Nuclear bomb companies given multi-million pound get-out on accidents

from Sunday Herald, 06 April 2014

Private companies hired to work at the Clyde nuclear bomb bases are being given a multi-million pound get-out by Westminster so they won’t have to pay compensation or clean-up costs after “potentially catastrophic” accidents. 

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is planning to sign agreements with contractors at Faslane and Coulport that limit their financial liability in case of injuries, deaths, explosions, fires and radiation leaks to no more than £100,000. This will leave the vast majority of any costs – which could run into many millions of pounds - to be met by taxpayers.

The revelation has shocked politicians, experts and campaigners, who attacked the MoD for trying to hide what they were planning. “Nuclear operations are uninsurable,” said the Labour MP Paul Flynn, who has lodged a motion in the House of Commons opposing the MoD’s move. “Commerce reaps the profits and the public purse is looted to pay immeasurable costs.”

Faslane, on Gareloch near Helensburgh, is home to the UK’s four nuclear-powered submarines armed with Trident nuclear missiles, as well as a fleet of nuclear-powered and conventionally armed “hunter-killer” submarines. Coulport, nearby on Loch Long, is where around 200 nuclear warheads are kept.

According to the defence minister, Andrew Murrison, the Treasury has agreed to relieve contractors at the Clyde bases of the liability for accidents. Otherwise, he said, the contracts would become “untenable” because of the high costs involved.

A departmental minute presented to parliament in London reveals that the MoD intends to limit the liability of unnamed, new contractors to £100,000 for up to ten years. It says that the MoD has already agreed to restrict the liability of the £3 billion engineering giant, Babcock, which manages the Clyde bases, to £100,000 “per nuclear event”.

As a result, the government would face massive bills if a serious accident were to happen. “The value of the contingent liability is unquantifiable due to the potentially catastrophic nature of a nuclear incident,” says the minute.

Faslane and Coulport have a chequered safety record, with a series of radiation leaks and safety incidents exposed by freedom of information requests in recent years. The Sunday Herald revealed in 2010 that 587 nuclear safety incidents had been reported at the bases since 2000, mostly due to human error. 

The SNP’s Westminster leader, Angus Robertson MP, accused the MoD of “sleight of hand” in making taxpayers pay. “If you bear no cost of any significant accidents, what kind of attitude would you have about safety?” he said. 

“Of course this would all be made much easier if we just rid ourselves of these dangerous and dirty nuclear weapons – which is exactly what a Yes vote in September will do.”

Dr David Lowry, an environmental policy consultant who advises the UK government on nuclear waste, pointed out that the nuclear industry had a history of secretively attempting to win indemnity from accidents. “Now the MoD has jumped on the indemnification bandwagon,” he said.

“No private company is prepared to take any financial risk for making a massive taxpayer-funded profit out of nuclear management projects. Ministers should wise up and realise that the consequences of this technology - civil or military - are too great for society to tolerate.” 

John Ainslie, the coordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, argued that the full economic consequences of an accident at Faslane would be difficult to comprehend. “The MoD is allowing private companies to take the profits from Trident but leaving the taxpayer to pick up the bill if something goes wrong,” he said.

Babcock declined to comment, referring the matter to the MoD. The MoD stressed that the likelihood of a nuclear accident was “extremely remote”, and defended its move.

“The purpose of the indemnity is not to absolve contractors of their responsibilities, but to ensure the MoD can employ contractors vital to the successful running of HM Naval Base Clyde,” said an MoD spokeswoman.

“With HM Treasury approval a contractor may be relieved of their liability where the financial impact of an event would make the contract untenable. This is common practice, and it is wholly right that the MoD indemnify its contractors who would otherwise be unable to obtain insurance independently.”

The departmental minute laid before the House of Commons by the Ministry of Defence can be downloaded here (71KB pdf).

Comments

[Bill Innes]

Trading on people's scientific ignorance again There is probably more radiation from our own granite rocks in places like Aberdeen than is likely to come from FAslane.

[anne]

another example of Westminster and the MOD shifting the goalposts to suit their own agenda regardless of the risk to human life. The sooner we get rid of the MO(B) the better- their contempt for people in Scotland is blatant. How can we trust them in any shape or form after the revelations exposed during this YES campaign? Anyone who forsakes their children's future and health by voting to remain within the corrupt Union seriously need their head looked.

[Peter]

Get them to leave our country. And get a nuke team in and check the whole place out. Any pollution detected bill them, and what ever it costs , we be deducted from the debt or the assets.

[Les Wilson]

Makes you wonder if the MOD are scared something might come to light after a YES vote and are safeguarding English companies from the backlash.
Is the timing of this potentially damaging decision a coincidence? I do not think so, after all the years they have used Faslane, why now?
It has me concerned something is afoot, as you cannot trust the MOD nor Westminster.

[Elaine Gunn]

Disgraceful! In fact I think the word disgraceful falls short - particularly given that the same government refused *only last month* to underwrite insurance for independent midwives. This government would literally rather insure bombs than babies.

[Brett Lee Turton]

Indemnus, non compos mentis!