HC Deb 15 April 1965 vol 710 cc1737-54

3.18 p.m.

Commander Anthony Courtney (Harrow, East)

It is just a year since the House last had an opportunity to discuss what many of us believe to be a very important question to this country, the future of nuclear propulsion for nuclear ships, and it will be within the recollection of the House that an occasion on which was I was lucky enough to have the Adjournment debate about a month ago was thwarted as an incidental casualty of the rather shabby manoeuvre of the party opposite to avoid discussing a Bill introduced by one of my hon. Friends on the subject of old-age pensions.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to put my case forward today and to have it answered by the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who was such a firm ally during the debate on this subject a year ago, and whose excellent speech on that occasion I hope to quote from today. The hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly the best person to reply to this debate, but I am a little surprised, particularly in view of the Prime Minister's remarks in New York yesterday, that that spearhead of technical advance, the right hon. Member the Minister of Technology, is not here, as perhaps the most important part of this subject concerns the Atomic Energy Authority.

Where is the right hon. Gentleman? Where is this new urge for technical advance? Where is the representative of this Ministry which will act as a stimulus to goad British industry in these great new endeavours? We on this side are somewhat disappointed at the present showing.

The Minister, the Government, and the country have been directly affected by what I believe to be a major failure of the Government, of Government Departments, and of the Atomic Energy Autho- rity, to produce a viable means of developing nuclear propulsion for merchant ships in this great maritime country.

Exactly a year ago the hon. Member said: This is a disgraceful history and, what is more perturbing, it is a suspicious one. Now that the hon. Member has shared the responsibility of Government for six months I think that I carry the House with me in asserting that he now bears a considerable responsibility for developments in this important matter. He went on to say that the story of the last few years had been a tragic history of indecision and vaccilation by the Government"— now, more than one Government— and there has been a disgraceful series of frustrations that has had to be borne by British industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1964; Vol. 694, c. 246–9.] It is always a charming spectacle to see such a gallant poacher turned gamekeeper. I hope that in his reply today the hon. Member will give us evidence that the skill he displayed in his former job, which was very great, has not been lost.

Not only has British industry been let down; in my opinion, the country has been let down in this major sphere of possible technological advance. I will not talk about a break-through—analogies being dangerous—but the advent of nuclear power for surface propulsion not only for the Merchant Navy but the Royal Navy is perhaps as great a development as was the transition from steam to diesel power which revolutionised many classes of merchant ships and warships at the beginning of the present century.

I will confine my remarks today, first, to the share which the Atomic Energy Authority has in these shortcomings. Secondly, I shall refer to the responsibility of other Ministers who have a direct responsibility for reorganisation at the moment and, thirdly, I shall put forward some constructive suggestions as to what can be done about the present situation.

I hope that the House will bear with me if I refer to a few dates in the history of this lamentable, long-drawn-out episode. I do not wish to go as far back as six years, when the possibility of developing an atomic reactor was put to about six or eight firms and consortia to see what they could do about it; nor do I wish to refer to the decision which was taken in 1961—an absolutely correct decision, in the circumstances—not to proceed with the design of a tanker powered with a nuclear reactor.

It was quite wrongly said, in a reply to a Question on 25th February, that the Padmore Report had been debated on the floor of the House a year ago. It will be within the recollection of the House that that debate took place in April, and that Ministers had access, which we back benchers did not have—nor did the hon. Member—to the conclusions and substance of the Report, although it was not published until the following month. Therefore, that statement was incorrect.

On 10th December last year we had one of those cautious replies to which we have become used in the course of the terms of office of this Government and the former Government, that the Government were undertaking a review—one of the many reviews being carried out by the present Government—and that two consortia of shipbuilders or shipowners were involved.

On 23rd February we had a surprising reply to a Question, telling us that the Government were continuing the review and were ready—this was in reply to another Question—to proceed to prepare a design for a reactor to be installed and tested in a nuclear ship. That was a pretty wide statement. It was made by the Minister of Technology. On 25th February we were informed that no talks were now in progress with the consortia which had been previously mentioned, and that the Atomic Energy Authority had not completed its review of all the questions involved. That was a very different matter from what we were told three months previously, namely, that the Government were undertaking a review. Can this be schismatic—the old story of the two Popes, Technology and the Board of Trade? We wonder, because of the utter lack of any precise information.

On 2nd and 4th March we had replies to Questions and one very important statement, namely, that the Vulcain reactor together with the B.P.W.R. pres- surised water reactor, was still under consideration for marine purposes. I shall come back to that point later on. I have the utmost respect for the Atomic Energy Authority as an organisation, and for the members of its staff as individuals—many of whom I know personally. I have visited several of its establishments and my respect for it has, if anything, increased.

There is no question but that it has done magnificent work, perhaps at inordinate cost to the country; I do not know. We must judge by results, which are lamentably few at present. This organisation suffers, and has suffered, under Conservative Governments as well as under the present Government, from all the evils of a nationalised monopoly—from the jealousies of private enterprise which are inseparable from this form of nationalised monopoly, no matter what may be the colour of the Government in Whitehall. It has the one overriding disadvantage of being judge and jury in its own case in respect of most important matters in which it is in direct competition with private enterprise. That state of affairs, which alone must distort the fabric of our technological advance, must be looked at very closely if we are to get very far in the future.

I want to give a few examples of what this state of affairs has brought about. In 1959, we had a steady campaign, by the Atomic Energy Authority, ridiculing the type of reactor known as the boiling water reactor, which had been the prime favourite of that organisation. It will be within the recollection of those hon. Members who study these matters that that principle has long since been dropped by the Authority, and that the pressurised water reactors, which were ridiculed at that time, are now the order of the day. I think that that point is controvertible.

Secondly, there is the acceptance by the A.E.A. of the moderator principle of the spectral shift for marine purposes—via the Belgians; I will not go into the history which is well known to hon. Gentlemen opposite—at a time when spectral shift had been examined in the United States by, I believe, a commercial organisation employing Mr. Edland, the inventor of this process, and had been discarded by them.

Here I come to the point in the replies which were given very recently that the Vulcain, incorporating the spectral shift, is still on the cards for selection as a prototype merchant ship reactor. If that is so, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will reply specifically to one question. Was Vulcain, incorporating spectral shift, offered to the consortia with which the Government have been having discussions, or was only one reactor offered? On that reply—I must say this—hangs the good faith of the Government in this matter.

I believe they have, in fact, discarded this principle—

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason)

It is the Administration of the hon. and gallant Gentleman whose good faith hangs on the test which he is applying, and not that of our Administration.

Commander Courtney

Apart from the small reference to politics which I introduced at the beginning of my speech—and my natural soreness, incidentally, at having to start 20 minutes late, but I will not go into that—I had hoped that the Minister—the poacher-turned-game- keeper, as I have described him—could now think and speak nationally for his Government on a matter which is of the greatest national importance, and for which hon. Members must be prepared to take responsibility for our Government's mistakes as well as the mistakes and shortcomings of the present Government.

Why is it that in 1963, having discarded the integral boiling water reactor which had been so cracked up in 1959—this was done very quietly and we had to dig and delve to find out about it—and gone on with the Vulcain, they introduced the notion of a new type reactor incorporating the integral principle of the V.P.W.R. with the I.B.R. and they called it the burnable poison pressurised water reactor? So far as we know, it is almost identical. I say "almost identical," because we cannot, with the information available to us, go into the full details. But it is suspiciously close to the type of Babcock and Wilcox C.N.S.G.—consolidated nuclear steam generator—which had been developed at a time when spectral shift had been discarded by its inventors. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us a little real information on this rather important point.

We have had this rather suspicious development of the B.P.W.R., incorporating the features of the one discarded and the one which I am perfectly certain has been discarded, although that is not admitted.

