this Bill is the occasion to set up such a committee, but there should be a safeguarding Clause should the House decide at some later stage, in the interests of preserving liberty of the subject in this very difficult field, that a special procedure should be adopted. That would leave the road open.

I am appalled that a subject of this importance is being discussed in the presence of four Members of the party who claim to defend liberty. So far most of their interventions concern imaginary rights about a mineral which does not exist in this country. This Clause, in my opinion, is of the very greatest importance. Scientists who are concerned with atomic energy, and with the planning and thought of future scientific development in the field of nuclear physics, are extremely worried, because they do not know what this Clause means. Quite frankly, we have not been given a very satisfactory explanation of the purpose of the Clause. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will tell us exactly what he is trying to do. It is obvious that its purpose is not clear in the same way as the Official Secrets Act. When this Bill is passed, there will be a state of affairs in which scientists will not know where they stand. The orders which the Minister has promised he will make have not yet been made, and there will be a state of uncertainty.

There is a further point about this Clause, and it is that I am not sure that it will succeed in doing what I think the Minister wants to do. The Clause, as we have just amended it, says:

"Subject to the provisions of this section, any person who without the consent of the Minister, communicates to any other person any document … which to his knowledge describes …."

Unless a person, revealing this information, or publishing this document, also communicates the implication or possibility of the production of atomic energy, he will not, in my submission, be breaking the law. I would like to know how it will be possible to stop anyone publishing information, providing he does not reveal that he knows that it has some special implication. This Clause is not effective. It is bad legislation, and I suggest that my right hon. Friend should reconsider it. I do not think we should wipe it out without putting something in its place, because I understand that the Minister has an idea which he wants to carry out. He wants to obtain certain powers, but the Clause does not give him those powers. It is highly restrictive. I regard the Clause as a very crucial one indeed. We are discussing a matter affecting the liberties and rights of scientists, our people and Parliament. We shall have to keep a watch on this industry, and this Clause would make that very difficult to do.

The Government have already given very great thought to this Clause. As the Committee realises, we are in a very great difficulty in this matter because, as has been pointed out, it is a difficulty that flows out beyond the limits of this subject in all matters of defence. We have an admitted conflict between the interests of national security in the present state of the world, and the necessity for securing the utmost freedom for the necessary exchange of scientific knowledge. I agree absolutely that the exchange of scientific knowledge is an essential part of scientific progress, and that without it science will languish and die. I recognise that to the full, but we must all recognise that at the present time there are some matters which, for reasons of national security, must remain secret. How do we reconcile these two things? This Clause is the best compromise we have been able to devise between these two contrary objectives.

Is my right hon. Friend admitting that the Government have failed to take steps which they ought to have taken to keep secret matters which ought to be kept secret? If this Clause is necessary, does it necessarily involve the proposition that the Bill ought to have been passed at least 12 months ago?

That may be, but here it is. It was not an easy Bill to produce. As I explained on the Second Reading, we deliberately allowed some time to pass between the publication and First Reading of the Bill and the Second Reading in order that we might have the benefit of informed criticism from science, industry and the public at large. We realised the tremendous importance of the Bill, and particularly this Clause, and the inherent difficulties of reconciling the two things I have mentioned.

Let me say at once that the words, "to his knowledge," referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Wing-Commander Shackleton) do give very wide latitude, but we put them in because we did not think we could possibly defend prosecuting people who have done wrong without knowing it. I admit that in giving that safeguard to the liberty of the subject we are running a certain risk, but I think it is a risk worth running. It brings the wording into accord with the existing wording of the Official Secrets Act. I have been asked why the Official Secrets Act was not good enough, why we could not have rested on that Act alone. In practice, it is not enough because it applies solely to the communication of information obtained from official sources. There is a danger here in the communication of certain information which may not have been obtained from official sources and, therefore, in that case the Official Secrets Act would not apply. Any person obtaining information about atomic energy plant, if he did not get the information from official sources, would, without this Clause, be perfectly free to disclose it wherever he chose. As I say, in the present state of affairs, and from what is within our knowledge, the Government regard it as a danger, which they could not embrace, to leave this big gap. This Clause seeks to fill that gap.

Let us not exaggerate the breadth of this matter. The Clause allows complete freedom over the whole field, unless it is associated with atomic energy plant. The plant is the thing which is safeguarded. [An HON. MEMBER: "And proposed plant?"] Certainly, proposed plant may be an even more vital secret than existing plant, because it may be an improvement, and so on. That lets right out of the operation of this Clause all basic scientific information, and the Clause, as now amended by the Government, directs the Minister to consent to publication even about plant where the information would not be dangerous from a defence point of view. Everything other than plant is outside the Clause. Also outside the Clause is such plant as may not be of importance for purposes of defence. I undertook in the Second Reading Debate to go further than that. The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) and his friends were good enough to say that they much appreciated the statement I then made. I undertook to make an order at once, on the passage of this Bill, freeing what I called the ordinary tools of the nuclear physicist's trade. You see, we are getting a long list of things already which are outside the operation of Clause 11.

As a scientist has put this point and is anxious about it, would that undertaking, which is greatly appreciated, cover the results of work on the tools of their trade as well as details about the plant itself? I imagine it would cover the results as well as the plant.

I would like to consider that. If it were possible to say ''Yes,'' I should be very glad to do so. I would like to think about what the implications are, but if it is possible to do it, I shall be only too pleased to do it. A combination of these various safeguards and limitations on the effects of the Clause should secure, as far as we can see, as complete a freedom as possible and as is reasonably consistent with the requirements of national safety. I think the Committee should note—and this is very important—that we have drawn the Bill in such a way that the Clause cannot be made more restrictive by the Minister than the words here set down, but he can progressively loosen it. The Minister cannot tighten it, but he can loosen it, and in fact, he is already beginning to loosen it by undertakings before the Bill has been passed. What I think will surely happen is that, as we go on and learn a bit more about this new science and what it involves, we shall get more and more exemptions made, a wider and wider field outside the Clause, as we can define more exactly the actual limits of national security requirements. We shall get a sort of case law which will emerge.

