NUCLEAR PROPULSION OF SHIPS

HL Deb 16 March 1964 vol 256 cc689-708

5.32 p.m.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consent to set up an independent inquiry into the present situation with regard to nuclear propulsion of ships. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper and which seeks to get the consent of Her Majesty's Government to the holding of an independent inquiry into the question of nuclear propulsion for ships. On the last occasion when I had the privilege of addressing your Lordships on this subject I confined my remarks entirely to the propulsion of merchant ships, but in view of the importance of the general issue I have put down my Question to-day so as to cover ships which may be either merchant or naval.

The one thing that I want to stress all the way through this debate is that this country at the present time has fallen far behind other countries in the search for a nuclear reactor for these nautical purposes. I do not think there is any doubt about that, and that in the long run, unless something is done to overtake that position, this great shipbuilding and shipping nation in all things maritime will be in a most difficult position. That is my view. I want to say, unless I should perhaps forget it later on, that I am reinforced largely in these views by recent announcements. I see that the "Savannah", the American nuclear-powered ship, is going on, or has already started, a further and most important trial. I have been taking note, too, of what is going on in other countries.

Perhaps it is rather a reactor upon me, but my noble friend Lord Attlee and I did our best to attack and to destroy the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to entering the Common Market. Nevertheless, in spite of our activities in that connection, I am glad to say that we continue to get the monthly publication of the Economic Community. The one I have here I received only two or three days ago, but it gives a picture of what I suppose is reckoned to be the legend of the first European nuclear ship. It gives details of how EURATOM, acting within the scope of the European Community, is engaged jointly in the production of a nuclear-powered merchant ship for trial. It is without much doubt that it is going to have a reactor which will be of a water pressure type—and no doubt it will cost a great deal to get it installed—from the United States of America. But, so far as I can gather, all the designers are being consulted with, from Italy and Holland as well as from Western Germany. In fact, a great joint effort is being made. The consultation concerns not only the reactor but also the design of the ship which they are to have as their first nuclear-powered merchant ship. They reckon that this ship will be afloat and operational for its trials in 1967. We are a long way away from being in a position to catch them up in that respect, if good results are obtained by this joint effort in Europe.

Then there is Japan. I rather gathered the other day from the noble Earl, who I understand is to reply again tonight, that Japan was not so certain as were the West Germans; but she is engaged in research, and so on, with regard to this matter. Judging from the way in which the Japanese have expanded their shipbuilding resources, their timed deliveries and their success with designs, I should have thought it was far more likely that I was right and that Japan is eager and active on these lines, rather than that Her Majesty's Government are right and that they are not keen on it.

Moreover, is it not perfectly obvious, when one thinks of the situation, that in the case of the United States of America, who have already spent a large sum—I know it has been expended —upon the experiment with the "Savannah", they are now engaged upon a widened and, if I may use the term, a deepened project with regard to merchant ships? When I was speaking to your Lordships last I took the step of suggesting that there was so much to be reckoned up in the economies to be effected ultimately in the nuclear propulsion of merchant ships, once you got a successful reactor, that it would be most important in relation to what, in the end, you would achieve in your spate of international maritime business.

Let us look at the timing of this matter. In conversations I have had to-day I have had to be reminded of what I ought to have remembered—namely, that this increased interest in providing reactors in connection with the propulsion of merchant ships goes back not to the time of the first research grant by the Government of £3 million in 1961, but at least to 1956. There have been consultations, discussions and negotiations; experiments have been put out to industry to engage in, for some of which they have perhaps since been paid, but on many of which they have been out of pocket—and with all the costs of research incurred by the Atomic Energy staff itself. Those costs have been going on the whole time since 1956 to 1957. The work that was actually done by auxiliary research in industry up until 1960 to 1961 was, after some pressure, paid for in part by grants from the Atomic Energy Authority.

In relation to what has been brought to my notice since, I wonder what their position now is with regard to the work they did and the ideas they put forward. It seems that the answer given in another place and that given last week by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in this House as to why information could not be given about a contract with Belgonucleaire, is that the Atomic Energy Authority is a commercial business. I do not understand at all how it can arise that private firms in this country who were brought into consultation to perform this, that or the other operation in relation to research should now be in the position that they have been paid up to a point, but not fully; and that anything which may be useful to the Atomic Energy Authority they have the power to control—or they can actually embody the discoveries of the industry into future nuclear construction—and they can then claim the whole patent for it, however it is afterwards proceeded with, and it is subject to payment of royalties to the Authority themselves. This seems to be an extraordinary position.

