Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-142)
MR BERNIE
HAMILTON, MR
KEITH HAZLEWOOD,
MR BOB
KING AND
MR TERRY
WAITING
21 NOVEMBER 2006
Q140 Mr Havard: I would like to
ask you about the argument with regard to the virtual arsenal
(do not panic) and whether there is any debate about this. This
is the argument that says, given the skills and the information
we have through the nuclear cycle civil generation, etc., and
if we are to keep the capability, the role and function of Aldermaston
could switch to be more like Porton Down. In other words, it would
become something that could be involved in terms of verification
and so on, so you could keep the skills. In other words you keep
the capability to reconstitute a nuclear programme should you
wish to have it. The example that is often given is Japan that
has both the capability and the civil fissile material potentially
and all of that sort of stuff and could constitute a programme
within six months to two years. It is a compromise argument and
Aldermaston would be absolutely central should you wish to go
down that road. I wondered whether or not there was any discussion
going on about what would happen in terms of the focus in Aldermaston
shifting as opposed to Aldermaston going and what the skills would
be and how they could be reconverted.
Mr King: To give you a very short
answer—purely because you said "virtual arsenal",
and as a member of Mr Hancock's constituency I think we are still
one above them in the League—it is not something that has
been discussed. The only discussion we have been having at the
moment is what shape the Government's decision is going to take
and we will adapt to that. It sounds like a bit of a strange line,
but the position of the majority of staff, including scientific
and engineering at Aldermaston, is, whatever decision the Government
makes, that is the decision that—
Q141 Mr Havard: That is what I
was really fishing for. In a sense the truth of it is that the
capability at Aldermaston is able to do a number of things on
this continuum, is it not, to replace what there is, or to develop
something different even, and also to maintain safety for what
is and potentially to do the problem of dealing with disarmament,
if you like. It is capable of doing all these things.
Mr King: Yes.
Q142 Chairman: Maybe he is not
the right person to ask. Maybe the Minister is.
Mr King: I would think on the
science basis I most certainly am not qualified.
Chairman: Mr King, you suggested that
your colleagues' toes would curl. I had the impression that they
had a good relationship with their employers and so I am sure
they did not. Can I say thank you very much indeed to all of you
for giving evidence so helpfully and so clearly, and also briefly,
which is not easy when you have four of you answering several
different questions coming from all angles.
| 