Let it be remembered all the time that it is not an absolute prohibition. It is only a requirement that the person who wants to make a communication should come to the Minister for consent, and the Minister will, of course, give his consent wherever he possibly can. One of my hon. Friends spoke of the difficulties which would arise with men working together or in association in devising, shall we say. improvements in atomic energy plant. Would they not, he asked, with great reason and wisdom, I thought, be inhibited from exchanging information which they must exchange with one another in order properly to do their work. How would they know what they could talk about? They would be struck dumb by this Clause. No, they would not. They would come to the Minister and they would say: "We want to discuss this with somebody else—a firm of constructional engineers whom we want to make us some parts of the plant which we are devising." The Minister, if he wants that plant to be made, will say: "Certainly, I will give you the licence at once." As this goes on, and as this new and unfathomed thing begins to find its place in the normal work which people do, a kind of case law will be built up, and we shall begin to know the sort of applications which are granted and the sort that do not get granted, and just as we know, about a whole range of things where licences are required, what sort of application is likely to succeed, so it will become common form that you get a licence for this and you do not get it for that. Then, the next step will be to free a whole class of things from the operation of the Clause. That is as I see it, and much as I should like at this stage of the Bill to widen the freedom and remove the fears, I cannot see how we can do it without jeopardising national security.

Will the Minister say something about the point raised concerning communications to Members of Parliament?

I intended to come to that as a final point. I do not think we can go any further without jeopardising, in the present state of affairs, vital national security, and further—and this is not without importance; in fact, it is probably the most important thing of all—if we are successfully to achieve the greatest objective, which is a workable and binding international agreement declaring this thing to be unusable in matters of warfare, unless we can find a way of international agreement which will prevent the horrors of atomic war, we must in this country put the Government in a position to control their own citizens in the use of atomic energy, and it is no good talking about the desirability of binding international law unless we are prepared to face the implications of binding law within our own State. That is a most important part of the reasons for this Bill and for this Clause, which has great importance in that aspect.

Finally, I come to what is a very serious point; it has to do with Parliamentary control, which, I agree, is so vitally necessary. How is the Member of Parliament, upon whom the responsibility ultimately rests of seeing that the Government are adequately and properly discharging their duty to the nation, to know what is going on if people working in the field are not able to come to Members of Parliament, as they do, and disclose information which would be necessary to establish their case that the Government were not doing what was right and proper? My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) asked, "Why not leave it to the Official Secrets Act?" But the Official Secrets Act operates in exactly the same way, and Clause 11 of this Bill makes no greater difficulty as regards communication between officials and Members of Parliament than does the Official Secrets Act.

The Minister said that the Official Secrets Act only covers official secrets. This Clause covers unofficial secrets. That is the difference.

Certainly, it slightly extends the scope, but it does not alter the nature of the thing. We have the very same difficulty over the whole field of munitions provisions, that the Minister is responsible in regard to his munitions responsibilities to Parliament, and yet the Official Secrets Act has the same operation, as between an informant and a Member, as Clause 11 will have in matters which are not covered by the Official Secrets Act. It is a problem and a difficulty which we have to admit and which we have to face. We have managed somehow, for better or for worse, with this same problem in the munitions of war and security arrangements, when most of the people who have the information upon which the Government could be criticised are in fact covered by the Official Secrets Act. It is a problem and I do not know the answer; we have not found it and if later on someone can find it without jeopardising public security no one will be more pleased than the Government.

Of course, there are certain safeguards. The Minister is responsible to the House; he may be removed at any time, and he naturally has to see that as far as possible he keeps the confidence of the House. If there were something going really seriously wrong and the people who were working in the field felt that it was their overriding duty to the State to see that this matter was raised in Parliament and that the Government were censured, what would they do? They would have to ask the Minister for permission to do so and he could refuse, but in matters of this kind such considerations do not usually apply among honourable people. The persons concerned would ask the Minister for permission to communicate with Members of Parliament and, supposing the Minister were so short sighted, foolish and mean as to use his powers under this Bill to refuse that permission, I ask the Committee how long could that Minister last? That is the ultimate sanction and safeguard—that the Minister is responsible to the House and that when he loses the confidence of the House he ceases to be the Minister. I think that is the final answer.

I am sure we all sympathise with the Minister in the difficulty in which he finds himself, a difficulty which, for the reasons he has suggested, is insoluble. It is the age-old problem of having one's cake and eating it. The Minister seeks to have secrecy and to do away with secrecy—the secrecy which is linked up with that horrid word "security," and the absence of secrecy which he admits, and which we all know, is necessary for the progress of science and the increase of knowledge. This idea of secrecy, which I am sorry to have noticed was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey), is a word which he implied meant the same thing as safety. But does anyone dare to suggest that our safety depends on the number of atomic bombs which we can accumulate? There was a time when hon. Members of this House carried swords and occasionally adjourned to the park and killed each other, but security was not any greater because of those weapons. To my way of thinking, world safety will be no more secure when all the nations of the world have a magnificent supply of atomic bombs.

The question has been asked: How is the Minister to be aware of these breaches of secrecy? We can guess. There are already Military Intelligence, Naval Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, and Scotland Yard, each with its appropriate staff, and also a vast expenditure of £1,250,000 on what I believe is called the Secret Service which appears in the Estimates. I do not suppose that these will be available in the future to the Minister of Supply—there will be a Ministry of Supply Intelligence Service. These Intelligence Services may be a menace. They are very much in the dark but they do exist. They can only continue to exist by proving their usefulness and it they cannot uncover real mysteries there have been cases where they have invented them. In fact one has only to remember the recent spy trials in Canada where some of the worst features of the old agents provocateurs occurred. Individuals were introduced into a scientific establishment in disguise and led people into traps in conversation and then reported their conversations to the authorities to be used subsequently against them. That development is rather by the way. As the Minister has mentioned the main difficulty between having secrecy and not having secrecy will become more in evidence as time goes on.