With regard to one firm, Mitchell's, after the £3 million had been granted for research they were in the first instance left out from those firms who were asked to go on with the research. They were finally told that the Authority was sorry that they had been overlooked. Subsequently, having gone into the matter in detail, they submitted an actual proposal to quote a firm price to install a reactor in a ship, if the ship was provided, for £500,000. A good deal of scorn has been poured on this from certain directions, not least from the Atomic Energy Authority. But, even though some competitors might think this was a very low estimate to give, what is of concern is the manner in which information is sought by the Atomic Energy Authority, on the basis of its coming in as research work for the Authority—which is a national institution—in order for it possibly to be embodied into ultimate designs of the Authority, and then the firm concerned are charged royalties to the Authority upon their own work and their own ideas.

I told the noble Earl that since I last spoke in your Lordships' House on this matter that firm has received a letter about some information which was given to the Atomic Energy Authority. That information would never have been given to a body that was to be a competitor in business, having regard to the terms which they are now offered. They offered £2,000 for one small branch of information which was extracted without the full details being explained to the firm concerned. To be offered £2,000 for x information, which would involve them later on in paying royalties to the Atomic Energy Authority, presents an absolutely scandalous situation. If this is the sort of thing that is going on, it is about time there was an inquiry.

To look at the position in relation to the general progress of this reactor, what in fact has been the progress? The Atomic Energy Authority, who have an enormous staff from which to choose those to be engaged on such work, are nevertheless no nearer a solution than they seem to have been when they started their first inquiries within the industry in 1956 or 1957. Of course people were thinking much more urgently about the situation than they had been on previous occasions. Perhaps the inquiries would not even have been started by the Atomic Energy Authority if it had not been for the international circumstances, for we had failed at Suez in a bad way. There was the danger to East and West trade, with talk of tankers of 65,000 tons with the speed and endurance to travel round the Cape. Everybody was seeking economies by getting, perhaps, a nuclear-powered ship eventually to solve their problems.

However, what emanated from it? What has been the net result? I have brought with me the Hansard for February 27, 1963, which contains the speech of the Minister for Science, the then Leader of the House. We have, of course, a certain regard for old colleagues, for this House is a very good-natured sort of Assembly. But to go back to the speech made in 1963, what do we find? First of all, that was the speech in which an attack was made on the standard of American education, and we were told that one was not likely to get a proper contribution to science in the United States until they reached our educational standard, and then we could have free trade, as it were, between the scientists in the two countries. That was bad enough, but let us examine what progress has emanated.

In that same speech the then noble Viscount the former Leader of this House, said he was quite sure that they were going along on the right lines by confining their research for the future to two proposals: one the integral boiler reactor and the other the Vulcain. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, told us that we were in sight of a solution through the Vulcain operation. Lord Hailsham (as he then was) said in the course of that speech some exceedingly unkind things, which I am sure the present Leader of the House, Lord Carrington, as a former First Lord of the Admiralty, must resent. He did have a little knowledge, but I do not for a moment think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would ever have made such an attack as the then Lord Hailsham made upon Captain Atkins.

Here was a most distinguished naval officer. He was distinguished, first of all, by right of his own service. He was a brilliant naval engineering student at his college, receiving a special Admiralty award for passing out in such a way; and all the way through his naval career (I need not weary your Lordships by detailing it) the same thing followed. He was a student, and reached the top position of an advanced course at Greenwich, again receiving a special award. He later became an instructor in all these matters at the Royal Naval College.

Then he served with distinction afloat. He took his earlier certificates, as watch-keeper and then main watch-keeper, as a lieutenant. He afterwards served in the "Hood" and the "Queen Elizabeth", and then as chief engineer in ships that did valiant work at sea—not least of which was the "Orion". And, as a result of the particular engineering work that was done, by himself and his assistants, he earned, first, a D.S.C. at Matapan and then the D.S.O. for extraordinary work done in extricating his ship from the almost impossible situation it was in on the way back from Crete. Since then, he has undergone a special course in nuclear work as applied to engineering ever since 1947–48. Then, early in 1963, he made the suggestion that the integral boiler reactor, as it was known then, was quite unsuitable for putting into a merchant ship and for withstanding all the changing storms and difficulties—different seaways, powers of the sea and so on. And he gave reasons for his view. For having revealed what his thoughts were (and perhaps it might be said, from one Service point of view, that he ought to have done it through another channel, but he felt so strongly about it that he revealed it), he was dismissed.

