from Sunday Herald, 14 October 2007
Plans to refurbish the Clyde naval bases to accommodate a replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons system could be stymied by Scottish ministers, according to an internal memo from the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
A new dry dock for servicing nuclear submarines would require planning permission while other developments would be subject to a raft of pollution controls. These are all the responsibility of the Scottish Government, not Westminster.
On 22 October Scottish Nationalist ministers are holding a summit in Glasgow aimed at identifying ways of preventing the UK government from going ahead with a replacement for Trident. A new weapons system was agreed by the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and backed by the House of Commons in March this year, despite a major Labour revolt.
But an MoD email from 25 June this year, released under freedom of information law, makes it clear that there are a series of potential barriers to any Trident developments at the Faslane and Coulport bases, near Helensburgh.
The email summarises the outcome of a meeting with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to discuss difficulties that might arise with the refurbishment of the bases. "Any future requirement for a dry dock could present problems," it says.
Such a major development is almost bound to require planning permission from the local authority, and its construction and use would be subject to pollution controls administered by SEPA. In both cases Scottish Ministers would have the ultimate power to say yes or no.
A new dry dock may be needed because the shiplift that is currently used to service submarines is ageing and may not meet future safety requirements. In 2001 expert consultants said that the shiplift was only guaranteed to be safe up to 2011.
The MoD email also points out that Scotland has other powers over activities that might pollute the Firth of Clyde, including increased sewage discharges. Contamination from pentachlorophenol, a toxic chemical used to protect wood and masonry "may be an issue".
The email adds: "Contaminated land could be an issue at Clyde and would need to be carefully considered if a new development or extensive refurbishment were required."
The Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which obtained the email from the MoD, was fascinated to learn that a new dry dock was under consideration. "The existing shiplift has been fraught with problems and only has safety clearance for the next 4 years," said the campaign's co-ordinator, John Ainslie.
"A new dry dock would be a major development. It would need planning permission and an Environmental Impact Assessment. The Scottish Government could use their planning power to stop its construction."
The environmental problems threatened by a new dock and other potential developments gave Scottish Ministers another blocking mechanism, Ainslie claimed. "This is another way that Holyrood can halt Whitehall’s plan to base Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Clyde for the next 50 years."
SEPA confirmed that any major development at Faslane or Coulport would require planning permission, though it could not say whether a dry dock was planned. "SEPA does regulate Faslane for a variety of matters, including water pollution and abstraction," said a SEPA spokeswoman.
"If the decision was made to develop Faslane, the MoD would need to apply to SEPA for the appropriate authorisations to carry out the works. SEPA would consider any applications, in line with the regulation requirements."
The MoD stressed that there were "currently no plans" to construct a dry dock at the Clyde naval bases. "We have not made decisions as to what infrastructure will be needed to support the maintenance of the Trident deterrent," said an MoD spokeswoman.
In line with normal departmental procedures, the MoD was considering a range of environmental issues associated with Trident. It had engaged with a number of external agencies in the UK including SEPA and the Scottish Government.
A spokesman for the Scottish Government declined to comment. The ministerial code prevented ministers from doing or saying anything that might prejudice the planning process, he pointed out.
Download a copy of the Ministry of Defence memo here (80KB pdf).
Comments