Finally, it is clear—this may be the reason why I was told, rather shortly, in reply to a Question the other day that the Padmore Committee had dissolved at the moment of giving its Report in May, 1964—that there were minority opinions on the technical panel the Atomic Energy Authority and that the Government have taken no practical notice of minority reports, backed up as they were by the late Captain Atkins, who was a friend and colleague of at least two hon. Members on this side of the House and who passed certain technical criticisms of Government policy at that time, only part of which—I must admit—have been shown to be correct. It would be a handsome gesture on the part of the Minister if he made some acknowledgement in his reply to the opinion expressed by the late Captain Atkins.

There is the responsibility of other Ministries in this tremendous socialised reorganisation of the Government. We have a situation in which, during the course of six years—here I have to blame my own Government as well—responsibility for shipbuilding has passed from the Admiralty, first to the Ministry of Transport and now to the President of the Board of Trade.

How can we expect, with that kind of shuffling around, to provide the decision making authority which is so badly needed on the practical side of this question, and which is specifically called for in the Padmore Report, which, if the hon. Gentleman needs any reminding, I have here to quote from? We have—there can be very little doubt about the reasons underlying this, the suspicions and doubts in industrial circles—a remarkable lack of enthusiasm for this revolutionary departure in technology by shipowners and shipbuilders, especially shipowners.

I should like to mention here the responsibility of the diversity of Ministries, which seems to me seriously to affect the future of this question. That is, the apparent apartness of the Admiralty Board in these matters, observing that the United States Navy already has a half a dozen surface ships nuclear propelled. Our own Admiralty Board has a great and enduring interest in this means of propulsion. Why is it that we cannot be told of a close association between the merchant shipping side, which is now the hon. Gentleman's responsibility, and the Admiralty Board on the development of this principle, the staff requirements of which are steadily approaching those of the surface warships and merchant ships as time goes on? I shall in a moment be drawing attention to that curious lack of coordination. I shall be making certain proposals.

There is a multiplicity of Ministries, committees and technical panels, some of which report and are then dissolved, some of which had minority opinions which are suppressed. There are consortia with whom conversations are maintained. There are foreigners. There is Belgo-Nucleaire, with whom the Government and the Atomic Energy Authority had an agreement which must be observed. Their political backwash must be borne in mind when making decisions on a vexed question like the Vulcain. Decision in these circumstances seems to be impossible. The Government should do something about it.

Finally, what can we do to recover the position which we seem to have been losing steadily, not only to the Russians and the Americans—who have had, admittedly, uneconomic nuclear-powered surface ships at sea for many years—but the Germans' building the "Otto Hahn" with a copy of the B.P.W.R.? It was perhaps the other way round, but the same type of burnable poison pressurised water reactor, though we were told a year ago that it was somewhat behind the B.P.W.R. The Japanese, the Norwegians, the Dutch and the French are all pressing ahead with this problem. We are perhaps the oldest maritime nation in the world, still with the largest maritime fleet in the world, yet we are apparently doing nothing. In a year we have not even debated this important matter in the House of Commons.

I believe that it is time that the Government took steps to direct the Atomic Energy Authority—I apologise in advance for saying this to those of my friends who are on the Authority—to operate a little more in the national interest and not in that of a self-contained monopoly, secretive, scientifically-based organisation which it is, efficient though it may be. I also believe that the hon. Gentleman should make a frank admission that he has at last—on the advice of many people, including the late Captain Atkins—thrown spectral shift out of the window for modern propulsion.

It may be welcome on shore, but, as has been excellently put, a ship going to sea with a bulky spectral shift reactor, compared with one with B.P.W.R., is rather like an aeroplane powered by petrol compared with an aeroplane powered by kerosene. The danger factor is so much greater, although the economic advantages of the one may offset them slightly. At sea, as those of us who have personal experience know, one cannot monkey around with these things in a Force 8 with a hurricane blowing up, as the "Savannah" discovered two years ago in an episode which is still not known to the general public.