What is the fact to-day? Here are the confident assurances to this House, given by Lord Hailsham on February 27 last year, that of this he was confident. This was after the dismissal of Captain Atkins; this was after the attack in this House upon Captain Atkins. The noble Viscount was quite certain that they were right in going ahead with further examination of this integral boiler reactor, and quite certain that the other one, the Vulcain, was in the same posi- tion. It is only recently that we are told from the opposite Benches that the I.B.R.'s are scrapped. Whatever work has been done on them has gone; it is wasted. Taking decent naval advice on the matter earlier would have secured that much more of the expenditure made would not have been necessary. I take that as being a vastly important matter.

Now I come to the question of cost in this matter. As I go back and research into the Commons Hansard (I have looked through a whole lot of extracts very carefully indeed) we seem to have had—I will not say a conspiracy, but a collusion somewhere, to keep all possible information away from Parliament. There has been an evasion of the real issue, right the way through 1962, and again in 1963. There was an evasion as recently as last week, when the noble Earl took the line that the public authority, the Atomic Energy Authority, is a commercial concern and that, for reasons of commerce and commercial relations, no particulars could be given to the representatives of the taxpayers in another place, if not to this House (because it has been twice refused in the other place), of what is going to be the cost. That is an extraordinary situation to arise, and it is about time that an independent inquiry was granted in this particular matter.

The offer still stands from the Mitchell Company, at any rate, to put this design of theirs into production and to install it in a merchant ship for £500,000. What has been the total cost (no doubt the noble Earl will be able to tell me this to-night: he should be able to) of research from 1956–57 up to this day? And I am sure the noble Earl will not forget to see that proper allowance is made for what has been paid, not only to outside research but to the staffs, laboratories and other departments under the direct control of the Atomic Energy Authority.

Here is an offer. Why is it not followed up? When it was taken before the panel of the Atomic Energy Authority that deals with these matters, the scorn passed upon it, to which I referred just now, led the firm to be answering questions as to whether they had properly costed it, and whether the price ought to be doubled or have a million added to it. Whereas I am told that the firm is still quite confident, if the offer is properly considered, to go ahead with this proposal if the Government will finance that, as they have financed so much more without any adequate result at all at this time.

In the meantime, I want to press hard for an inquiry, and I want to press hard in that direction because it is essential if we are to keep up with other nations. I do not need to go over all the points that I made last week about the economies that might be effected in the future of our merchant shipping, and I can say that, in the case of the United States of America, at any rate, from conversations which it has been my privilege to enjoy to-day with a very skilled representative of the United States, their view is that by 1966 the next merchant nuclear-powered ship will be afloat, and that by 1967, with perhaps some subsidy for the first two or three years, there will be other such ships afloat. They are confident that within ten years a great new era will burst upon the merchant shipping world, just as it did in the case of the steam turbine, which was supposed to be not likely to make any success at all in the early 1900's but which, by 1910 and 1911, was leading the world in ship propulsion. The same thing will apply if we put our backs into this with regard to the British position in merchant shipping and its future for us in this country.

Now I want to say a word about the naval position. Of course, you could be very critical about the amounts estimated to be spent, and very critical about the general naval plan. But I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who has such modern and recent experience of the Admiralty, that I shall ask questions to-morrow, which I very much hope will be answered, in regard to nuclear propulsion in relation to the Royal Navy. I shall want to know, for example—and that is why I am giving notice to-night—what has been the whole cost up-to-date of the Dounreay proposition, from the time it was taken over from its original purposes and a part of it, at least, turned over to the Admiralty, and which has led practically to the building of a town and to all kinds of developments there. What has been the cost, and how far are we advanced in the matter? I want to give notice of that because I must say, again, that I am very worried about the treatment of people who get into touch with the Government on these nuclear matters.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will note that it was announced only two or three weeks ago that, because of serious faults in materials, piping and the like, the whole of the project has been set back for months and months. A project which ought to have reached by 1962 what is called the critical stage before trial at sea is put back for redoing the work in 1964. I certainly do not believe—and this will be a matter for the First Lord of the Admiralty to give more details—that the submarine which is being developed at Dounreay will be available for sea this year nor perhaps even in 1965. Yet that project has been going on for years and years.