The Minister has spoken of his powers of giving and withholding licences and allowing people to carry out investigations and so on as if he alone were concerned, but we have been reminded today, and we all know very well, that there is such a thing as Cabinet responsibility. The Minister must take the advice of the Service chiefs and we know how, in case of doubt, the military people say, "This is too secret." Here is a conflict which will develop as time proceeds between the military mind on the one hand and the general public, as championed by the scientists, on the other, and there is just no happy answer because the scales are weighted on the side of the military since the whole existence of the military machine depends on the provision of weapons and the maintenance of secrecy. They will struggle to the last to maintain an area of secrecy and a department of secret weapons. The scientist, however, has other things to do, and when he finds this kind of life too onerous his interest will drift over to those other things. Thus I can see the interests of secrecy paralysing the advance of science which is so desperately needed in this particular direction.

Another thing we have to remember is that the eyes of the world are upon this House and upon this Debate and that the direction in which we face and the implications of our arguments will be considered abroad. We know some of the things which are being said in the United States. For instance, the American Undersecretary of State for War has declared that the production of atomic bombs must go on until they are absolutely sure that other nations have permanently dispensed with the bomb completely and ceased their efforts to develop it. Will the United States be any more likely to slow up their manufacture of atomic bombs as the result of what has been said here this afternoon with our care all the time that military secrets must be safeguarded? This will seem to them to be an indication that we are going ahead making atomic bombs as fast as we can.

I think they will slow up; why not?

They say they will go on as long as anyone else is doing it. If we begin to slow up, then they will have some encouragement to do the same.

In my opinion, war between the United States and ourselves is unthinkable, and I hope and believe that we shall always be Allies, so that the stronger we are, the less anxiety the United States of America will have to provide itself with munitions.

I do not think that calls for any comment from me.

In that case the hon. and gallant Member should not make his statement.

The question is whether we shall accept this Clause or not. If we reject it, that will be an indication of our faith in the progressive decline of the military spirit and of the military element in this country, and of the progressive gain on the scientific and on the civil side. It would be a good thing if the Clause were dropped altogether, or if the Minister could reconsider it, and bring in a substitute in some more acceptable form—a task which I am afraid is beyond the wit of man.

I am sorry that the Minister—he has been here all the time and is entitled to go out at half-past two—is not in his place. He has made an extraordinarily important statement on this subject. He has also been extraordinarily conciliatory. I feel convinced that he is determined to operate the Clause in accordance with the statement of the Prime Minister, which I venture to repeat here:

"While we can meanwhile encourage the dissemination of basic scientific information, there must be power to prevent the dissemination of information as to what is called the 'know-how.' —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th October, 1946, Vol. 427; c. 47.]

It is upon that point that the whole Debate has centred. It is an issue of fundamental importance upon which the whole future of science in this respect may turn.

This is nothing more than the issue of freedom for the scientist. It is magnificent that we have had about a dozen Labour Members making speeches in favour of freedom for those individuals. We have not had a murmur from the extraordinarily incompetent Opposition. We have not had—

Will the hon. Member give way for one moment?

The only indication from hon. Members opposite has been concern in connection with hypothetical property rights in certain minerals which do not exist in Britain. One hon. Member was talking about compensation for subsidence. I hope that, having made those comments, which I have felt to be important, I can now proceed to deal with the point at issue.

It is a very serious matter. The effect of Clause 11 is to establish control over the mind. That is the really sad thing about it. It does not really control raw materials, and it does not indicate that you cannot go into large scale manufacture of atomic energy without having certain secrecy obligations. Over the whole field of nuclear fission, no scientist is entitled to talk to another scientist about new developments, unless he has first obtained the permission of the Minister. The Minister—I say this without reservation—has made a most important concession. If he will follow it up by agreeing that the results of fundamental research will also be covered, I I think he will have gone practically the whole way.

I agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken that Clause 11 is unnecessary. If it had been necessary we should have had this Bill 12 months ago. The Minister cannot seriously suggest that there is a danger of vital secrets leaking out to the whole world and that the Labour Government have, in this single respect, been inefficient, have waited for 16 months to produce the Bill and have allowed these secrets to leak out all over the world in the meantime. That is absolute nonsense. I think that the Minister and his advisers know perfectly well that Clause 11 is unnecessary. If I had to decide from the point of view of my own conscience, I should have to vote against the Clause. I do not want to vote against it, and I do not think that my hon. Friend wants to vote against it, although I cannot speak for him. We want to mark—I certainly want to mark—appreciation of the extremely reasonable and conciliatory way in which the Minister has dealt with this matter.

I would refer to the important question raised by the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey). In America, there has been a special committee of Congress which has gone into the whole matter for several months. When the Minister talked about the possibility of a scientist approaching a Member of Parliament, I said I feared that the result of the scientist going to the Minister and saying he wanted to see a Member of Parliament, would be that the scientist would be sacked. I did not suggest that the Minister would sack him because he had gone to the Minister and said he was dissatisfied. That is not the ground upon which these things can be done. There are other grounds. We know what can be done in the Army and in the Civil Service, and we believe it is quite easy to do it. I am glad that the Minister has said he would regard it as mean and despicable for the Minister to sack the scientist because the scientist wanted to see a Member of Parliament. It is very valuable that the Minister has given that assurance. I am confident that he will operate it. What terrifies me is that somebody who sits upon the Benches opposite may exercise this responsibility. It would be a horrible thing if anything of that kind occurred. Hon. Members on the other Benches are grossly ignorant on the subject, and it would be most unfortunate if we had them. They have not made any contribution at all on this vital matter. They cannot. They do not know anything about it, and they admit it.

I would like to add that if the Clause goes through without a Division it will not be because any of us here have been convinced by the Minister's argument. It will be because we desire to make a gesture in response to the very reasonable and conciliatory attitude which the Minister has adopted. We all hope that he will, personally, see that the Clause is operated in such a way as to ensure that fundamental research goes forward, and that we do not have that deadly compartmentalisation which is already seeped in to this matter. Scientists must have the freedom of research without which they cannot go forward.