This new departure requires a decision-making authority. Here I come again to the necessity of giving authority to someone, not shuffling it off on someone else—except, perhaps, the one authority which already has 10 years' experience of nuclear research and which possesses all the design and ship-building capacity, correlated, as it has been for centuries, namely, the Royal Navy and the Admiralty Board representing the Royal Navy. It seems to me to be the one way at this late stage of retrieving a near disaster which seems to be almost upon us in this very important question. Undoubtedly, the hon. Member is the best man to reply to the debate.

If we are to see this great technological urge, so much advertised before the election and since by the Prime Minister, translated into fact by hon. Members opposite, let them get away from doctrinaire theories about the reorganisation of government and let them get down to practical matters. Let them look at the Padmore Report, controversial though it is in many points. Other hon. Members have studied it, and I have studied it. Let them take that little passage out of the report about a decision-making authority. For heaven's sake, both in the Atomic Energy Authority and in the Board of Trade, which are handling these matters, let us have a decision.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling (Woolwich, West)

I intervene for only a few minutes, and I apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I am not quite sure whether I had an argument with the bell push this morning or not, but I have been detained elsewhere for a short time.

I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member on having initiated the discussion. He cast his remarks in a most reasonable fashion—in a non-party fashion, as befits the sort of discussion which is taking place, where people on both sides of the House have interests and experience in shipping and naval matters. This is a most important subject from the point of view not only of the mercantile marine of this country but of ships and naval men in general. At Question Time this morning we heard one or two remarks which indicated that the shipbuilding and shipping industries of this country do not occupy the paramount position to which the hon. and gallant Member referred in the closing stages of his speech. I am afraid that I made one or two saucy remarks during Question Time on this subject.

But this is a rather more serious discussion, because there is no question but that the prosperity of this country has in the past depended very much upon the prosperity of the shipping industry and the power and tradition of the Royal Navy. It has seemed to me that over the last 10 or 20 years Britain as a maritime nation has been slipping year by year. I do not want to make any partisan point about this. The hon. and gallant Member himself confessed the responsibility of the Conservative Party for a good deal of this weakness.

Her Majesty's Government have been in office for only a comparatively short time.

Commander Courtney

Six months.

Mr. Hamling

I agree that we have been in power for six months, which is, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would like me to put it this way, 3.11/12 per cent. of the time which his party was in office. I know that I cannot baffle the hon. and gallant Gentleman with science but perhaps I can with wit.

We cannot be expected, in such a short time, to accept responsibility for the decline of the British Mercantile Marine. Nor can we be held responsible for the Royal Navy during the past 13 years. The party opposite is responsible. Incidentally, the Front Bench opposite is magnificent in its loneliness this afternoon, so I suppose that we cannot attach responsibility to any individual on that bench at the moment.

I join with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in asking the Government to show a great deal more initiative in this subject than has been shown in recent years. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, we are the oldest mercantile Power in the world. We want to retain that position, not from the point of view of empty national prestige—although national pride is not something to be scorned at—but from the point of view of the work. wealth and happiness of every man and woman in this country.

I recall that some time ago an hon. Gentleman opposite objected to my attempting to participate in a debate on the white fish industry. He hazarded a doubt as to whether in West Woolwich there was any connection with the white fish industry. There is no direct connection, except that most of us in that area eat fish. That is why we have so much brain.

I come from a long line of merchant seamen, some of whom were engaged in the fishing industry. My father was a trimmer on the old "Baltic" and any hon. Member who knows anything about trimming and the old White Star Line will know that to do that job one had indeed to be a dedicated sailor.

Without going into the technical side of nuclear reaction as applied to nuclear shipping, if we are to progress as a shipping nation we must take advantage of all the latest developments in science and I most strongly commend, in the best spirit of non-partisanship, on this holy Thursday, the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey)

The hon. Member has already exhausted his right to speak.