My Lords, there is something radically wrong with our research. We see this on every side. We have seen it with missiles, with aircraft, and with other things, until we seem to be practically engaged in gradually converting ourselves in these matters to becoming purchasers from the United States. This may, perhaps, bring us sometimes the satisfaction that we can manufacture some of their equipment on contract in this country; but we have this country now being put in that position. Yet the former Lord Hailsham was claiming here, in his speech of February 27, 1963, that our scientists were superior. That is what he said in effect; that they were going abroad to the United States because of our much better system of education here.

Instead, we are falling behind. This Government, after they lost Blue Streak and Skybolt, are buying American aircraft and engines. After thinking they would have at least some form of nuclear deterrent, they buy American—the whole lot, the hull and the rest. Now we have this setback in the arrangements for finding the reactor for the "Valiant". When do the Government think they are going to find a reactor for the "Warspite" and others? I want to know to-morrow, in the Defence debate, the exact cost, up to date, of this Dounreay project, and how soon we may expect the results of Government research and success in getting that engine into a British-built sub marine. I have asked before for much of this information and I hope to get a great deal of it to-night. But what I can say is that it is quite certain that if the answers of the Government are not satisfactory, the only thing to do would be to take it up on the same basis, as we hope to do, and urgently, in another place.

6.5 p.m.

LORD HOBSON

My Lords, I rise to support my noble Leader on this Unstarred Question to ask for the inquiry as stated on the Order Paper. The main reason I am speaking this evening is because of the reply given by the noble Earl to a supplementary question I asked. He said that he could not state the amount of money or the terms of the contact with Belgonucleaire with regard to the Vulcain reactors. This seems to me to have been a most unusual reply, because, as I reminded the noble Lord, when the question of the Bloodhound was raised in another place the information was coming with regard to costs. For many years I was chairman of the Post Office Contracts Committee; and I was fairly frequently called upon to answer questions in another place with regard to Post Office contracts. I fail to see why the same principle cannot be applied to this particular contract with Belgonucleaire. After all, there is nothing at all secret in these matters. As I said in a previous debate, it is quite possible to go out and buy the statistical appreciation of a nuclear reactor for merchant ships as prepared by certain firms in the United States of America.

It seems to me that there has been a deliberate dodging in answering questions by the Minister of Transport and the Minister for Science in another place, and in your Lordships' House. Quite frankly, I do not believe this is good enough. After all, if we are not to get this information which we consider to be vital and of national, public importance, it seems the only thing to do is to demand a public inquiry into the whole matter.

I come back to the question to which I was given no answer and which, if I am in order, I will repeat: What was the report of the Technical Assessment Committee to the Minister of Transport with regard to nuclear reactors for merchant ships? This inquiry was set up some years ago. It was set up under Professor Diamond of Manchester University, and its report was to be made to the Padmore Committee. That Committee must have reported. I suggest that the report is on the Minister's table. If that is so, surely we can be given the appraisal as to whether we should have a water-cooled reactor or not. There has been no answer given to that question.

The reason why we are pressing for information with regard to the Vulcain reactor is that this has a water system, and we do know from American experience of their nuclear submarines, and from our own experience, that water reactors are very heavy and if placed in a merchant ship would not be a viable, economic proposition. Therefore, another form of reactor must be considered, and we come to the question of whether there are other forms of reactor. What we know about the Vulcain reactor is that it is a water-cooled reactor, and it is the opinion of technicians who should know that, so far as technology is concerned, we are at the end of the road in water-cooled reactors. It is impossible to make them lighter than they are.

Yet the Authority are proceeding in this contract with Belgonucleaire for the Vulcain reactor which is a water-cooled reactor. These are very sensible, fully-qualified men and they have access to technical and scientific information. Why are they proceeding with this water reactor? This is a question that needs to be answered. I think it is incumbent on the noble Earl who is to reply to answer it. It would also be interesting to know whether Her Majesty's Government have any information with regard to the progress in Holland, Italy and West Germany in their search for a viable reactor.

