§ 9. Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent contract with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to supply tritium.
§ 10. Miss Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent contract with BNFL to supply tritium.
§ 23. Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the contract with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to supply tritium.
§ 25. Mr. George Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent contract with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to supply tritium.
§ Mr. William RodgersI have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave on 29th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley).
§ Mr. ThorneSince it would take something like 50 years to be able to use tritium for peaceful energy purposes, does the Minister agree that the Government's intentions in this respect only raises the doubt whether they are now pursuing a policy of an independent nuclear force for Britain?
§ Mr. RodgersWhether it raises that doubt is a question for my hon. Friend and not for me. I can only say that that is not the case at all. It is entirely a matter of cost and convenience that we have decided to produce tritium for ourselves
§ Miss RichardsonA number of hon. Members will find it mystifying that the Government should have taken this decision on tritium when we have been getting it from the United States for 18 years. Since this will provide only about 50 jobs, does the Minister not consider that the money could be better spent in finding and providing jobs in manufacturing industry, instead of using it in this way?
§ Mr. RodgersI am sorry that my hon. Friend and others are mystified. I confess 295 that I am particularly mystified by her approach, considering that there has been no change of policy on nuclear weapons, which has been made clear on many occasions. On the question of cost, and in respect of the 50 jobs, I support the decision, particularly when the jobs will come in a development area.
§ Mr. ThompsonIs the Minister aware that these jobs are placed in development areas, so that they will be welcomed, although in fact, they ought to be looked at much more critically from the point of view of health and environment?
§ Mr. RodgersThe hon. Gentleman, who has a special interest in this matter, ought to be satisfied on health and environment grounds. I do not think that there is anything to fear in this respect and I think that 50 jobs, even though the number is small, is better than no jobs at all.
§ Mr. CryerDoes the Minister recall the manifesto commitment, that Labour believes that government should be more open to the public? In view of this, will he provide more details about the contract with British Nuclear Fuels in regard to cost? Is it because the cost is so enormous that, with the potential of several thousand teachers unemployed because we refuse to reduce classes to 30, it will be looked upon as a mistaken decision? How does my right hon. Friend answer the growing concern among the trade union and Labour movements that Ministers seem, by evasion, to be acting as public relations officers to the brasshats in the Department?
§ Mr. RodgersI wish that my hon. Friend would show more generosity. The matter is entirely straightforward. The facts have been given to the House by my right hon. Friend, and I have tried to confirm them today. I do not believe that there is any mystery or doubt. It is a simple decision and is entirely justified.