The Minister has dealt with this matter with great sympathy and has made one of his many gestures of generosity. He lowered his halo, almost to the point where it was in danger of becoming a noose. He said that he could not tighten the Regulations but could only loosen them. There was a very important Amendment standing in the names of myself and some of my hon. Friends to Clause 11, page 7, line 41, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall." I feel that the Minister might have gone on lowering his halo and might have kept it lowered a little bit if he had agreed to that Amendment.

We have passed the point referred to by the hon. Member, and the Amendment he mentioned was not selected. He cannot refer to it now.

I accept your Ruling, Major Milner, but I would ask the Minister to give attention to this point at a later stage in the Bill, so that it would be definite that he would be more generous in making concessions where it says that the Minister may by order, grant—

I have indicated that the hon. Member is not entitled to refer to that matter now.

Very well, Major Milner, I will leave it in the hope that the Minister will look at it later.

The only thing for me to say is that the Minister has considered all the points that have been raised, including that which my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) was in process of putting. The fact is that to change the wording as suggested, would make no difference. It would be useless to put in the Amendment. The fears of hon. Members on behalf of people who will come within the scope of the Bill are unfounded, for one or two important reasons. It is in the interests of the State itself that these matters should be developed to the uttermost. Everybody who is acting constructively and for the benefit of the community will get every possible assistance from the Minister. That is laid down in the Bill.

We have to realise, as my hon. Friend said, that there are some people who are criminally minded; perhaps not criminally minded in regard to the normal aspect of crime, but in respect of their own State, in which case you must have some powers to deal with them. It always happens of course, that if you take a power to deal with a criminal, it also applies to ordinary citizens if they become criminals, and the whole argument seems to be based on the assumption that all scientists are criminals because some scientists may become criminals. The point is that all scientists who are honest men are not affected by the Bill at all. [HON. MEMBEES: "Oh."] The Bill only affects those who actually become dishonest and who are suspected of that and who may be prosecuted for that.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a scientist who is aware of some gross inefficiency taking place, and who desires that it shall be made known and corrected, has a criminal intention?

No, the point is that the safeguards are such that the onus is on the Crown to prosecute and prove that that person, to his knowledge, communicated things which were a danger to the State.

No.

No, all that you have to prove under this is that a scientist knowingly communicated any information at all in the whole field of nuclear physics, to anybody else. That is what is amounts to.

Then it is safeguarded by the Minister's assurance—

Certainly.

—that it does not apply to anything except those things which are within the definition of the safety of the State. Therefore, I think that while the apprehensions of my hon. Friend are justified that some honest person may be caught by a trap of this kind, I think it must also be realised that the interests of the community should be safeguarded to the maximum extent.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 24, after "he," to insert:

"shall forthwith consider whether the invention which is the subject matter of the application in question is of importance for purposes of defence and."

It might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss this Amendment, and the succeeding Amendments to Clause 12 together. This first Amendment is to correct what might have been a weakness from the point of view of the inventor. Under the Bill as it stands the Minister will be able to prohibit an invention being used, and he might "freeze" it for a very long time. There is no requirement on his part to deal with it punctually or promptly and this Amendment lays upon the Minister the obligation that he—

"shall forthwith consider whether the invention … is of importance for purposes of defence …"

and inform the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. The three immediately succeeding Amendments are largely consequential, but the last Amendment, namely to insert Subsection (4), deals with the question of compensation and it is under this Subsection that the Minister takes power to compensate the inventor for the work done in connection with his discovery. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) put down an Amendment which proved to be very helpful, suggesting an improvement to the Minister's Amendment, and if he will regard the wording of the new Amendment proposed by the Minister, he will see that we have tried to embody his suggestion in giving that additional protection to the inventor so that—

"compensation shall not in any case be less than the amount of the expense reasonably so incurred, such amount (in case of dispute) to be settled by arbitration."

We think that in a case of this kind there is justification for saying that it shall not be the Minister who will be the final arbiter of what compensation is justifiable. Therefore in the case of work done, we have agreed that should the inventor not agree with the Minister, the inventor will have the right to appeal to arbitration.

The rest of it, of course, is the safeguarding of the rights of the Crown in regard to moneys paid which afterwards seem not to have been justified, and there is a certain element of possibility of recovery in these cases.

I think that these Amendments to Clause 12, which is a very important Clause, are deserving of the support of the Committee. It is clearly of importance that inventors should be encouraged, that their applications should be dealt with promptly, and that, if they produce an invention which is in itself of value, they should receive compensation for it whether or not it is surpressed for reasons divorced altogether from the merits of the invention but concerned simply with questions of security.

As the Minister was good enough to point out, we had put down an Amendment to his original Amendment. It is still on the Order Paper but, of course, it is now rendered invalid because the Minister has incorporated it in his own Amendment. There is just one question I would ask the Minister arising out of that. Our purpose in putting down our Amendment was to ensure that if an inventor had produced something of value, and it was suppressed for reasons which had nothing to do with the merits of the invention, then the Minister should not necessarily be limited to paying out of pocket expenses but that, if he thought fit, and if it seemed desirable, a further payment should be made in regard to the invention beyond the payment of expenses as such. It seemed to us that unless there was some such provision, there would be a discouragement to inventors to do their best work. The Minister's Amendment says:

"Where on an application to the Comptroller General for the grant of a patent … any person who has … done work in con nection with the discovery or development of the invention concerned, shall be entitled to be paid such compensation in respect of that expense or work as the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury determine, and the compensation shall not in any case be less than the amount of expense reasonably so incurred, such amount (in case of dispute) to be settled by arbitration."

I am not quite clear what it is that is to be settled by arbitration. Is it simply the amount of out-of-pocket compensation that is to be settled by arbitration, or is it the amount of overall compensation to cover his out-of-pocket expenses and any additional reward there may be as well to be settled by arbitration?

