Memorandum from Aldermaston Women's Peace
Campaign
1. BACKGROUND
AWPC has campaigned against the production and
deployment of nuclear weapons at AWE Aldermaston for the last
20 years, and maintains a regular presence at AWE Aldermaston,
through holding a monthly peace camp and by monitoring activities
on the site.2. TERMS OF
REFERENCE
2.1 The present inquiry sets out to focus on
the strategic context and the timetable for decision making with
regard to "the future of the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent."
With regard to the first subject of this inquiry, AWPC has no
comments to make, except to state that we are completely opposed
to the development of further nuclear weapons systems, or the
modification of extant systems; both options would be in contravention
of our international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty; are immoral and make no economic sense.
2.1 The Committee has called for evidence to
inform a democratic debate about the future of nuclear weapons
production and "to consider the timetable in which these
decisions will have to be taken and implemented".
2.2 It has been asserted, by the Prime Minister
and the Secretary of State for Defence, that no decision has so
far been made, to date, with regard to the replacement of the
current weapons system. We will present evidence relating to developments
at AWE Aldermaston, which suggests that decisions have already
been made, which would facilitate the development of a new generation
of nuclear weapons, without parliamentary and public scrutiny.
2.4 This submission seeks to inform the Defence
Select Committee as the democratic scrutiniser of the MOD, so
that they may report back to Parliament and the electorate on
current policies, and operations at AWE Aldermaston.3. TIMELINE:
BACKGROUND
3.1 The interlinked timelines briefly set out
below show that decisions to produce new weapons have already
been made, and that the "new build" at AWE Aldermaston—as
outlined in AWE ml's[78]
2002 Site Development Strategy Plan (SDSP)—is "dual
capable". Although the government may argue the "new
build" outlined below is necessary in the 21st Century to
update a decrepit establishment and to maintain extant systems,
the new build is such that it will also provide research, design
and test capability for the development of new nuclear weapons.
3.2 We believe the decisions to release government
funding and enter into contracts with private contractors at AWE
Aldermaston have not been made merely to support the continuation
of "stockpile stewardship". The size of these contracts
indicates far greater investment than is necessary for mere maintenance.
3.3 All the evidence submitted below is gathered
from the public domain, and from AWPC's observations; other evidence,
which cannot be corroborated, has not be cited. In this context,
we would remind the Committee that the contracts awarded by the
government to AWE ml in 2000 and 2003 contained confidential information
that even ministers were not privy to.
3.4 Planning Applications under the NoPD Procedure.
All applications by the MoD, or Defence Estates
on behalf of the MoD, for new buildings at AWE Aldermaston (detailed)
below have been submitted as a series of separate Notices of Proposed
Development (NoPD) under DoE CIRCULAR 18/84, in which developments
on Crown Land are carried out outside the normal planning process.
They are submitted to the West Berkshire District Council (Eastern
Area) Planning Committee. [79](WBDC.)
3.5 Although it is not the subject of this present
inquiry, AWPC notes that the Ministry of Defence has, despite
assurances in parliament and the WBDC to the contrary, flouted
the planning process by failing to adhere to the government's
own guidelines, makes a mockery of the safeguards called for by
the government and the courts, including by:
(a) Denying that the developments are a "major
project", which would be subject to a public inquiry;(b) Presenting
WBDC with as a series of applications for a series of buildings,
as if they were unrelated applications, rather than an application
for the totality of developments envisaged in the SDSP;(c) Presented
applications for new facilities as replacements for existing facilities(d) Failing
to present information requested by WBDC, and required under planning
guidelines.4. TIME-LINES
FOR SITE
DEVELOPMENT—PLANNING
APPLICATIONS—AWARD
OF CONTRACTS
1998
Government publish Strategic Defence Review, which
states, "Following ratification by the UK government of the
comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the maintenance of Trident
and the capability to build a successor will have to be achieved
without conducing nuclear tests . . . These are the main drivers
for the future development of the Aldermaston site"
2000
MOD award 10-year contract valued at £2.3 billion
to run AWE to AWE ml, a consortium of Lockheed Martin, BNFL and
Serco.
