Just one year since the huge backbench rebellion on Trident replacement, we have seen the largest protest at Aldermaston for two decades. Five thousand protesters converged on the Atomic Weapons Establishment, marking the 50th anniversary of the first Aldermaston march in 1958. But more importantly, we were protesting about what is taking place there now.

The government is currently pursuing massive redevelopment of Britain’s nuclear bomb factory. The scale of building works, investment and recruitment taking place make it inconceivable that these are just routine improvements to facilitate ongoing work. It is clear that this work — which includes supercomputer and laser facilities which can simulate nuclear weapons testing — is for the development and manufacture of a new nuclear warhead.

But Parliament has not yet made a decision to endorse such a development. In March 2007, Parliament agreed to proceed with the ‘concept phase’ of a Trident submarine replacement — no more than that. In the 2006 White Paper on the nuclear weapons system, it was made clear that a decision on a future warhead would be taken in the next Parliament. We have not yet reached that point, and no decision has yet been taken.

It would seem that the government has made a pre-emptive decision with its £5 billion spending on Aldermaston, and the work going on there, on the scale of Heathrow Terminal Five.

This continuing development is just one side of the contradictory approach which the government has pursued over nuclear weapons during the past year.

Some of what has happened has been positive. There has been an interesting shift by the government on multilateral initiatives for nuclear disarmament. On several occasions, there have been high level statements indicating that steps need to be taken. And crucially, the government has now recognised that there is a link between the failure of the nuclear weapons states to meet their disarmament obligations, under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and an increased likelihood of nuclear proliferation. In other words, disarmament and non-proliferation must go hand in hand. This was something that Blair refused to admit, somehow trying to argue that we are entitled to have nuclear weapons.

Recently, Defence Secretary Des Browne has announced that Britain intends to host a summit for nuclear weapons states, to discuss decommissioning nuclear weapons. This is a welcome initiative.

But if Britain is serious about contributing to global nuclear disarmament, it cannot say one thing and do another. A halt must be called to the Trident developments — both submarines and warheads. That will be a real indication of good faith to the international community, and will help support any initiatives towards multilateral negotiations.