INTRODUCTION

  I am grateful for the opportunity to provide evidence to the Trade and Industry Committee relating to security at Dounreay.

  On the 29 January 1998 I resigned as Chief Constable of the UKAEAC after a lengthy dispute with senior UKAEA managers about policing requirements on the site.

  I have recently been provided with a copy of the record of private notice questions and answers from27 April 1998 and I will base my evidence on matters covered by the Minister because I believe some of the answers given were inaccurate and misleading. For ease of reference I attach a copy of the 27 April record on which I have marked key paragraphs alphabetically[2]. However, I would like to make the following initial comments:

—  My resignation was not connected in any way with the Government's decision to accept nuclear material from Georgia at Dounreay, although this does in my view reinforce the need for tight security on the site.

—  I remain constrained by the requirements of the Official Secrets Act but will endeavour to provide as much detailed information as possible in support of my evidence.

—  I believe the central issue is how to balance the commercial interests of the UKAEA, in reducing costs, with the public interest in maintaining a high level of security on what is clearly a very sensitive nuclear site.

—  I would emphasise that I fully recognise the need for tight financial controls and as Chief Constable I introduced a number of cost saving initiatives within the force. However, on the specific issue of Dounreay I am firmly of the view that the UKAEA failed in its public duty to provide adequate policing on the site. This failure continued for a number of years and the problem was only addressed after my resignation.

—  If similar disputes are to be avoided in the future I believe there is an urgent need for a strong independent overview of policing in the civil nuclear industry. One way this could be achieved would be for the Secretary of State to appoint an independent chairman and other independent members of the UKAEAC Police Authority. This would mirror arrangements which were introduced in Home Office forces following implementation of the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994.

 COMMENTS ON THE PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

  My comments refer to the lettered paragraphs as shown.

  "A"  It is inferred I resigned prematurely "while discussion was underway". However, manning deficiencies at Dounreay were identified some nine years ago by the then HMI Mr Brownlow. My predecessor tried unsuccessfully to obtain the necessary increases and I had been trying to do so for some three years. UKAEA managers consistently failed to provide the additional officers despite advice received from several independent agencies, two HMI's, their own Police Advisor, Sir John Woodcock and two Chief Constables. How long was I supposed to wait for the discussions to continue? I only resigned when:

—  Having raised the matter with the UKAEA board the Chairman, Admiral Sir Kenneth Eaton, simply enquired if I was going to resign.

—  The newly appointed UKAEA Chief Executive refused to acknowledge that his own reviewing officer had recommended not six but eleven additional officers!

—  There was an attempt to suppress my paper to the Police Authority and I was threatened with dismissal. (Members should be able to obtain a copy of this paper from the UKAEA. It details my concerns about security at Dounreay and shows how senior managers ignored advise from many different sources.)

  "B"  The statement that "at no stage has the Chief Constable expressed concerned about the effectiveness of security at any other nuclear site" is completely untrue. Soon after my appointment I came under pressure to cut the police strength at the BNFL Springfield site in Lancashire by some 20 per cent. Only when the DTI intervened, after eighteen months of dispute, did BNFL agree not to press for these cuts. Managers had previously refused point blank to allow firearms officers on the site. The deployment of dog handlers was similarly resisted despite strong HMI's recommendations. To this day there are no dog handlers deployed at Springfields.

  I have had to resist similar pressures to make cuts at the Capenhurst nuclear site in Cheshire and have been told that BNFL will press for cuts at Chapelcross in Dumfries in order to compensate for the cost of additional physical security measures demanded by the DTI. I also have serious reservations about manning levels at the UKAEA Winfrith site in Dorset. I was told I would be "very unpopular" if I sought an increase in strength at Winfrith.

  "C"  Sir John Woodcock has been totally supportive of my position. He did ask me to reconsider my resignation but, ultimately, accepted that my position had become totally untenable. I note that at this point the Minister repeated that I resigned while discussions were taking place (see "A" above).

  "D"  I did not declare myself "satisfied with the extra staff numbers". I stated I was pleased that progress had been made but expressed concern at all of the conditions and provisos which were attached, not least that the increases would be only temporary and that substantial cuts would have to be made elsewhere on the Dounreay site to help fund the additional posts.

  "E"  It is particularly misleading for the Minister to state that "the additional six police agreed are already in place at Dounreay". This is not the case. Fortuitously there are some additional recruits on the site for an entirely different purpose. These have been provided for a sensitive special project not connected with the UKAEA. They are not fully trained and are not qualified firearms officers. They are not even funded by the UKAEA and will shortly be deployed elsewhere. To infer that these officers have been provided by the UKAEA for the purpose of enhancing security at Dounreay is disingenuous. At the time of my resignation Dounreay remained understrength by 3 officers.

