HC Deb 04 May 1960 vol 622 cc1054-5
7. Mr. Wall

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how long he estimates that it would take British dockyards to complete a nuclear-powered missile-firing submarine in the event of Polaris missiles being obtained from the United States of America.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing

It is impossible to give a reliable estimate. The "George Washington" will have taken about three years from keel-laying to become operational. We should take considerably longer partly because for us this would be a new type of ship and partly because there is no shift working in British shipyards.

Mr. Wall

Could not the time be reduced by fitting Polaris to a conventional submarine? In any case, would not my hon. Friend agree that such a submarine is likely to be in commission before our bomber force is likely to be equipped with Skybolt and would it not be cheaper to do this than to re-equip our bomber force?

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I cannot answer that rather hypothetical supplementary question but, on the matter of comparative cost, I will look into my hon. Friend's point about the possibility of fitting Polaris in the conventional type of submarine.

Mr. H. Hynd

How can the Civil Lord say that building a nuclear submarine will take us longer than it took the Americans? As they were doing something new, is not their experience available to us to enable us to build a submarine in less time than it took them to build one?

Mr. Orr-Ewing

Yes, but when another nation takes on a very original form or new type of ship it is also likely to have to learn certain new techniques and, as I have said, we have no shift-working in Britain, while the Americans in their crash programme worked shifts throughout.

Mr. Chetwynd

But has not a decision been taken to lay down a new submarine for this purpose?