It is apparent that Western Germany has left that form of research and, I believe, are negotiating with Babcock and Wilcox for their type of reactor to be placed in their new merchant ships. The Germans, who these days are our rivals at sea, are considering having a nuclear-propelled merchant ship afloat in the very near future. We as the pre-eminent maritime nation, with a tradition of pioneering in these mat ters, cannot be left out of this race. And it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to see that we are (to use a colloquialism) "put on the map."

The whole of this discussion arises not only from the delay and the equivocation of the two Ministers who have been responsible for this matter, but also because we want to know precisely what the position is today. Has it been decided, on the ground of cost or on the ground of inadequate knowledge, that we are not going to persist with a nuclear ship? Are we going to rule it out for the time being and wait to see whether another nation develops it, and then "cash in" on a more advanced type? That is a position I can understand. It is not the traditional approach of the British people to modern developments, but it is one which I am sure we can understand. Or is the whole scheme to be dropped? Are we not to have a nuclear-propelled ship in the new year? And if we are to have one—and this is the gravamen of my case—why are we persisting with this heavy-water reactor by Belgonucleaire? These are the questions we want answered. I agree with my noble Leader that if no reply is forthcoming, then it is incumbent upon us, as representatives of the public, to see that there is a public inquiry into the whole matter.

6.13 p.m.

LORD WALERAN

My Lords, may I speak for a few minutes, and strictly on the terms of the Question put by the noble Earl? Before I go any further, I must declare an interest—namely, that my company has in the past been and is at the moment interested in reactors, inasmuch as we have designed instrumentations for reactors that have already been built or are already commissioned, and for some that are coming along in the future. The noble Earl's question asked for an independent inquiry. I do not know what is in the mind of my noble friend Lord Bessborough, but it is extremely difficult to get an independent inquiry. I think that this must be true. It would be difficult to find men among our own people in this country who are acceptable to the U.K.A.E.A. This body is in an unenviable position. They are not only the design authority, but also judge and jury of other designs. It is a highly invidious position to be in. With the best will in the world, I am sure they try to do all they can, with the greatest integrity. You must always try to help your own brainchild and if you can get a little more time for it to grow up, it is a natural thing to try to gain that time.

May I make a suggestion that may appeal to my noble friend and to the noble Earl opposite? It is that in the Central Electricity Generating Board we have an authority who have great experience of the whole field of reactors and who have at Berkeley Power Station their own research laboratory. I would suggest that the head of the Berkeley Research Laboratory, or somebody like him, would be a fit and proper person to chair such an inquiry.

6.15 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH)

My Lords, I do not know whether I can say exactly that I am obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition for raising this Question this afternoon and for providing us with another opportunity for discussing the matter, but I greatly appreciate the sincere concern which he has in this matter and will do my best to reply to him.

As your Lordships know, the Government are awaiting the Report from the Working Group on Marine Reactor Research. The Group has carried out a careful assessment of six reactor types which might be available for the purpose we have in mind. Of the six types, your Lordships have been principally discussing two, the Vulcain and the Mitchell design. As I have told your Lordships more than once, work on the Vulcain is proceeding satisfactorily—I may say, very satisfactorily. I fear it would be wrong for me at this stage to express an opinion on the merits of the other designs. I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Earl any further information about them, but I know that it would be wrong for me to do so.

The Working Group, which is a most responsible one, includes representatives not only of the Atomic Energy Authority but also of the Ministry of Transport, the Office of the Minister for Science, the Admiralty, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the British Ship Research Association, Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the Chamber of Shipping and Professor Diamond of Manchester University, who has been chairman of the Technical Advisory Panel set up by the Working Group. The full composition of the Group, with the names of its members, is given in the note on page 16 of the A.E.A. Ninth Annual Report which came out last year. It is, I repeat, a fully representative body and its Report should be in the hands of the Government very soon. In these circumstances I can see no merit in the suggestion that an independent inquiry should be set up to report on the situation when a very full assessment is being prepared by the Working Group. The Government will need time, of course, to consider the Report. Very difficult problems are involved. But I can assure your Lordships that every effort will be made to reach a conclusion with no avoidable delay.

A point that I should particularly like to emphasise to your Lordships is that in my view it is wrong to think of the present position in terms of a race between various countries, in which the United Kingdom is alleged to be lagging behind. On the contrary, far from there being a race, there are at present only two nuclear ships in the world—apart from warships—the Russian icebreaker "Lenin" and the United States passenger cargo ship "Savannah", which the noble Earl has mentioned. These two ships, it seems to me, are certainly not in the same race. As I have already told your Lordships, the "Lenin" is a specialised ship which is operated without regard to economics. In this country we have no present requirement for a ship of this kind. Perhaps the Canadians can do with an icebreaker—I do not know; but that is their own affair. The American ship, as I have said, is not economic, and I have recently heard that the United States Administration—this is highly significant—have recently decided that they will not spend further funds at present on civil marine reactor research, apart, of course from winding up existing commitments. I do not have to repeat the significance of that.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, could the noble Earl give me a quotation of that?

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

I will do so. As a matter of fact, I made a similiar remark in one of our previous exchanges on this subject, and I have certainly seen it reported in the American Press.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I have just been talking to a very notable American industrialist who is highly interested in this subject. I was given the information—and I have given it to the House to-night on this basis—that the next nuclear propelled American ship will be operative in 1966; and with some help in administrative cost afterwards it can lead to a complete success economically.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

I will certainly give the noble Earl chapter and verse of my own report of this. I think the information is good.

With regard to the Germans and the Japanese, I know that they have announced their decision to build a nuclear ship. I understand that the Germans will be doing so in conjunction with EURATOM, but in that case, without question, a foreign reactor will be installed. The Japanese have not yet made up their minds. In neither case, I understand, is there any expectation of economic operation. It seems, therefore, to be quite wrong to think in terms of a race between certain major Powers to build what the Evening Standard described in its leading article on March 9 as "exciting new fleets". Far from new fleets being built, the Americans have built only one ship, which is not economic, and there is no indication that the Germans, Japanese or indeed the Russians expect that their ships will be paying propositions.

It is therefore also wrong, in my view, to imagine that Her Majesty's Government have to come to a quick decision in this important matter: it is much more important that the decision when taken should be the right one, and it would be a great mistake to come to quick conclusions which turned out to be wrong. I feel, therefore, that we must wait and consider carefully the report of the Working Group before going into action.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I cannot speak again later, and I should like to ask a question. Is not that the sort of line which ought to have been adopted over twelve months ago when the Minister for Science got up in this House and said he was quite sure it was right to go on with the idea? There was a lot of money spent on it after that, after they had been actually warned that they could not proceed with it.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

I do not think I can go further into the whole problem of the I.B.R. I should perhaps say in that connection what I said the other day: that the decision to give up the I.B.R. was in fact unconnected (and I repeat the word "unconnected", because I think I was misreported) with the views of Captain Atkins.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I cannot let that go unchallenged. I must say at once that I am sure the noble Earl has been advised by the authorities that that is their view, but it certainly is not a true one. I know the record of this naval captain, and I know what is said, and I can attribute no other reason for abandoning the I.B.R. than the reason he has given. And there have been some others.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

It is not for me to comment further on what the noble Earl has said. What I have said is the truth, and I am going to stand by it.

The noble Earl reverted this afternoon to the question of publishing the agreement between the Atomic Energy Authority and Belgonucleaire, and he asked what financial contribution had already been made and what was the total commitment. As I informed your Lordships, the Atomic Energy Authority, in concluding an agreement with Belgonucleaire, were acting in a strictly commercial capacity. The object was the development of a reactor which would be both technically and economically successful. If this objective could be achieved there would be good prospects of successful commercial exploitation of the reactor system, and substantial royalty and licence income could accrue to the joint venture.

The Atomic Energy Authority, which, as your Lordships know, has a substantial trading income, is empowered to act as a commercial organisation, and it would be severely handicapped in many of its transactions if it had to make public the terms of its commercial agreements. I do not think any of your Lordships would wish me to divulge this country's commercial secrets. This commercial status of the A.E.A. has, as I have said before, been recognised by the Public Accounts Committee, who accept certain commercial information on a confidential basis. Such information is not made public, however, and I cannot believe that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition would wish to place the Authority under disabilities which do not affect private industry.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, what we want is that Parliament should not be placed under disability.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

I do not want to suggest that the noble Earl is placing this House under a certain disability at this moment. The Authority's accounts are published annually together with a considerable amount of information about its research, development, production and trading activities. The Authority's Annual Report is in fact a mine of information on the full range of the Authority's activities. Information is denied in those areas, and only in those areas, where either military security is involved or where the Authority's commercial position needs to be safeguarded.

LORD HOBSON

My Lords, with regard to the noble Earl's reference to the Atomic Energy Authority and private business, how does he account for the obvious disparity where Ferranti's were compelled to disclose the cost of the "Bloodhound"? That came through the Public Accounts Committee. What is the difference? Why are the Atomic Energy Authority in this privileged position in regard to something not affecting secrecy, as indeed "Bloodhound" could be argued to be?

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

The answer is that this is an agreement with a foreign organisation, Belgonucleaire, and under the terms of the agreement it is not possible to publish the information. They are joint owners of the patents. I certainly could not lend my hand to asking for publication.

The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition asked last Tuesday, and again to-day, for certain figures regarding the cost of the Atomic Energy Authority's work on reactors for marine propulsion over the past years. Only a part, but by no means a large part of this expenditure has been on the Vulcain. The bulk of the expenditure has gone on design studies and experimental work covering the whole field of marine reactor research. The noble Earl also asked last Tuesday [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 256 (No. 47), col. 324] whether the agreement with Belgonucleaire was on the basis of an order given for testing work to be done over there at cost plus profit". May I repeat and re-emphasise that the United Kingdom's contribution to the joint programme has so far been in terms of work done and expenditure incurred in this country. When the time comes to test the fuel for this reactor system in the Belgian reactor, the B.R.3, the cost of these tests will be borne equally by the A.E.A. and Belgonucleaire. I cannot give details of these future charges as they are part of the commercial agreement which I have already mentioned.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

But did I not understand that the noble Earl was inclined to agree with me previously that in fact the Belgonucleaire section of the research which was going on would be likely to cost altogether £3½ million to £4 million?

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

I do not go back on the figures I have already given, but I think I really ought to bring this discussion to a conclusion.

Before concluding, I should like to refer to what the noble Lord said regarding a certain payment made by the A.E.A. to Mitchell's recently. I understand that this firm did some important work for the Technical Advisory Panel, and they subsequently asked that they should be paid for it. This was agreed, and they have been paid. They have been paid what they asked for and the payment has been, or will be, made by the A.E.A. I must protest that there is nothing in the least sinister about this. That is all there is to it.

EARL ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH

I am sorry to keep interrupting the noble Earl, but it is essential to get this matter straight. On that basis we come back to the question of the Atomic Energy Authority being a commercial authority. What I say is that when you have people before you with a proposition about which you are asking questions, and you accept their proposals, you should say, "We should like to use your proposals; we will give you so much money for them"—not, "We shall charge you with royalties on anything you produce from them". I think that is scandalous, because if it were not done in the way I suggest, the firm would never give the information. It is completely unreasonable to adopt this line.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

I do not think that over the Floor of this House we can very well go into the working of this Advisory Panel, but I will certainly look further into the remarks which the noble Earl has made to-night.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

And let us have the inquiry.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, referred to a comparison which he thought was an analogy with G.P.O. contracts. I think I have already explained the point here, that this is, in fact, a commercial agreement with an organisation in another country. The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, also asked, last Tuesday, whether the amount of money paid to Belgonucleaire would be published in the accounts of the A.E.A. My reply is that the Authority's accounts reflect all their activities, though commercial transactions are not, of course, set out in detail. In regard to the building of nuclear-propelled ships as naval auxiliaries, this matter has not, of course, been within the terms of reference of the Working Group, but the Government certainly will not lose sight of this possibility.

The noble Lord, Lord Waleran, made some references to an independent inquiry, and he said that the A.E.A. should not be both judge and jury in this matter. I do not think it can be said that the A.E.A. is judge and jury in the matter, because the Working Group is an independent body composed of the very distinguished representatives whom I have mentioned, and who are named in the Report. However, I will certainly consider his suggestion and refer the matter to my right honourable friend.

My Lords, I have tried to be as reasonable as I can in this matter. I know that the noble Earl has this question very much at heart, and I have gone as far as I can to answer it; but I fear that that is all I can say for the present.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I can only say, "Thank you very much". I am not allowed to speak again. I will ask my own Party to raise the matter again in the other place.