3.49 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason)

I begin by rebutting the initial charge of the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) against the present Administration and his chastisement of the Atomic Energy Authority. During 13 years of Tory Administration not one occasion was provided for a debate on any of the annual Atomic Energy Reports. This shows that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should turn his fire on his right hon. Friends who, of course, are not present on the Opposition Front Bench. That is how interested they are in nuclear propulsion and how interested they were in scientific matters, particularly the Atomic Energy Authority, when they were in power.

Commander Courtney

Where is the Minister of Technology?

Mr. Mason

The previous Administration has a shocking record in the matter of nuclear marine propulsion. They literally toyed with industries, especially those interested in nuclear engineering. They treated them rather like yo-yos on a string, lifting them up to the heights at one moment and dropping them down to the depths of despondency the next. One consortium was left dangling in midair by the previous Administration, and is now anxiously awaiting the new Administration's decision—

Commander Courtney

Still waiting?

Mr. Mason

Still waiting—and it has a right to wait, too. Because of the mess on atomic energy and nuclear marine propulsion that the previous Administration left behind, it is essential that we should have a very close look at and a fresh review of all that has happened previously.

Since 1956 there has been a history of committees, vacillation, passing the buck, and so forth, with no progress being made. We had the Galbraith Committee, and we had the Padmore Committee. Designs were submitted from industry. We had the atomic energy joint project with Belgium. Then the then Minister of Transport and the then Prime Minister started leading the nuclear engineers and the shipbuilding industry up the garden path by suggesting that there were two reactors which were most promising. On 11th February, 1963, the Government stated: Both these systems offer the prospect of being developed as economically attractive commercial propositions. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, one of those systems quickly faded out, and another came in. We cannot keep kidding the nuclear engineering industry and the shipbuilders in this way.

I have quoted what was said on 11th February, 1963. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that on 28th April last year the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) who was speaking officially for the Government, said: It is fair, and I must say it in order to put the position candidly before the Committee, to say that there has been a shift against the economics of nuclear marine propulsion in the last 12 months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1964; Vol. 694. c. 275.] So, first, we have a statement by the Prime Minister, and then, a few months later, a contrary statement by the then Minister for Education and Science.

I therefore frankly say that there is no economic nuclear propulsion unit just around the corner—that must be recognised—and our present review is to ascertain whether, and to what extent, public money should be spent on more research and development or whether we should risk a nuclear-driven ship as a floating experimental test bed—and of the latter I say, quite frankly, that it will not be done by Government moneys alone.

I thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman failed in his attempt to emulate me when I was a "mechanoid" on the Opposition benches on this subject. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is puzzled by that recent new word, it means something that spits fire and atomic power—

Mr. Hamling

Is a mechanoid any relation to a dalek?

Mr. Mason

I do not think that it is any relation. It is a fictional machine that is supposed to spit fire and nuclear power.

I was pleased to have the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). It is right, as he suggested, that this subject must be treated very seriously in view of our pre-eminence, as it has been for so long, in shipping. I can assure him that it is being treated seriously, but the previous Administration got themselves in such a mess over the matter that this review is absolutely essential.

The idea of building a British nuclear ship is one which must have great appeal to anybody who is concerned about the modernisation and technical advance of Britain and who is at the same time anxious to maintain our tradition as a great maritime nation. But it may be useful to start by making sure we are all thinking about the same thing when we talk of a nuclear ship. Such a ship is unlikely to look very different from other ships. Its engine will be roughly the same except that it will be a steam turbine rather than the slow running diesel with which so many ships are now powered. The essential difference is simply that a carefully shielded nuclear reactor will replace the boiler and oil feel tanks. The successful development of such a propulsion unit, like other technical advances which have been made in marine propulsion, could be of great economic and technical importance but we shall not further this advance by overstating the case for it.

Reference has been made by the hon. and gallant Member to the Report of the Padmore Committee on "Nuclear Propulsion in Merchant Ships" which was set up in November, 1961 and whose report appeared in May, 1964. Two points made in it have never to my knowledge been contradicted. The first was that while there can be no certainty in the matter, there is a probability that nuclear power will ultimately be used in merchant ships". The second was that the next logical step in development would be to design and build a prototype ship using a reactor as its source of power.