2002
AWE ml in July publish Site Development Strategy
Plan, outlining plans to build inter alia, a laser (Orion)
hundreds of thousands of times more powerful than the current
HELEN laser, and which enables the testing in materials in conditions
replicating a nuclear explosion; [80]a
new supercomputer, a hydrodynamics facility, materials testing
and other laboratories.
2003
| January: | MOD extends AWE ml's contract to 25 years, with increase in value to £5.3 billion.
|
| October: | NoPD for the ORION "replacement" laser submitted to WBDC.
|
| December: | NoPD withdrawn in the face of legal challenge from local resident.
|
| Defence White Paper confirms decision on Trident replacement will be taken in next parliament.
|
| |
Contracts awarded during 2003 include:— RPS Group
PLC, awarded a contract running from 2003-08, in part to support
AWE in planning applications. AWPC comments: This makes clear
that AWE ML intend to continue with piecemeal applications which
hide the true nature and extent of the "new build" at
AWE Aldermaston (www.rpsplc.co.uk).— Anisa
Group (computing). Contract runs 2003-06; On 22 April 2003 completed
the first of four project milestones.— Synstar
contract running 2003-10, (with the option to extend to second
and third stage); computing infrastructure services £14.96
million— Emcor—2003-08, £30 million
(building management)
2004
23 April: NoPD re-submitted for ORION laser, described by AWE
as a replacement for the HELEN laser, but advertised by AWE as
being infinitely more powerful;
[AWPC Comment: thus not a replacement but a different facility
altogether, and not in compliance with the NoPD procedure.
[81]
The Local Berkshire Plan allows in principle that approval for
planning may be given at sites like AWE Aldermaston for buildings
which are essential for existing operations. The Orion laser facility
is also intended for general scientific use, not restricted to
use for AWE ml and nuclear weapons technology, and is therefore
a change of use and a new development, thus falling outside the
remit of WBDC Local Plan. Indeed, there had been discussion about
siting Orion at the Rutherford Laboratories.
23 June: Outline planning approval for ORION approved by WBDC.
[AWPC comment: no Transport Plan or Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) [82]submitted:
AWE promise that these will be made available to WBDC]
To date AWE ml have not provided an EIA for their proposed and
actual developments, though they purport to have provided the
equivalent in "Strategic Sustainability Appraisal".
However, the document provided does not cover the same issues
to the same depth as is required by an EIA.
6 August: NoPD submitted for the "erection of a high explosives
fabrication facility" at AWE Aldermaston, withdrawn four
days later
2005
24 February: WBDC grant planning permission for two IT buildings
and one office building, but resolve to write to the Secretary
of State urging that an EIA be undertaken for the developments
as a whole.
[AWPC Comment: no such EIA has been produced to date].
Golder Associates begin working on Orion site.
July: MoD Press Release announces an increase in expenditure of
£350 million in the next three years to "upgrade facilities"
at AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield.
August: Special intervention notice given to Office of Fair
Trading by SoS for Trade & Industry after the proposed acquisition
by Lockheed Martin (part of AWE ML) of INSYS. [83]
2006
January
— Article in AWE Today—AWE's in-house
magazine—states that the new developments . . . "will
make AWE one of the largest construction sites in the UK—similar
in scale to the Terminal 5 project at Heathrow". Transport
plan reportedly still being consulted on.— AWE Aldermaston
purchased Cray XT3(TM) supercomputer costing over £20 million
and one of the world's largest supercomputers.— Balfour
Kilpatrick joined by Symonds Group (consultants) to form an alliance
which has been applied to Balfour's long term presence at AWE:
"a comprehensive future programme is now in place with new
projects running into billions of pounds".
25 January: ORION Reserved matters considered for the second
time, members having nee provided with a "Strategic sustainability
appraisal", instead of the rquested EIA. ORION approved as
a separate building application rather than as part of a wider
development, despite the WBDC recognising that this application
was "just the beginning of a 20 year programme of development
on the site, and that it would have a considerable impact on the
area."
February
— Anders Elite (recruitment agency) advertises
for building contractors at AWE Aldermaston: "the framework,
at the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Research Facility, represents
around £10 million of building works a year, currently. The
agreement should be renewed in three years, with a view to the
value of works rising to £20 million a year, and we are optimistic
that the agreement will be extended to twenty years".
March
— 151 posts currently advertised at AWE Aldermaston
including job advertisements for computing positions, including
one specifically for hydrodynamics, a facility yet to be brought
to the Planning Committee.5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 These brief timelines show that substantial work
has already commenced on the AWE site, and the government is investing
heavily in the infrastructure at AWE.
5.2 There has been a complete lack of transparency with the
public, and in parliament about the nature of the new developments
at Aldermaston.
5.3 This has also been seen in the NOPD process, in respect
of the local planning authority, with whom the MoD, Defence Estates
and AWE ml, have been less than honest.
5.4 We believe that the WBDC has been used to legitimise
decisions post-facto, and approve developments that have
already begun, without being provided with adequate information
on which to make a decision, and without complying with the government's
own guidelines; we hope that the DSC will not be used in the same
manner.6. RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 That the Defence Select Committee makes it own enquiries
into the timeline of developments that have already taken place
at AWE Aldermaston since 2000, including details of budgets, contracts,
planning approvals, and makes this information public.
6.2 That the DSC request clarification from the government,
and in particular, the Minister of Defence, on expenditure at
AWE to date, and makes this information public.
6.3 That the DSC request that the MoD provide details
of all building work planned at AWE Aldermaston between 2006 and
2010, including the start and completion dates of all works, and
the estimated budget—including the additional staffing costs—for
these developments to become fully operational.
7 March 2006
78
AWE ml, comprising British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), Lockheed Martin
and Serco, runs AWE Aldermaston on behalf of the government, under
a government-owned, contractor-operated site. The government hold
the golden share in AWE plc. Back
79
The Planning Committee may either approve the developments or
raise objections by referring the NoPD back to the originating
Department, which may then refer the application to the Minister
for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who has the power
to initiate a non-statutory public inquiry. The Planning Committee
cannot refuse a NoPD. Back
80
Similar facilities are built, or being built in France and the
USA, as part of their weapons development programmes. Back
81
Existing Operational Use and Orion Back
82
Environment Impact Assessment Back
83
INSYS are a significant supplier of special weapon technology
to the Nuclear Weapons Integrated Project Team (Defence Procurement
Agency). The MoD expressed concern that Lockheed Martin could
influence INSYS in ways that could prejudice National Security
and sought intervention under the Enterprise Act 2002 with the
result that the merger went ahead but with Lockheed agreeing to
certain undertakings. This makes a further mockery of the argument
in favour of upgrading AWE in order to maintain strategic capability
"independently of other nations".- Start date for M
W Zander's £20 million contract for Orion construction.-
September: Secretary of State for Defence announces public debate
on the future of UK's nuclear deterrent.- 21 September: WBDC
approve construction of two new modular office accommodation buildings
at AWE Aldermaston.- October: Secretary of State confirms that
AWE's budget is expected to increase further to a total of £1.5
billion for the financial years 2005-07 and 2007-8 (£750
million per annum);- September 26: NoPD for two modular buildings
and electricity substation submitted to WBDC.- preparatory work
on ORION site clearly visible; 20 or 30 vehicle movements a day
observed.- November: Major Design House contract awarded to WS
Atkins "in support of the ongoing programme of modernisation
and refurbishment at the AWE sites in Berkshire. In particular,
Atkins will be driving forward the development of major new `high
nuclear' complex research and processing facilities at AWE's sites".-
http://www.atkinsglobal.com/news/25360/5801899-Internet- 23
November: WBDC consider reserved matters for Orion NoPD, but defer
approval due to AWE's failure to provide information requested
in February, including an EIA.- 16 November AWE publish updated
Site Development Plan (see http://www.awe.co.uk/main-site/news/articles/NI-2005-031.html) Back
|