  "F"  Although the Minister states "there is no problem", many independent agencies have made it clear that if the site is not adequately policed there could be an extremely serious problem. The additional officers were only approved following my resignation as a result of pressure from DTI officials. I do not believe there is a genuine commitment on the part of UKAEA managers to provide adequate policing on the site. The priority is to cut costs.

  "G"  So far as I am aware details of my resignation were never in the public domain until the recent leak to the newspapers. Indeed, I was told specifically that the UKAEA press office would not give any publicity to the matter and I agreed with this stance.

  "H"  Whilst I have no doubts about the integrity of the Director of Civil Nuclear Security he is, himself, under pressure from the nuclear operators. He is based on the Harwell site in Oxfordshire (Headquarters of the UKAEA) and is directly answerable to the Chairman of the UKAEA Board. (The same Chairman who suggested I might resign if I was unhappy with policing levels at Dounreay.) In my view the Director cannot be considered as totally independent unless or until he is completely detached from the UKAEA. Similarly, the senior DTI civil servant in the department designated to provide "independent" regulation on these issues is actually a member of the UKAEA Board!

  "I"  The UKAEA will "carry the cost of the extra staff" but one of the many conditions attached is that substantial cuts must be made elsewhere in order to help fund the additional officers.

  "J"  It may seem strange that I did not withdraw my resignation when the staffing problems were apparently being rectified. However, there had been such a complete breakdown of trust and confidence that I could not possibly have continued as Chief Constable. The impression has been given that there was a genuine effort on the part of the UKAEA to mend fences. The truth is that I was completely ostracised following my resignation.

  "K"  I believe Mr Tim Boswell, (Daventry) is entirely right to seek some independent element in determining security requirements. There might, as stated previously, be a good case for appointing independent members to the Police Authority. They would then be in a position to balance the public interest with the commercial priorities of the nuclear operators. (Currently only the nuclear operators and DTI are represented on the Police Authority.)

  "L"  Mr Boswell asked the Minister which he put first, nuclear security or cost. Not surprisingly the Minister stated "nuclear security". On the very same day this statement was made correspondence was received at UKAEAC Headquarters stating that Mr James Bretherton, (UKAEA Police Authority member) and Dr Roger Howsley, (BNFL Police Authority member) had agreed there would be a new review into the force with the specific objective of cutting costs by another 10 per cent.

  "M"  Once again, the Minister states here that I was "satisfied with outcome of the review". I have set out my true position at paragraph "D". I repeat that the reviews had been going on for some three years but the increases were only approved, under pressure from the DTI within three days of my resignation. The implication of the Minister's statement is that the increases would have been approved in any case but I have no doubt the prevarication would have continued indefinitely.

  "N"  It is true that, following a major exercise conducted by the UKAEAC in May 1995, physical security (fences, alarms, CCTV etc) has been greatly improved. (At the time of the exercise "terrorists" were able to gain access, through two fences, to the most sensitive part of the site, without detection, in less than one minute." Even with good physical security there remains a requirement for a police response capability in the event of an attack on the site. The police numbers which I sought were the absolute minimum required to deal with such an emergency.

  "O"  Mr Douglas Hogg is right. The Minister's statement that "all is well at Dounreay" cannot be reconciled with my determination to resign. I have explained my reasons at paragraph "J".

  "P"  Yet again, the Minister states that I was "happy with the arrangements" and infers that I was not justified in resigning. It was made very clear to me that the increase was only temporary and I was concerned that the dispute about manning levels would continue in the future. Some of the conditions attached were unrealistic and unworkable.

  "Q"  The Minister states "it was well known at the time—it was in the public domain—that the Chief Constable had tendered his resignation" but to the best of my knowledge no-one outside of the UKAEA and the DTI was aware that I had resigned. Certainly I did not seek any publicity and neither did the UKAEA. (See paragraph "G").

  "R"  The Minister's statement is accurate about the Special Boat Service. There was no SBS involvement.

  "S"  It is stated that security is regularly reviewed and tested. However, it should be noted that when the UKAEAC conducted a major security exercise at Dounreay in May 1995, despite an invitation being extended, no senior manager from the UKAEA attended.

  "T"  It is noted that again the Minister states "I do not think that we should be engaged in a cost cutting exercise. Rather the opposite should apply." The clear implication is that the Minister believes more money should be spent on the police. This does not square with the declared intention of the UKAEA and BNFL to make a further 10 per cent cut in the police budget. (See paragraph "L".) Since more than 85 per cent of the budget is spent on staff costs this will inevitably lead to a further reduction in the strength of the force.

GENERAL COMMENT

  I have already stated that I support the need for tight financial discipline in the nuclear industry but on the important issue of nuclear security there must be checks and balances to ensure cost cutting is not the only priority. This cannot be left to the nuclear operators alone.

  My own view is that there is now an urgent need for some form of independent overview of policing in the civil nuclear industry.

June 1998

 Back