Under the Amendment as now put forward, the question of any payment beyond the amount of expenses would be a matter of an ex gratia payment in the way of rewards to inventors, and would not be subject to arbitration. The only point which would be subject to arbitration would be the amount of expense so incurred. For example, you might have a person who indulged in the most elaborate organisation in order to produce a small invention. It might be a steam hammer to crack a peanut. Of course you would have to protect the public against being bound to pay the whole expense of the steam hammer. During the war a complaint came to me, when I was on the Select Committee, about a certain development which was being carried through on behalf of the Government where the person in charge had employed his whole family at very large salaries, presumably with the intention of charging them all up to the Government later on. That of course, would not be available for compensation under this Clause unless the arbiter also agreed that these were reasonable expenses.

I beg to move, in page 10, line 29, at the end, to add:

"(4) Proceedings in respect of an offence under Section eleven of this Act shall not be instituted, in England or Wales, except by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or, in Northern Ireland, except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland."

It is perhaps suitable that I should be moving an Amendment of this kind, for the reason why Scotland is omitted from this provision is that this is the general practice in Scotland, where prosecutions of any kind only take place at the instance of the Crown. We think offences of this kind should be removed from the sphere of private prosecutions, and that they should only take place with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I beg to move, in page 11, line 12, to leave out "prepaid," and to insert "registered."

We seek to use the word "registered" as some guarantee of delivery.

I beg to move, in page 11, line 30, to leave out "in," and to insert:

"from atomic nuclei as a result of."

This, and the following Amendment, are drafting Amendments, and are put down on the advice of distinguished scientists in order to shorten the definition of atomic energy by deleting words which are redundant, without altering the meaning of the definition. As this is a very technical subject, I suggest that we accept the scientists' advice in regard to the definition, which is simplified to some extent.

I beg to move, in page 11, line 37, at the end, to insert:

"nor processes which cannot involve the production of an ounce of fissionable material and do not operate at energies exceeding one hundred watts."

The Minister has just explained that he has modified the definition earlier in this Clause in deference to the recommendation of scientists. This Amendment also originates from the Association of Atomic Scientists, and it is at their request that it is worded in this particular form. It is a difficult subject. It is felt that one way of getting exemption for the pieces of apparatus in question would be to define the limits of exemption numerically as put down on the Order Paper;

"an ounce of fissionable material,"

or

"one hundred watts"

are in relation to the enormous energies concerned in the atom bomb and production of power absolutely negligible but scientific work can be done if not on a single atom, at least on a relatively small number of atoms, and very small quantities of material, but with instruments like the cyclotron which may weigh hundreds of tons. These deal with attenuated gases which they turn into jets of material, particles or waves of energy, but always in very small quantities compared with those used on bombs or production of power for industrial use. This Amendment would give the necessary escape for these large pieces of plant needed for re- searches, which are the key to the whole problem. As time goes on, larger and heavier machines will be required as higher speeds are needed for the researches to explore new fields and regions in nature where we have not been able to penetrate hitherto because we have not been able to get our instruments sufficiently sharp or powerful. The kind of definition proposed is believed to be the best way of exempting such apparatus. We do not attach great importance to "one ounce" and if it were found that five times as much, or half as much, were more suitable that would be acceptable.

We can sympathise with the desire of hon. Members to get definitions and restrictions. This is the old process of constitution making, and in this country we have never had a written constitution, although some people no doubt would like to write it. Immediately one writes a constitution one is tied up with many restrictions never expected to be in that constitution. By using our more flexible method we get far greater liberties and can deal with things on a commonsense basis. Although hon. Members have tried to restrict this in another way, it would be better to leave it on a flexible basis. Technically, the Amendment would be impracticable, because it does not mention any time in which this ounce of energy is to be produced. Is it a second, half-a-second, or a year?

A year.

It does not say a year. It is a rate of liberation of energy, and that is a thing that could not be tied up in this particular way. Moreover, we are not very certain as to how this is going to develop in the release of energy. It may assume proportions which nobody dreamed about. Therefore, to try and put measurements down would be impracticable. There is a further point, as the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) has explained. In atomic energy science one may be operating on the smallest particle and yet give to the world all the principles for operating on the maximum quantity. The secrets are not a question of quantity, but of method and principles. We are still at the beginning, and I would, therefore, respectfully ask that we should not be tied up with measurements which are not capable of application.

May I say that I agree with the criticism on technical grounds which could very easily be met by adding a period of 12 months and by using the words '' energy rights'' instead of "energy." However, I think that the scientists would much prefer to have this in the Bill itself. On the other hand, there is a great deal in the point made by the Minister that it is desirable to have a flexible method by which fundamental research can be excluded. In view of the previous assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Is it in Order, Major Milner, for an hon. Member who did not actually move the Amendment to withdraw it?

No; I am inviting the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment to withdraw it, if he so desires.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 13, line 12, at the end, to add:

"(3) Subsection (4) of section one of the Irish Land Act, 1907 (which, as amended by subsequent enactments, requires a disposition of mining rights reserved on a sale under the Acts relating to land purchases in Northern Ireland to be approved by the Chancery Judge of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland) and subsection (5) of that section (which requires a notice to be published stating the intention to make such a disposition and inviting offers) shall not apply to any disposition of mining rights to the Minister for the purposes of his functions under this Act."

This Amendment is the result of consultations with the Government of Northern Ireland and its purpose is to simplify the procedure of the Irish land law in the case of the transfer of mineral rights to the Ministry of Supply. Under the legislation which is in force in Ireland at the present time, the exclusive right to mine and dig minerals is vested in the Minister of Finance. That Minister is only able to dispose of his rights with the approval of a judge of the Northern Ireland Supreme Court and subject to safeguards assuring that the highest prices are obtained on such disposition. However necessary those provisions may be to guard against undesirable dispositions of a national asset in other circumstances, in our submission they are obviously inappropriate when what is involved is a transfer to a Minister of the Crown for the purpose of the present Bill. This Amendment, therefore, removes this requirement of the existing Irish law which would hinder the full and free disposition of rights possessed by the Minister of Finance in Northern Ireland to the Minister of Supply, and would enable such dispositions to be made without going through this somewhat cumbrous form of judicial procedure and advertisement.

