Fears over 'serious nuclear incident' at Faslane naval base where Britain's Trident submarine's are kept
There was a Category A event at HMNB Clyde on Gare Loch in Faslane between January and April.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) defines a Category A incident as the most serious and those which carry an 'actual or high potential for radioactive release to the environment'.
But the government department has insisted the incident at HMNB Clyde did not pose a risk to the public or result in any radiological impact to the environment.
The naval base is the Royal Navy's headquarters in Scotland and is home to Britain's nuclear submarines which includes the Vanguard vessels armed with Trident missiles.
The Category A event, which was first reported by The Herald, will raise concerns over the maintenance of the weapons at the facility.
It was revealed in a written parliamentary answer by defence procurement minister Maria Eagle after she was asked to provide the number of Nuclear Site Event Reports (NSERs) at the Faslane and Coulport naval bases.
NSERs detail incidents at nuclear facilities and are categorised based on their safety significance and impact.
She disclosed that there had been a category A event at Faslane between January 1 and April 22 as well as two category B, seven category C and four category D incidents.
Ms Eagle added that there were five further events deemed 'below scale' and less serious.
While Coulport, where Britain's nuclear missiles and warheads are held, experienced four category C and nine category D events during the same period.
The SNP has demanded an urgent explanation from the government over a 'catalogue of failures' which include a separate contamination nearby.
'I cannot provide specific detail for the events as disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of any relevant forces,' Ms Eagle told SNP MP Dave Doogan who tabled the question.
'I can assure the honourable member that none of the events listed in question 49938 caused harm to the health of any member of staff or to any member of the public and none have resulted in any radiological impact to the environment.'
The minister insisted that NSERs 'are raised to foster a robust safety culture that learns from experience, whether that is equipment failures, human error, procedural failings, documentation shortcoming or near-misses'.
The incident is the second serious one to take place at Faslane naval base in two years after a Category A event was recorded in 2023. And there were two similar events between 2006 and 2007.
It comes after it was revealed that radioactive water was released from the Royal Navy nuclear weapons base in Coulport into Loch Long after several old pipes burst.
The substances leaked into the water because the Royal Navy inadequately maintained a network of around 1,500 pipes on the base, according to a regulator.
'Nuclear weapons are an ever-present danger and this new information is deeply worrying,' SNP deputy leader Keith Brown said.
'With repeated reports of serious incidents at Faslane and now confirmed radioactive contamination in Loch Long, it's clear there is a direct threat to our environment, our communities, and our safety.
'Worse still, the Labour government is refusing to provide any details about the Category A incident, or the full extent of the contamination, including who could potentially be affected.
'While Westminster ploughs billions of public money into weapons of mass destruction, the SNP is focused on building a better Scotland.
'But only with independence, can we scrap Trident, clean up the mess it has left behind, and ensure this kind of reckless nuclear policy is never forced on Scotland again.'
An MoD spokesman said: 'We place the utmost importance on handling radioactive substances safely and securely. Nuclear Site Event Reports demonstrate our robust safety culture and commitment to learn from experience.
'The incidents posed no risk to the public and did not result in any radiological impact to the environment. It is factually incorrect to suggest otherwise. Our Government backs our nuclear deterrent as the ultimate guarantor of our national security.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Could a wealth tax work in the UK? A visual guide
A rise in taxation at the autumn budget looks inevitable, as Rachel Reeves grapples with £40bn hole in the public finances. That figure comes from a recent report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), which blames the deficit on higher-than-expected borrowing levels and a weaker growth outlook for the UK economy. The question now facing the chancellor is: who should pay more? A growing chorus of voices across the Labour party say a wealth tax is the answer. Politicians from across the divide have the habit of talking about wealth taxes in vague terms, often perpetuating misconceptions. Here's a visual breakdown of the key elements of a wealth tax system. The analysis uses figures from the most in-depth study of a potential UK wealth tax so far, produced in 2020 by the Wealth Tax Commission, a panel of leading economists assembled by tax experts Arun Advani, Emma Chamberlain and Andy Summers. Summers, director of CenTax and co-author of the 2020 study, said: 'Given the limited information HMRC currently hold on wealth, a wealth tax would be difficult to deliver any time soon. A better way to raise money from wealth would be to reform Capital Gains Tax (CGT). This is not just about raising rates. The Government should introduce an investment allowance and close gaps that currently allow some business gains to go completely untaxed. Doing this would be good for investment and growth, and raise over £13bn annually by the end of the Parliament.' The Institute of Fiscal Studies has similarly argued that an annual wealth tax would be a 'poor substitute for properly taxing the sources and uses of wealth'. Treasury officials are understood to favour the latter. Critics say a wealth tax would be too difficult and costly to implement, and that wealthy individuals would be able to move their holdings or to simply leave the country. They point to countries such as Austria, Denmark and Germany's decision to scrap similar taxes in the past. However, other countries including Spain and Switzerland have been successfully using wealth taxes to raise significant sums for generations. In their letter to the government the economists in favour of a wealth tax argue that the UK can overcome these difficulties – by leveraging digital technology and studying previous attempts to tax wealth – and pioneer a progressive tax system 'fit for the 21st century'. Tax revenue figures for income tax freeze, national insurance rise and pension contribution relief are taken from NIESR. The figures for capital gains equalisation are taken from the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation. Wealth distribution by asset class data is taken from the ONS Survey of Personal Incomes 2022-2023. UK Wealth inequality data and figures on UK total wealth ownership are from 2023 and are provided by the Wealth Inequality Lab. Wealth tax model and figures are from the Wealth Tax Commission (WTC) report and their 2020 tax simulator (the WTC study input figures are from 2018). The Guardian uprated the WTC figures by a nominal GDP increase of 39.13% between 2018 and 2025. 2018 GDP figures are from the ONS, while 2025 GDP figures are from the OBR. Figure adjustments by nominal GDP are rough estimates, conducted by the Guardian in consultation with the original researchers.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Scotland's fiscal calamity is a harbinger for all of Britain
It should be noted that this particular tax break was much cited by Labour when defending its decision last autumn to make farms subject to inheritance tax. What are they complaining about, some ministers said, when farms can still be handed down from father to son tax-free via the seven-year rule? Now, even this concession seems to be in the Chancellor's crosshairs. Wealth and aspiration are under attack across the UK as a whole, not just in Scotland. But it's even worse north of the border, where higher-rate taxpayers pay significantly more than their English counterparts on a greater proportion of their income. The quid pro quo for a more highly taxed economy is meant to be better public services, but you'd be hard-pressed to argue this is the case in Scotland. Total public spending last year at 52pc of GDP is at Scandinavian levels, but without Nordic-style welfare and services. NHS waiting lists are longer than much of the rest of the UK, social services are a disgrace, life expectancy is lower and even educational standards – once the highest in the UK – have slipped badly under Scotland's high spending regime. State education in Edinburgh is so poor that one in four families makes the financial sacrifices needed to send their children to privately funded independent schools, far higher than the UK average. Now they face the additional cost of VAT on school fees, though that one is down to Westminster, not Holyrood. And to be fair, also down to Westminster is the completely insane decision to essentially close down the North Sea oil and gas sector in pursuit of the net-zero pipe-dream. It might have been SNP policy too, but for an opportunistic change in stance just ahead of the general election aimed at saving seats in Aberdeen and beyond. The Scottish Government's current position is now a more nuanced one in which new licences for development would be assessed on a case-by-case basis, rather than the current outright ban imposed by Westminster. It's one of the few things that Holyrood seems to have done right, even if, with the overarching decision made down south, it makes no difference to the outcome. In any case, the ban steepens Scotland's fiscal challenge. Offshore oil and gas provide some of Scotland's highest-paying jobs; Ed Miliband's assault on the sector threatens lasting damage to income tax receipts, with the growth in renewables unlikely to provide a complete substitute. The smart thing to have done in maximising jobs and revenues would be to allow the two industries to run side by side, but when did either Westminster or Holyrood last practice common-sense politics? As it is, Scotland is in the same rut of rising taxation, excessive spending and declining public services as the rest of the UK, but magnified several times over. The SNP offers no answers on how it would correct the shortfall in the public finances should it ever succeed in freeing Scotland from the English teet. You might imagine that the cause of Scottish independence would have been finished for a generation or more by the SNP's inept record in government, topped off as it was by the tragicomedy of Humza Yousaf's short-lived reign as first minister. But then along came Reform UK, which threatens to split the unionist vote and thereby gives the SNP another leg up in next year's Holyrood elections.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Nearly nine in ten voters support deporting foreign sex offenders
Almost nine in 10 voters think foreign sex offenders should be deported, a new poll has revealed. A huge majority of Britons across all ages and political parties agree that migrants who commit a sexual offence should be kicked out. It comes amid a wider debate about the impacts of mass migration and controversy over alleged crimes perpetrated by asylum seekers. The survey, by Find Out Now, also found that almost four in 10 people favour restricting immigration from countries with poor women's rights. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, has vowed to increase the rate of deportations and limit the avenues foreign criminals have to appeal against their removal. Earlier this year, she announced that any migrant placed on the sex offender register would be automatically prevented from claiming asylum in the UK. The pollsters asked more than 2,000 voters whether they supported the deportation of non-UK citizens who have been convicted of sex crimes. More than 87 per cent said they either 'strongly' or 'somewhat' supported removal, compared to just three per cent who said they opposed it. In total, 85 per cent of Labour voters, 96 per cent of Conservative supporters and 97 per cent of Reform backers said they favoured deportation of this kind. Find Out Now also asked the public whether they would support restricting immigration from countries 'where women have few legal rights and protections'. Just under 39 per cent of all voters said they would back such restrictions, compared with a little over a quarter who said they would oppose them. Support for tougher measures was voiced by 30 per cent of Labour voters, 52 per cent of Conservative backers and 74 per cent of Reform supporters. A total of 38 per cent of Labour supporters said they would oppose such measures. Finally, the pollsters also asked Britons whether they 'believe that immigration levels impact women's safety in your area'. Overall, 47 per cent said they believed that was the case, versus 23 per cent who did not. In total, 29 per cent of Labour voters, 58 per cent of Conservative supporters and 84 per cent of Reform backers said they felt less safe. Additionally, 43 per cent of Labour supporters said they believed their area was less safe as a result of migration. The poll was commissioned by the Women's Safety Initiative, a group set up 'to expose the dangers of uncontrolled immigration'. The group says it provides 'a space for women to voice concerns about safety, culture, and national identity without fear of censorship or judgment'. Anna McGovern, the deputy director, said: 'This data confirms what women across the country have been telling us for years – they feel less safe and they want action. I've spoken to so many women who have shared their experiences of feeling unsafe, and I include myself in that. 'Our leaders cannot continue to ignore these concerns or dismiss them as unfounded. Women's safety must be prioritised above political convenience, and this is the moment to start taking decisive steps to protect women everywhere.'
