| Prince William in RAF rescue Prince William has carried out his first rescue as a fully operational search and rescue pilot. bbc.co.uk |
MPs warn of 'rushed' voting referendum bill Plans to hold a referendum next spring on changing the voting system are being 'rushed' through Parliament, MPs have warned. telegraph.co.uk |
MoD's own experts reveal nuclear arms safety flaws Row with US over arming system put Trident warheads at risk, papers reveal Dozens of potentially disastrous flaws in the safety regime for nuclear weapons have been exposed by secret Ministry of Defence reports seen by the Observer.Safety procedures at the bomb factory at Aldermaston in Berkshire have been "poor", nuclear weapons convoys have suffered from "crew fatigue" and safety regulations have been ignored by nuclear submarine commanders, according to the MoD's internal safety watchdogs.The reports, released after a three-year freedom of information battle, also show that the "intrinsic safety" of Trident nuclear warheads was put at risk by an argument between Britain and the United States. A new US-made "arming, fusing and firing" system being fitted on to warheads worried the MoD's nuclear weapon regulator, Andy Moore. There was a "medium risk that safety justifications will lack key information" and a need for "engagement with US on information supply", he warned.A major fire in August in a high-explosive building at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston had raised concerns about safety. Fire brigade logs showed that 20 fire engines and 95 crew had fought the blaze for almost nine hours.Concerns have now been heightened by a series of damning reports from the MoD's nuclear safety regulators. The ministry has been trying to keep the reports secret since 2007, but last week it was forced to release them on the eve of an appeal to the UK Information Tribunal. The reports provide an unprecedented insight into the intensely secretive world of Britain's bomb. They reveal a series of problems with safety across the whole nuclear weapons programme.The most critical is a 2005 report from Moore listing eight "issues and regulatory risks". There has been "slow progress in implementing the regulation framework for the nuclear weapons programme", he said. There was a problem with his authority at Aldermaston being "constrained" while a new contract for managing the site was being negotiated.Moore had even greater problems with the Royal Naval commanders of the four Vanguard-class submarines armed with Trident nuclear missiles. There was confusion over their safety responsibilities, he said. The commitment of the commanders to respond to regulation was uncertain, he warned. "A recent reissue of a safety management plan fails to acknowledge the introduction of regulation or the existence of the regulator."There were "inconsistent arrangements for managing transport activities", Moore's report said. This meant there was a risk that safety arrangements for moving nuclear materials such as plutonium "does not meet departmental standards".The report highlighted the danger that radioactive tritium could leak from warheads if there were an accident. This had a "potential impact on workforce and public protection", Moore said.Another report for the MoD's Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator in 2006 by Commodore Andrew McFarlane cautioned that "crew fatigue" could cause hazards during the transport of nuclear weapons by road. Convoys carrying warheads travel between Aldermaston and the naval nuclear bases on the Clyde near Glasgow up to six times a year.Moore's report also warned that funding restrictions at the Clyde bases could endanger safety. The absence of proper guidance meant nuclear accidents could be "inappropriately notified" to ministers, he added. "There remains concern that arrangements for responding to events are in need of overhaul."John Large, an independent nuclear consultant, said it was astonishing that there was uncertainty over the regulation of warheads at sea. "This is particularly worrisome from a public safety point of view," he warned.The argument with the US over the arming, fusing and firing system highlighted the UK's "over-dependence" on the US, Large argued. He claimed this could breach the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.The prolonged battle to force the MoD to release the reports was backed by Fred Dawson, who worked for the MoD for 31 years and was head of its radiation protection policy team before he retired in 2009. "People may conclude that the culture of secrecy is due in part for the presentational need to hide poor safety and environmental performance," he said.The MoD said concern was raised in 2005 about the process for obtaining information from the US on the arming, fusing and firing system. "This was resolved, reflecting the close working relationship that exists between the UK and US on nuclear matters," said an MoD spokesman. "We take any issues raised by the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator seriously."Nuclear weaponsTridentRob Edwardsguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Merthyr jobless denigrated - MP Merthyr Tydfil is being unfairly "denigrated", says the town's MP after a cabinet minister suggests unemployed people were "too static". bbc.co.uk |
George Osborne 'exaggerated debt crisis risk' says Nobel laureate Economist Christopher Pissarides says chancellor's swingeing cuts package is taking unnecessary risks with economyGeorge Osborne was accused today by Britain's new Nobel prize-winning economist of having "exaggerated" the risk of a Greek-style debt crisis.Professor Christopher Pissarides said that the prospects of a sovereign debt crisis hitting Britain - used by the chancellor to justify his spending cuts - were "minimal".In an article for the Sunday Mirror, he warned that Osborne's swingeing cuts package, announced last week in the Commons, was taking "unnecessary risks" with the economy.The chancellor has said drastic action to tackle the deficit was necessary to avoid a Greek-style collapse in investor confidence, leaving Britain facing punitive interest rates to finance its borrowing.However, Pissarides said he believed that the chancellor had overstated the dangers."It is important to avoid this 'sovereign risk'. But in my view Britain is a long way from such a threat, and the chancellor has exaggerated the sovereign risks that are threatening the country," he said.Osborne should have been more concerned about the current weakness of the UK economy, he said."Unemployment is high and job vacancies few. By taking the action that the chancellor outlined in his statement, this situation might well become worse," he said."These risks were not necessary at this point. He could have outlined a clear deficit-reduction plan over the next five years, postponing more of the cuts, until recovery became less fragile."The 'sovereign risk' would have been minimal."His comments were echoed by Labour leaders Ed Miliband who accused the government of driving through big cuts for ideological reasons."Of course the deficit is high and needs to be brought down. Our approach, based on halving it over four years, would bring it down every year," he said in an article for the Observer."But the idea that we are about to go bankrupt is pure political spin to justify a familiar ideological project of a smaller state."In his latest podcast on the No 10 website, David Cameron acknowledged that the country faced a "hard road", but insisted that the measures to tackle the deficit were essential."I don't underestimate how difficult this will be. But we are doing what we are doing because it is the right thing to do – right by our economy, right for our country," he said."We had to bring some responsibility back to public spending because if we didn't, Britain was looking down the barrel of economic ruin."The prime minister said he was committed to ensuring the cuts were administered in a way that was "fair" while at the same time focusing what resources were available on boosting entrepreneurship and wealth creation."We didn't just do the right thing, we did it the right way. We've gone about these spending cuts in a way that is fair and in a way that promotes economic growth and new jobs," he said."Fair because if you look at the figures, you'll see the highest earners aren't just paying more in cash, they are paying more as a percentage of their income. As we promised, those with broader shoulders are bearing a greater burden."His comments reflect the acute sensitivity within the coalition to accusations that Osborne's spending review, announced on Wednesday, would hit the poor hardest.Analysis by the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies found that – apart from the richest 2%, who would be caught by tax rises announced under Labour – the burden of cuts would fall disproportionately on the poorest.Spending review 2010George OsborneTax and spendingEconomic policyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |