Nuclear-powered Ship (Hansard, 27 February 1963)

§ 38. Mr. Albu
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the announcement by the Japanese Government of the decision to build a nuclear-powered survey ship, he will reconsider his decision not to proceed with the building of a nuclear-powered merchant ship in this country.

§ 58. Mr. Dalyell
asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the fact that Japan is now laying down a pioneer nuclear-powered surface vessel, he will make a statement on the development of such a British vessel.

§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow. East (Commander Courtney) on 13th February.

§ Mr. Albu
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what technical developments have taken place since the decision was last made not to proceed with such a ship and whether the stage has been reached when the ship can be considered so economical that the shipping and shipbuilding industries should be asked to contribute? In view of the highly experimental and even controversial nature of 1255 the project, has consideration been given to whether the Government should bear the whole cost?

§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
We prefer first to hear what the ship owners and shipbuilders have in mind with a view to working out a suitable partnership with the Government. I think that the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question was slightly loaded, because the decision which was made was that we would wait before proceeding until we felt we had a good chance of developing an economic ship. As soon as that moment was reached—judging from some quarters, some people think it was too soon—we made the decision and announced it.

§ Mr. Dalyell
How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman reconcile his Answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) with the fact that the "Savannah" and "Lenin" have already been going for two years?

§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
As has often been explained, it has never been suggested that the "Savannah" and the "Lenin" were either economical or could ever become economical. Where we differed from the other countries was that we decided not to go for a prestige ship but to concentrate our efforts and resources on trying to develop an economic reactor, and that we think has been achieved.

§ Mr. P. Williams
Would not my hon. and gallant Friend agree that, prestige considerations aside, the great thing from the long-term point of view is to get a suitable partnership between the Government and the building and operating industries so as to get a practical commercial ship on the sea?

§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
That is so. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Strauss
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why this change of policy was first announced by the Prime Minister in his speech connected with the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations? Is he aware that authorities in the shipping and engineering industries feel strongly that there is a large element of political stunting behind this pronouncement and that this new declaration of policy was 1256 not justified by the known facts and was quite untimely? In view of the conflicting and strong critical views held by these authorities, will the Government consider issuing a White Paper or some other informative document stating exactly what the present position is and what the prospects are?

§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I would not accept for one minute that there was any political stunting here. The very brief reference made to the intention to go forward with the project, subject to all being well in the next six months with the final stages of the research work, was made in passing by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in a part of his speech in which he was referring to various steps which Britain must take to keep herself up to date, and it fitted in very naturally indeed.
I entirely disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman said in the second part of his supplementary question. I am quite satisfied that the moment has come when we must go forward, if possible. I understand the disappointment and even bitterness on the part of certain other interests which have been developing rival schemes which we do not consider are up to the same standard. I am not pretending for one moment that we can be certain that our present line of development will succeed and be economical. But we can be sure of one thing, and that is that if we wait until we are certain, we shall lose the race.

§ Mr. Strauss
Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Atomic Energy Authority will not be ready until September even to decide which of three designs it is to judge the best? Was it not rather ridiculous and pointless—except for political purposes—for the Prime Minister to choose such a moment for an announcement that the Minister of Transport is to have discussions with the shipping industry about the building of a ship to incorporate a design which is still unknown?

§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The reason that it became necessary to make a public statement at about this time was that, if we are to be ready in 1257 September, we must complete the financial arrangements with the industries on the basis of which we shall go forward. From my experience—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has had similar experience—of negotiations involving two industries and the Treasury, I do not think that we have allowed ourselves too much time.

§ Mr. Bottomley
Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman recollect that on 2nd March, 1957, when he took part in the debate, we on this side of the House urged the Government to build a nuclear-powered ship? Why has it taken the Government six years to consider the matter?

§ Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett
I recollect the point of view expressed by many people. Indeed, I held it myself at one time. I am very glad that a very distinguished body of experts, appointed to advise the Government on this matter, warned them against taking that action, however, because had the Government taken it we should have diverted rare scientific talents to doing something which really would have been only a prestige stunt, like the "Savannah", and we should not have achieved our lead in the production of a really economic system.

§ Mr. Dalyell
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the irrelevant nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise this on the Adjournment at the first possible opportunity.

§ Mr. Speaker
I should remind the House again that the formula of giving notice to raise a matter on the Adjournment includes the words, "in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply". Any different form of words is liable to convert the notice into a speech.