I gather that the contents of the Amendment which the Attorney-General has submitted have been discussed with the Government of Northern Ireland and that they are in accord with the statement made by the Minister to the House?

It is as a result of those consultations that this Amendment has been put down.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

As I think hon. Members know, this new Clause is supported and was proposed by the Atomic Scientists' Association of Great Britain; it is also supported by the Association of Scientific Workers, and commands the complete unanimity of almost every scientist engaged at either a high or a low level in this project. I am sure that, even at this hour on a Friday, the Committee will consider it proper to take into account the views of those engaged in doing this very important work.

The fundamental principle upon which this Amendment is moved is a principle which has been embodied in the whole propaganda of the Labour Party since its inception, and that is that it is desirable in industry to have the closest possible participation between the workers and the people who are managing the industry, and, in relation to nationalised industry, those who, in fact, represent the State, because it is not suggested that the Labour Party believes in State capitalism. It does not; it believes in the establishment, whether concerning atomic energy and the work of scientists, or coal and the work of miners, of a form of organisation in which workers feel that their views are taken into account, and that they have an opportunity of getting their views heard in the highest quarters.

I do not desire to give reasons for this Amendment, because they have been so well given by my hon. Friends before. I desire only to deal with the point made by the Minister in his reply, and, in substance, this is the position. We must remember that the control which we are giving to one unadvised Minister under this Bill, is probably the greatest control ever operated by any one man in peacetime in the history of Britain, and that we are giving him control of all current industrial development, and, at the same time, of production, of what has been rightly described by a distinguished American as the absolute weapon. That, indeed, is a tremendous responsibility and I am sure that the Minister appreciates it, but we feel that there should be some form of check, because we do not know who the Minister may be in future years, and because it seems to us wrong in principle to put on the Statute Book legislation which gives an absolute unadvised dictatorship to one man.

I am astounded at the moderation of the demands of the scientists. They do not ask that they should appoint the advisory council. They leave that to the Minister. All they ask is that the Minister should indicate the names of the scientists on whose advice he is going to rely. They say, "If we are to have collectivism, let it be collectivism in the light and not in the dark." The Minister has suggested, in reply to this, that it would in some way interfere with the Parliamentary control of the Minister. I think the Minister's solicitude for our welfare and for the rights of hon. Members to criticise him is perfectly bona fide, and I think he recognises the need for Parliamentary criticism, but I would say that I do not think he need be afraid that we will refrain from criticising him because he can reply that he took his action on the advice of the Advisory Council.

I do not think my hon. Friends who have spoken are as timid as that. I do not think it will make the slightest difference to Parliamentary criticism whether there is an Advisory Council or not. Can it be suggested that hon. Members have shirked their duty of criticising the Secretary of State for War because he could say, '' I did this on the advice of the Army Council?" Can it be suggested, in relation to coal, that hon. Members opposite have refrained from criticising the Minister of Fuel and Power because the Minister can say, "This is a matter for the Coal Board"? It is obvious that Parliamentary control has nothing whatever to do with the demand of the scientists to have an advisory committee appointed and to have the names published. Therefore, I hope the Minister will not advance that argument again. I feel sure that he would not desire to persist with an argument which he knows to be invalid. He suggested that it would not be right to appoint a committee because this is such a broad subject. He said that it embraces so many aspects of science, engineering and technology that we could not appoint a limited committee. But my right hon. Friend is not a Member of the Cabinet —a fact which many of us regret—but surely my right hon. Friend does not say that when the Cabinet discuss iron and steel they do not invite him to attend?

They do.

Of course, they do. Then why should not my right hon. Friend appoint a limited advisory committee? If some new matter were to arise he could, ad hoc, invite anybody he wished to come to the committee just as the Cabinet do. There again we have an argument which is invalid. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that he could appoint a committee of 10 men who should represent scientists, engineers and anybody outside. On this committee we could have most distinguished people, such as Professor Coleman who is in the United States of America on a similar committee. Then, as the committee considers each particular aspect of the problem, it can call in, as it likes, individuals who it considers ought to give advice. So there we have the second argument in reply. I am fraid it does not hold water, and I think my right hon. Friend knows it. I hope he will give us the real reason for which he objects to having this committee.

I suspect that the real reason is that scientists generally are regarded as being too inclined to meddle in politics. I suggest that there have been no more important speeches made on this subject than those delivered about a year ago by the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), both agreeing with each other, on this issue of scientists. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), who is chairman of the Government's Advisory Committee, attended a conference of atomic scientists at Oxford in which he more or less told the scientists to keep to science and not to express opinions upon international affairs or politics. That statement was greatly resented in Britain and America, and I am sure the Government would not support statements of that kind. But here I think we have the essential reason for which the Government do not want to accept this new Clause, because if we had this committee of scientists we would give scientists an opportunity to register their dissatisfaction with the Government by resigning.

It is suggested that the Government would not mind that occurring on a purely scientific matter, but the danger is that the scientists might concern themselves with politics, as some scientists have done, and that they would use their scientific position to political advantage. I believe that is what lies behind the minds of the Government, and I will reply in this way. If that is behind their minds the answer is to have a strong Minister. He could perfectly well over rale the scientists. It would be a purely advisory committee, and if they impinged on the area of politics he could disregard them or over rule them. He could even over rule them on a scientific matter as well, but certainly if they dealt with a political subject instead of a scientific subject, everybody would support the Minister if he pointed out that he was the politician and they were the scientist, and that he was entitled to over rule them on politics.

Therefore, I am in a difficulty on this. I have analysed—I think quite fairly— all the arguments the Minister can produce in order to defend his point of view. Almost every scientist is agreed that this Advisory Council ought to be appointed. Almost every hon. Member of Parliament who has taken a special interest in this subject is agreed that this Advisory Council ought to be appointed. The whole policy of the Labour Party, and the basis upon which the party—including my right hon. Friend who has so decorously occupied the Front Bench today—is founded, is that it has always stood for the very principle which is here embodied. I cannot for the life of me see why the Minister should not be conciliatory, and even more conciliatory on this than he has been in the past, and indicate that he accepts this which will effect immediate great results in science.

As this is such an important matter I think perhaps it might be convenient, since time is getting on, if I were to give an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), who has advanced his reasons for this very reasonable request with his characteristic skill and charm which endear him so to hon. Members of the Committee. I can well understand the feeling, which is shared by quite a number of hon. Members, that something more is required than a politician to discharge properly these terrific functions, so pregnant with good or ill for all our people. I can understand that feeling. It is not to be wondered at that it is proposed, in so peculiar and fateful a matter, that the Minister should be advised by a body of scientists. On the face of it, the proposal is extremely attractive, and would appear to be one which any reasonable Minister would at once accept. I will put to hon. Members of the Committee one or two considerations which I think we must bear in mind.

It is true that the advisory committee can be a device by which a Minister shields himself from Parliamentary criticism. It can be such a device. That is one of the reasons—though not the main reason—why I am shy of this proposal. If ever there was a subject—and I am afraid I have said this several times in this Debate—in which Parliament has got to keep the most active continuous vigilance it is in the development of atomic energy. It can affect, and in time probably will affect, the whole of our life. It is quite different from the subjects upon which we are accustomed to appoint advisory bodies—limited questions affecting a profession, a trade or a section in which that special interest in the community has a sort of special right to be in contact with the Minister in the exercise of his functions. One can think of quite a number. At this stage of our knowledge of this vast vista of new developments, we cannot say that the thing is limited to any section or part of the community. The scientists have a part in it, but it affects the nation as a whole. All our lives may be affected by this thing, and we cannot put the responsibility on to a committee. The responsibility must be squarely on Parliament to safeguard the nation, to see that the development is adequate, thorough, energetic and proper, and to see that the Minister does his job. It would really be an unfortunate thing if any shield were erected so that the Minister could say, "Well, I did not know anything about it myself, but I did it because the Advisory Committee said so."

I do not think the hon. Gentleman opposite suggested that it should be a shield. What he suggested was that the Minister, who is taking over a great responsibility, would have practical advice behind him which he could take before Parliament in the discharge of his obligations. He never suggested that it should be a shield. May I suggest that in this House of Commons, where I have been for a very long time, it always strengthens a Minister if he can say that he has that highly technical advice behind him? It strengthens him in the decisions he has to face.

The hon. Member's views on this matter carry great weight, for he is one of the oldest and most distinguished Members of the House, but surely in strengthening a Minister you are in a sense protecting him, because he can plead in aid of his actions the advice of his Advisory Committee. However, I will not labour this point, because I think there is a much more substantial reason why this is not a wise thing to do. No Minister who was worthy of the confidence of the House and who was not utterly incompetent and unable to perform his functions, would attempt to carry on this work unless he had continuous access to all the scientific information and advice available. It must be done that way, and of course the Ministry of Supply is continually in touch, every day, on every aspect of this matter, with scientific advice—not only with the people serving full time in the Ministry under the Controller, who is that distinguished servant of the Crown, Viscount Portal of Hunger-ford, and Professor Cockcroft, but with leading scientists, and with scientists of every rank and kind, who are working in the universities or wherever they may be on research work. We are in daily touch with them about this work, we could not do it otherwise.

It is not only the nuclear physicists and the men who are engaged in that aspect of the work; engineers are involved, chemists are involved, constructional people are involved, vast civil engineering projects are involved in the development of this matter, and you cannot confine yourself in seeking advice to a small body of selected scientists, because they would only deal with just one or two facets of this vast and developing science. The whole world of science must be at the disposal of the Minister if this function is to be properly performed. That is what is happening now. There is not a single man who has anything to contribute to this work who is not roped in, consulted and used. I do not want to substitute for that daily intimate working contact an official body of advisers. How many? We are in touch continuously in this work with hundreds of technical and scientific advisers. We cannot do without any of them. How am I to select from among that illustrious body of helpers a certain number to be designated an Advisory Committee?

There is another objection to this which I think has great weight indeed. This is a very new thing. We do not even see the beginnings of its scope yet. If we were to appoint an advisory body my belief is that it would tend to ossify. There would be a selected body of persons who would probably be the most distinguished, the most illustrious men, with established reputations—the type of men who do constitute the advisory bodies set up from time to time, and who are absolutely the right people where experience, judgment, and knowledge of traditions of the past form an essential part of the equipment. How utterly different may be the qualifications for this new, dynamic and developing thing. It may be that the respectable, the successful, the illustrious and the famous will not at times be the custodians of the truth of all this matter. Possibly the obscure, the unsuccessful, the unorthodox and the young will sometimes be the best advisers. Therefore, I want to be as free to call upon these men with equal weight and authority behind them as upon those who have household names in scientific circles. I cannot do that if always I have to go through an established advisory committee of illustrious scientists.

How would the appointment of an advisory committee on the lines suggested prevent the Minister from appealing to any source whatever? The obscure scientist, working in the dark and producing something novel, would be just as available to the Minister through his advisory committee.

Are we not getting to the point at which an advisory committee becomes a redundancy? If the Minister is to depend, as I think he should, on getting all the advice that is available wherever his advisers can find it, we do not want the facade of an advisory committee of certain selected persons. The whole world of science should be the advisers in this matter, and in fact it is. I can well understand the feelings of hon. Members in all parts about this. I have been wondering what steps I can take to meet this criticism, to see how I can give some assurance to the Committee, that, not only now in the infancy of this work, but continuously, the Minister will not tend to try and do it all himself with his officials. I think it is important to try to do that.

