BACK INTO THE DARK ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS SAFETY
The Ministry of Defence has never been a beacon of transparency. So it was a pleasant surprise in 2010 when it was forced by a three-year freedom of information battle to release a raft of nuclear safety reports.
For the first time the public had an insight into the staffing and technical issues that plagued Trident nuclear weapons and reactor-driven submarines. For the next few years the MoD kept publishing the reports by its internal watchdog, the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator (DNSR) – and the media kept writing stories about them. It was as if an ancient beast was at last inching out of its secretive citadel, blinking in the daylight. But it was too good to last. Last November we revealed that the reports had gone back under wraps, apparently for national security reasons.
Today we report that the MoD will not even tell us the headline summaries of the last three years’ reports. So has the DNSR given overall assurances that our nuclear weapons operations were safe, or not? We don’t know. The MoD won’t say.
This is a surreal level of secrecy. It’s fundamentally undemocratic – and dangerous. It’s symptomatic of the way the MoD sees itself: a thing apart not subject to the checks and balances normal for other bodies.
Its nuclear programme is run by military chaps, and regulated by military chaps, all from within the MoD. Having had a glimpse of this process at work, we are now back in the dark.
Regardless of what you think about Trident, this is surely unacceptable. It is about ensuring public safety by public scrutiny, and it’s our MPs who need to act. They must try and drag the MoD back out of its citadel, kicking and screaming if need be.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel