Nuclear Propulsion (Hansard, 18 May 1960)

§ 42. Mr. E. L. Mallalieu
asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to have a nuclear-powered merchant ship at sea at the earliest possible moment.

§ Mr. Marples
I have invited tenders from five firms for two types of nuclear reactor suitable for installation in a tanker of 65,000 tons deadweight. The closing date for the receipt of tenders is 29th July. The decision whether to build a tanker, and which type of reactor it should have, will be made in the light of what the tenders disclose and of progress with other types of reactor which show promise of application to shipping.

§ Mr. Mallalieu
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this country will be able to put such a nuclear-powered vessel to sea as soon as four or five of our competitors?

§ Mr. Marples
I think that the Americans will be the first in the field because they are already half-way in the construction of a nuclear ship. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They started before anybody else and I think they will finish before anybody else. I am bound to say that, so far as we are concerned, the first thing to do is to invite these tenders so that there shall not be any delay on that account in the building of a ship if that is considered necessary.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate on behalf of the Government building a ship at Government expense? Is that what he is saying, that the tenders are out now and he is waiting for them to come in and he can then estimate the cost? Does he intend that the Government will build the ship, or is it contemplated that it will be built by private shipowners or shipbuilders, and if so, has he any idea where they will get the money to build the ship?

§ Mr. Marples
Those considerations will come later. The first thing to find out is the result of the tender which has now been put out for the nuclear reactor for which we are asking. When we have that we can take the matter a stage further. Until that stage is reached it is very difficult indeed to answer a series of hypothetical questions.

§ Mr. P. Williams
Would not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important things in this matter is that it should be a commercial venture and, therefore, a successful one?

§ Mr. Marples
I quite agree, because the ultimate objective is to build a nuclear-powered ship which is economically competitive with a conventional one. Anything else which is non-competitive is likely not to survive.

§ Mr. Monslow
Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we are to have a nuclear-powered merchant ship guaranteed at the expense of the State and then to be handed over to highly profitable private industry?

§ Mr. Marples
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Benn
Has the right hon. Gentleman really not made up his mind about this? Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will not carry this operation through to the stage when it becomes profitable and then hand it over to private enterprise to build and operate the ship?

§ Mr. Marples
I think I have made it quite clear that it ought to be a profitable enterprise and an economic ship. The first stage in the process is to find out what sort of nuclear reactor is suitable and how much it will cost. That surely is the logical process.

§ Sir G. Nicholson
I may be making a mistake, in which case I apologise, but is the House to understand that my right hon. Friend is undertaking or contemplating an expenditure which has not yet appeared in any Estimate? What is his authority for doing this?

§ Mr. Marples
I am not contemplating any expenditure at all. All that has happened is that we have invited tenders from five firms for two types of nuclear reactor. We have given the specification and they will give the prices, and then we shall make a decision.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Is this not a very puzzling situation? The Minister has invited tenders, but he has not told us in the least what he might do when the tenders are received. What is the situation? Are we to suppose that private shipbuilding firms may put in tenders and then the Government may say, "We are not going to do anything about this but just leave it as it is"? The right hon. Gentleman must give us an idea of what is in his mind. Are the Government to build the ship? Are the Government going to invite private shipping companies to tender, or what?

§ Mr. Marples
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for intervening, but if he had been present during the debate on 21st March, when the subject was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemoutlh (Dame Irene Ward), he would have known that all these points were dealt with.

§ Dame Irene Ward
The Leader of the Opposition is out of date.

§ Mr. Marples
Perhaps I may be allowed to repeat what was said on that occasion. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said: We shall be able to get closer estimates of costs than are available at the moment and find out a lot more than we know already about various technical problems. When we have received the tenders and have assessed them —and I must warn my hon. Friend that this will take a little time—we shall then be in a much better position than we are now to decide whether a ship should be built, and if so, which type of reactor it should have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1960; Vol. 620, c. 189.] This is the normal method of trying to make a sensible approach to a very difficult technical problem.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
The Minister has not explained anything at all. Perhaps I may repeat what his hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) said just now.

§ Dame Irene Ward
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) is out of date, too.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
On what authority is the right hon. Gentleman proposing that this Government expenditure should take place, and how does he expect these firms to put in tenders when they have not the slightest idea what will happen when the tenders are put in?

§ Mr. Marples
The fact of the matter is that they axe putting in the tenders. The fact of the matter is that the Government have not committed themselves to any expenditure and will not commit themselves to any expenditure on a ship until they receive technical information.

§ Dame Irene Ward
Was not the whole idea behind the original Galbraith Committee, which has been transferred to my right hon. Friend, to ascertain the possibilities of a commercial venture, and ought not my right hon. Friend to be very grateful for the debate which I raised? Why does he not tell the Opposition off?

§ Mr. Marples
I quite agree that the best thing is to make one's inquiries first and one's decision second, which is something the party opposite does not understand. There is no point in my giving the Opposition an explanation if they are determined not to understand.

§ Mr. Steele
Can the Minister explain why it is that, although, when the Galbraith Committee was considering this matter, its function was to advise the Government about which type of reactor would be suitable, he now appears to be asking for two different types of reactor? Have the Government not made up their mind about which type of reactor is to be used? Does he recall that his hon. Friend who was then Civil Lord of the Admiralty indicated in the House that it was the Government's intention to build the ship and actually gave us a date when it was to be in the water?

§ Mr. Marples
I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the debate on 21st March when all this was explained. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was there."] The hon. Gentleman should have been there; it was so interesting.

§ Mr. Hector Hughes
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Unless my ears deceived me, you did call me for Question No. 43.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right, I think, as to the first part of his name; I am not sure about the second part. The position was that I had not at that moment seen the Leader of the Opposition rising, and he, of necessity, owing to the convention that he does not put down Questions, is allowed to intervene. I regret that I cannot allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to put his Question now.