§ 1. Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement on the construction of a nuclear-powered surface ship.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler)As I said on 22nd January in reply to similar Questions by the hon. Gentleman and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), we are now examining the further information recently received 1296 from shipbuilders. We shall discuss this with them and others concerned.—[Vol. 776, c. 109–10.]
§ Mr. WallAre not the Government aiming too high in expecting a prototype to be wholly economic? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the new container ship would probably be eminently suitable for nuclear propulsion, bearing in mind the high speed and the length of time to be spent at sea?
§ Mr. FowlerI agree that the container ship offers by far and away the best prospect for surface nuclear propulsions. I do not believe that it is fair to say, however, that the Government are aiming too high in seeking to invest in an economic and commercial proposition.
§ Mr. HooleyIs my hon. Friend aware that if we start on the basis of a commercial proposition from the word "go" the project will never get off the ground and that in this important sphere of marine technology the Government are dragging their feet and should get a move on?
§ Mr. FowlerIt is easy to suggest that the Government should get a move on. It is less easy to show economic sense in what is an extremely difficult sphere. I believe that we are going as fast as we can in a way that makes economic sense.
§ Sir H. Legge-BourkeDoes the information from shipbuilders now being considered include information from the Germans, who, I understand, are building a second ship to the "Otto Hahn"?
§ Mr. FowlerI was, of course, referring to proposals from the British shipbuilding industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been two of these, and we are examining them in great detail.