§ 2.41 p.m.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have used all the money allocated for research into nuclear propulsion for merchant ships; and, if so, what results have been achieved since the allocation was made in November, 1961.]
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHMy Lords, the £3 million which was allocated for marine research was spent by the beginning of this year. The programme has covered the joint Vulcain 1103 project which was undertaken with Belgonucleaire, as well as research into and studies of other water-moderated reactor systems and their variants. The results have been given to the Working Group on Marine Reactor Research whose report is awaited. Work is continuing on approximately the same scale pending the Government's consideration of the report.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I understood that the £3 million allocated in November, 1961, was to cover three years' operation. Am I now to understand that the Government are overspent on the £3 million? Would the Minister confirm the figure shown in the Financial Times article on February 20 of £3.4 million? Has £3.4 million already been spent? What real results have been achieved? That is what I want to know.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHMy Lords, it is true that the £3 million was spent by the end of last year, and that expenditure is continuing this year at the rate of about £2 million per annum. As to the results, I am afraid that we must await the report of the Working Group, which I think will not now be very long delayed.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMay I ask whether or not the handing over of this research to the Atomic Energy Authority has led to the discarding of any further consideration of the American steam-cooled reactors or the Rolls Royce and Associates, or the Mitchell steam-cooled reactors, which have in fact been quoted at a firm price much below anything we seem to be able to get in the other direction, and which have been proved by men experienced in mercantile matters to be seaworthy, which the other is not?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHMy Lords, all the different proposals and projects put up by different firms have been considered by the Working Group and the Diamond Panel working under it. The noble Earl has mentioned the name of one firm, Mitchell's. They have not, indeed, ever made such plant before, but their estimates are in fact being very carefully considered, as also of course are the experiences in other 1104 countries. As your Lordships know, there are in fact only two nuclear ships in the world, apart from warships, which do not have to be economic. There is the Russian icebreaker "Lenin", and the United States passenger-cargo ship "Savannah". The "Lenin" is a specialist ship, which also can be operated without regard to economics, and we have no present requirement for a ship of this kind. Also the American ship, "Savannah" is not an economic ship. The Germans and Japanese have each announced their decisions to build another ship, and all these matters have been taken into consideration by the Working Group.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, would the noble Earl say whether the decisions that have been taken by other countries—Germany or Japan—are based on a particular reactor; whether they have in fact decided already what type of reactor power they are going to use, and whether they are ahead of or behind us on this?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHMy Lords, I do not think it is possible to say that they are either ahead or behind. I think that most of the systems used will be water-moderated.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHBut is it not a fact that the only two designs which you seem to be pursuing at present are both boiling water reactor types? And there is no professional opinion available to me, at any rate, at the moment, in answer to my inquiries, that these will be safe for sea purposes. On the other hand, I am informed that the Mitchell project has been a matter of firm quotation at £500,000 to go on with further trials, and is known to be seaworthy, and yet this has been discarded. I am quite unable to understand why the Government go on with this huge expenditure under the contract with Belgonucleaire, and yet are not giving any real attention to the steam-cooled proposition.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHMy Lords, the Working Group have given very careful consideration indeed to all the proposals—I can assure the noble Earl of that—especially in the case of Mitchell's. There have been many meetings with that firm, and all those 1105 considerations have been borne in mind. I think we can now only await the appearance of the report.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHI am so dissatisfied with the answers given that I think the only possibility, within the present crowded state of our Parliamentary programme, is to put down an Unstarred Question on this subject and have a short debate.
LORD WALERANMy Lords, will my noble friend answer one question from me, which is how he relates the statement that £3 million has been spent since November, 1961, to the Answer given by his right honourable friend in another place on November 20, 1963, when he said, according to Hansard of that date, that the nuclear marine programme cost £200,000 a year?