HC Deb 06 June 1967 vol 747 cc776-7
12. Mr. Wall

asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on progress towards the development of an economic nuclear reactor for surface ships.

Mr. Benn

The economic opportunity for the application of nuclear power at sea is more likely to arise from ship requirements for greater power and more intensive utilisation than from a change in reactor design. However, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is keeping under review improvements in reactor and nuclear fuel technology in the special context of a ship application.

Mr. Wall

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been asking this type of Question for 10 years? Is it not too much to expect the first British nuclear prototype ship to be fully economic? Is there any question of building a naval tanker or supply ship to expedite British developments in this direction?

Mr. Benn

Not only the hon. Gentleman but a number of other people have been interested in this for 10 years. The reason that no decision to go ahead has yet been taken is that there is no reason at the moment to believe that a ship of this kind not only would, in the first instance, be economic but also would prove economic in the production phase. The reason is that most merchant ships spend most of their time in port. When there are very large container ships with a very rapid turn-round and a requirement for greater power, there might be progress. I am as keen as the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps we should wait a little longer.

Mr. Wingfield Digby

How many scientists at the A.E.A. are working on this? Has not the problem in the past been that the number was insufficient?

Mr. Benn

The hon. Gentleman will find from my Answer that it is the economics of the use of a reactor rather than the technology of the reactor itself which is the barrier to progress, but that is a separate question, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although Sir William Penney considers that it is not yet necessary, some of us feel that the Padmore Committee should be reconvened in the light of the more recent developments in this sphere?

Mr. Benn

I should certainly be happy to consider that, so long as I felt that I carried the hon. Gentleman with me in my general approach, namely, that there is no point in doing something which we know is technologically possible if it has not a long-term economic benefit for this country. That is the key to the whole matter.