I ask the House to accept my assurance that at the present time we have built up a body of advice, flexible, unusual, active, which goes out into every place where knowledge can be found. We have not an advisory committee, but we have panels of advisers on whom we call in the course of the daily work. I am prepared to say, most earnestly—and I trust my words will bind my successors as much as they will bind me—that a system of advisory panels of scientific people will be an integral part of the Department's administration in this matter. I am prepared to undertake that that shall be the practice. The fullest regard will be had, by consultation with those panels, to the opinions of experts— scientific, engineering, constructional, and others—and on the many aspects of this vast work the advice of the best scientific opinion that is available will always be considered and taken into account. I give that undertaking in most solemn terms, and I believe it will achieve the objects of those who have put down this Amendment. I believe it will achieve it with a flexibility and a dynamic purpose that you would not get through some formal advisory committee.

Will the names of the members of the panels be published?

I think not. I think it would be unwise and undesirable to have to publish from time to time lists of people who are being consulted. There are several objections. If we are to get the best we need to be always changing. New ideas may come forth frequently, bringing with them now problems to be advised upon and the publication of names may give an indication of the trends of development. Further, I am not sure that all the people we call upon for advice necessarily wish their names to be published. I think it would be unwise to bind the Minister to publish names.

I am very sorry at this late hour to have to reply to the Minister. We have been handing out a lot of bouquets to him today and, again, I congratulate him on his eloquence and his apparently conciliatory approach. But, in fact, he has advanced a number of objections to our proposal for an advisory committee which, in my opinion, and in the opinion of some of my hon. Friends, hold no water. First, he said that it is vital that responsibility should rest squarely on himself and on Parliament. I do not see how the existence of an advisory committee can alter that situation. We know that my right hon. Friend is a good enough politician to be able to hide behind his advisers if he wants to, without having to call upon the committee, although I am sure he would not want to do that.

Secondly, my right hon. Friend said that there was no real advantage in a committee, because he had to consult so many different scientists. Again, I do not see that that affects the issue at all. What we want is a committee of proved integrity and importance which we can be certain will be doing their duty in investigating the administration of this industry. There is no such body in existence today. There is the Anderson Committee, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), and which is concerned with broad policy, and there are certain smaller committees, but there is no broadly responsible committee or council to look after the industry as a whole. It has been an inherent principle of the policy of Members on this side that we should appoint such a committee. We have consistently urged from our platforms that when industry is nationalised it will not be run by civil servants, but by public boards. Now we are proposing to run an industry not only without a public board, but without any check at all.

It will not be possible to find out what is going on in the industry. Another objection of my right hon. Friend was: How could he appoint members to a committee when there are so many hundreds of scientists? Well, how is anyone appointed? Either it is a case of "jobs for the boys," or you choose the best people you can. I submit that my right hon. Friend's argument is specious, and that he should reconsider the matter. We have not said, in the Amendment, that the people chosen must be only scientists. We would like to see a body which would be in a position to keep an eye on the general administration of the industry. We are not happy about the present situation. Despite my right hon. Friend's assurances about setting up independent panels, I do not think we can be certain that there will be proper supervision, except through his advisers. We know that it is all right where he is concerned, but what about the future? What we have suggested has been done in America and Australia. The names of the scientists are published in America and, no doubt,. they do the same in Australia. I ask my right hon. Friend even now to consider making some concession with regard to this point.

I intervene only to make my own position clear in this matter, as I was one of those who, on the Second Reading of the Bill, urged the greatest possible consultation between the Minister and scientists. On this occasion I am bound to say that I find myself opposed to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), who through his zeal and expert knowledge of this subject has contributed so much to our Debates on this Bill, and has put down a number of valuable Amendments. I think a constitutional question is involved in this point, and I am unable to support the Amendment. There are two things to be secured. First, to make scientists completely happy, because they are naturally proud and jealous of the research which has produced such immense results in the field of nuclear fission. I believe that scientific organisations, when they read the Minister's remarks, will realise that their interest is protected and preserved, not only in the hands of the present Minister, but in the hands of his successors. I would have thought it undesirable in any circumstances that there should be an advisory body, the names of which were made public. This vast field of research is still in its infancy, none of us knows in what directions, or on what lines, progress may be made in the next few years.

I should have thought that it was of the essence of the matter that in the most necessary consultations between the Minister, as the political head of this Department, and the scientists, engineers and other technicians upon whom he is dependent—that there should be at all times the greatest flexibility of consultation. In my view, that flexibility can only be assumed if full responsibility is left in the hands of the Minister, with power to consult at any time without having his hands tied by a fixed statutory advisory body.

There is one point which has not come out sufficiently clearly so far to which I ought to draw attention. The conception in the mind of the Minister, as it has come out now, seems to be that the ideal organisation is a single hierarchy, one command. In the increasing elabora- tion of our activities in these days, not only in this Ministry but in all Ministries, we are finding that something different from the old fashioned organisation is necessary, due to that elaboration. We have the simple chain of command as it exists in the Army and which everyone understands, and in Britain we have a bypass from the worker or the general public through the Member of Parliament to the Prime Minister. What we have in mind here, however, is another chain, not of command but of consultation. Examples are the workshop committees, in some cases, and the advisory councils being set up under various Bills in various Ministries. There is a fundamental difference between an advisory council of the sort where the names are published and known to the public, and the occasional advisers whom the Minister calls in from his staff in ones and twos and whose advice he can take or reject according to whether it fits in with his own ideas. These staff advisers are very different from the independent body which other people have in mind and which I think is in line with the whole progress and development of the organisation of government in these days.

In view of the fact that it is twenty minutes to four, and as we have had a very long discussion privately with the Minister on this subject, I feel that we ought to take a decision now. I cannot speak for my hon. Friends because I do not think we are all exactly in agreement, but personally I do not think the Minister has answered the arguments which have been put so cogently. Certainly he has not answered those put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Wing-Commander Shackle-ton), but I think he has given an assurance which I believe he will be prepared to operate generally. For myself, I certainly could not vote against the Clause but, on the other hand, unless my hon. Friends decide to divide upon it, I personally would not do so. I am only one of those whose names are attached to the Amendment and am not therefore in a position to withdraw for anyone else.

I think it would be deplorable on an issue of this magnitude, vis-à-vis the United States and vis-à-vis the whole world, to divide the Committee against the Minister in view of the statement he has made this afternoon.