There is no doubt that we could design and build a working reactor and produce a hull and engine configuration suitable for operating with it. But the building of a prototype ship is not an end in itself. The prototype could not be expected to be an economic proposition: the question is whether its construction and testing would provide sufficient information to lead to a design for a genuinely economic merchant ship. This in turn leads to two more difficult questions. When is nuclear power likely to prove economic for merchant ships and at what stage would it be best for a country with limited resources to throw in such resources as it can devote to this particular field of technology?

The history of reactor development on land shows how difficult it is to determine such questions in advance. In the case of competition between oil and nuclear power as a means of marine propulsion, the issue is even more complex. Increasing size has favoured the economics of nuclear power on land: at sea the problem is to beat oil in power units which, compared with land-based reactors, would be very small. At sea the cost per horsepower may not be the only factor. The size and weight of the reactor with its shielding as against the size and weight of the main boilers and fuel in a conventional ship may also be important factors. There are indeed various schools of thought as to the marine application in which nuclear power is likely first to become economic. In the foreseeable future the nuclear reactor is only likely to compare with conventional propulsion when the power requirement is high. Hence some expect it to be tried out first in the very biggest ships of, say, 200,000 deadweight tons carrying capacity.

Commander Courtney

Or perhaps warships, where the power requirement is greater?

Mr. Mason

As the hon. and gallant Members knows, the Americans have already embarked on this course. Most, if not all, of these big ships—of 200,000 deadweight tons—are likely to be tankers, and it is doubtful whether oil tankers will lead the way in a change-over from oil fuel to nuclear power. Others think that it is the super-fast small cargo ship which might be expected to use nuclear power first largely because in a conventional ship the fuel consumption needed for really fast sailing would be so high as to reduce the carrying space of the ship below economic limits.

It is very difficult to assess the evidence bearing on these problems. They are partly technical in so far as they depend on how successful we can be in evolving from a prototype ship a commercially attractive form of marine reactor. They are partly economic since the commercial attraction of nuclear propulsion depends on the costs and advantages of the two methods of propulsion.

The hon. and gallant Member mentioned what is happening abroad. We must certainly take account of what is happening overseas. The Russian breaker and the projected Japanese oceanographic survey ship merely show that the reactor may have potentialities for such highly specialised uses. The U.S. "Savannah" is of a somewhat old design; this vessel has not led, and it is doubtful if the German ship now building, the "Otto Hahn", will lead directly to a really economic design. Other countries have, like us, been exploring the possibilities but are no doubt facing the same uncertainties as we are.

For all countries whose resources are too limited for them to be able to afford prestige projects, there is need to examine carefully not only the chances of expenditure on a prototype leading to the successful development of a design for an economic merchant vessel, but also the benefits which could he expected to accrue from such success. Initially, at any rate, the industries most likely to benefit would be those concerned with the hardware and "know-how" of nuclear and marine propulsion.

These benefits would depend on the extent to which the design we evolved from the prototype ship was superior to those developed elsewhere. Shipbuilders and shipowners might similarly expect benefits which it is not easy to assess at this stage. They would, for example, gain experience in any special problems of building and operating nuclear ships. The value of these benefits would depend largely on the type of ship for which a successful design of nuclear propulsion proved most suitable. It would be quite wrong to suggest that the future prosperity of these industries depends on our success in the nuclear ship field, but it would be equally wrong to suggest that success in this field could not in due course be of great significance for them.

These considerations have to be weighed against the cost of a nuclear ship project. The Padmore Group considered that a development programme would cost some £15 million over about 5 years and envisaged a continuing programme of research and development beyond that period, the cost and extent of which could not be predicted. But once we are committed to put resources into such a project experience shows that it is by no means easy to redirect them and write off the effect so far, as hopes of success gradually fade. Hon. Members opposite know that full well.

So far, industry has shown little enthusiasm for bearing the costs, or even a proportion of the costs, in excess of those of building and operating a conventional ship equivalent to the proposed nuclear ship. It is indeed disappointing that the industries most likely to benefit have thus left it to the Government to take all the real risks. The Government have in these circumstances no alternative but to conclude that at this stage the firms concerned see little commercial benefit arising from such a project. This is a pointer of great significance. I am wondering to what extent shipping, shipbuilding and nuclear engineering are really interested.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman showed great interest in the choice of reactor system which might be used for a prototype ship—Vulcain, B.P.W.R., and so on. The main decision is whether it is worth while to proceed with a nuclear ship in view of the uncertainty whether sufficient technical advance can be made with any of the reactor types at present available to achieve the hoped-for economic benefits. The Padmore Committee's view was that the choice should lie between the Vulcain which used spectral shift and the B.P.W.R., which is based on a different system of moderation for control of the reactor. The technical work which led to the Committee's recommendation was done some time ago and, if it were decided to go ahead with the project, the latest information on reactor types would naturally have to be reviewed. But in the absence of some new development or later evidence, the Committee's general view of the advantages of one of these two types might be expected to prevail. There is no question but that both of these types would function effectively and one or other is likely to be as good as, if not better than, any which have been so far proposed.

I refer now to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said about C.N.S.G.3. This also applies to the 630 Mark V and to various American designed reactors which have come to the fore. Claims have been made from time to time in respect of reactors other than Vulcain or B.P.W.R., to the effect that these reactors have only to be ordered and are ready for installation in a nuclear ship. I assure the House that this is not just so. The designs for these reactor systems exist. Some have had a coniderable effort put into them, but they still require further development, possibly including the building of a land-based prototype before a seagoing reactor design could be worked out.

Commander Courtney

Would this apply to the C.N.S.G. type reactor in the German merchant ship "Otto Hahn"?

Mr. Mason

It depends on the type of hull. If one looks at the Vulcain, the B P.W.R., the C.N.S.G. or the 630 Mark V, any one of the possible marine propulsion units, each would have to be freshly adapted and indeed modified in design according to the type of ship we were putting it in, whether a 15,000 ton, a 100,000 ton or a 200,000 ton dead weight ship.

Commander Courtney

rose—

Mr. Mason

No, I cannot give way. I have fully explained to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the difficulty there is with any of these units, including the C.N.S.G. or the 630 Mark V which he has mentioned, in that they would have to be altered according to the type of ship.

I realise that there is a strong current of opinion in the House on this matter, but there is a strong current of opinion in the United States which favours a programme of relatively small nuclear-powered ships. As I understand it, this is based partly on the fact that the United States merchant fleet in any case depends so heavily on Government financial support and partly on the possibility that the ships might serve in a reserve defence as well as a civil rôle. We do not support our merchant fleets in this way, particularly in peacetime, and never have done. It has been suggested that there is a case for building a naval surface ship incorporating nuclear power and that this might provide a fruitful method of advance. I know that the hon. and gallant Member is particularly keen on this. He will remember that my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy indicated in the House recently that this is a possibility which is certainly being thought about.

There are advantages and disadvantages about any such scheme and no firm conclusions can yet be reached. What is clear, however, is that although there would be some interaction between possible Royal Navy and merchant shipping applications of nuclear propulsion there would be major differences in requirements and design and it would be misleading to suggest that the transition from one field to another would be a simple one.

To sum up, for the reasons which I have indicated, the Government considered that they had no alternative but to go into the whole matter afresh. They have so far had only a fraction of the time spent by the previous Government, who still did not reach a decision. The Government are not yet ready to indicate what their decision will be. I must ask the House—and I make no apology for it after six months compared with the previous 13 years—to be patient a little longer. It is much more important to reach a sensible decision than to embark upon a course which might soon be regretted. Views which have been expressed on both sides of the House will be taken fully into account, and I am personally sorry that it is not possible for me to say more than this at present.

Forward to