House of Commons - Defence - Written Evidence

Select Committee on Defence Written Evidence

Memorandum from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

TRIDENT REPLACEMENT: THE JOBS AND SKILLS QUESTION

1. Introduction

CND welcomes the decision of the Defence Committee to focus on the UK's manufacturing and skills base in the second of its inquiries into the future of Britain's nuclear weapons system. This submission will comment on some of the issues around the argument that the continued support and advance of the UK's nuclear weapons programme is necessary for the maintenance and development both of jobs and skills. These issues are of considerable significance in the debate around a Trident replacement and ones which CND takes very seriously. In particular we are aware that the preservation and expansion of skilled jobs, such as those found within this sector, is an issue which carries considerable weight within some local communities and work forces. There is an understandable fear that a decision not to replace Trident could lead to loss of employment and that alternative employment would be in different sectors, leading to a loss of earnings and conditions, and that the UK's skills base in science, engineering and technology could be diminished.

This submission considers these concerns and advances some initial findings. In particular we note the temporary short-term nature of many of the jobs involved—often based on just the construction of nuclear facilities; the actual number of jobs that are created in comparison to the massive investments made; the comparative effect on jobs of investing in other areas instead such as housing, health and even renewable energy sources; and ways in which the skills base can be maintained through investment in the transferring of skills to comparable non-nuclear sectors. We conclude that an effective alternative employment and defence diversification strategy can meet concerns about the maintenance of jobs and skills whilst enabling the UK to comply with its obligations to disarm under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

2. The current system and replacement options

Much information about the defence industry is typically classified, particularly regarding nuclear weapons, and so this makes it difficult to obtain exact figures and skills audits of those who work specifically in the nuclear facilities. In addition, some nuclear facilities also provide employment for both Vanguard class nuclear weapon-armed and conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines and so it is also difficult to completely define exactly those jobs that are only related to nuclear weapons. Since the government is denying any decision has been made yet on replacing Trident it is even harder for detailed assertions to be made on the likely nature of jobs that might ensue from such a decision. For the purpose of this paper, certain assumptions will be made based on the most likely options for a replacement and the history of employment in this sector.

It is generally thought, and evidence from the first inquiry seemed to confirm this belief, that a likely replacement nuclear weapons system will also be submarine based with more advanced warheads to allow improved targeting and upgraded US missiles. Because of the similar nature of such a replacement system to the previous system and the consolidation and mergers of many companies in the last 25 years, it could be inferred that similar companies and workforces would stand to gain from a replacement.

3. Review of previous work on arms conversion

A body of knowledge exists in this area, based on work previously undertaken on the subject of arms conversion and defence diversification. This has often arisen from concerted and intelligent efforts, made by members of the workforces of the various facilities producing the UK nuclear weapons system, to formulate alternative employment strategies for their workplaces. Time and again the belief was that alternative employment could be found if the UK made a decision to disarm.

As early as 1964, a Scottish CND Conference "Swords into Ploughshares" was held in Dumbarton in response to announcements that Faslane and Coulport would be the operational bases for the planned Polaris nuclear weapons system. In February 1975, two major CND conferences with a strong trade union focus were held in London and Glasgow in response to rising unemployment and cuts in spending on arms projects. Around this time workforces at defence companies like Lucas Aerospace and Vickers created detailed plans for the diversification of production into alternative product lines. The Shop Stewards Combine Committee at Lucas Aerospace drew up a "Lucas Plan" with about 150 alternative products that would be "socially useful" in an attempt to save their jobs. The company ignored the plan and factory closures and redundancies ensued[68].

In 1984, with the prospect of the Vickers Shipyard being used to build the proposed Trident submarines, discussions started by Barrow Trades Council resulted in the setting up of the Barrow Alternative Employment Committee (BAEC). The BAEC attempted to identify alternative long-term non-defence employment producing civilian marine products for the Vickers Shipyard workforce including renewable energy technologies; a detailed examination of the alternative products was given in their 1987 report Oceans of Work.[69] Vickers management refused to co-operate with BAEC.[70]

The Alternative Employment Study Group (AESG) was also launched in the early 1980s in response to the decision to replace the Polaris/Chevaline system with Trident. The group was funded by Scottish Education and Action for Development and was supported by a number of different bodies including several Scottish District Councils and the Transport and General Workers Union in Scotland. The group held a major conference in Dumbarton in 1984, which was followed by two comprehensive reports of their findings.

In the mid 1990s the Arms Conversion Project (ACP) established in 1988 by the Nuclear Free Local Authorities was holding workshops, conferences and seminars on the subject. In 1996, an ACP report "Killing Jobs" revealed that over 28,000 defence and defence-related jobs had been lost in the Strathclyde region where the Clyde Submarine Base is located since the end of the Cold War. The job losses were estimated to have cost the Strathclyde economy in excess of £65 million per year in terms of lost income.

The ACP working with the Scottish Trade Union Congress prepared a draft Working Paper for a governmental Defence Diversification Agency (DDA). Such an agency was launched in 1999. However as Ian Goudie, who ran the Project, explains, "the DDA will only deal directly with diversification as a means of technology transfer from DERA, rather than the diversification of companies and communities."[71]

CONTEMPORARY ISSUES

4. Relative number of jobs created and actual cost of jobs

In the UK there has been a significant trend of job losses dependent on military expenditure over the last few decades with the end of the Cold War and cuts in military spending.[72] Employment dependent on MoD expenditure and defence exports has more than halved from 740,000 in 1980 to around 305,000 jobs being currently supported by MoD expenditure and defence exports providing just over 1% of all employment.[73] In spite of this, over £30 billion was spent on defence in 2005-06 and that figure is set to rise to £33.4 billion by 2007-08.[74]

The relative number of jobs created by Trident is said to have been much less than originally claimed[75] especially in Scotland. American academic Brian Jamison, working at the Mountbatten Centre for International Relations at Southampton University, explains that Trident failed to invigorate the economy: "though the national deterrent supported almost 4,000 civilian jobs in 1989 the Strathclyde Region still had the highest unemployment rate in all of Scotland at that time."[76] 72% more in real terms was spent on the Trident Works Project (providing missile storage and shore based docking and maintenance facilities at Faslane and Coulport) than was originally anticipated.[77] Acquisition of the system is said to have cost £12.52 billion in 1998 prices.

According to Dr Steven Schofield, in Oceans of Work, prior to the contracts for the first generation Trident programme, initial estimates for employment put the figures as high as 20,000 direct and 25,000 indirect jobs. But MoD reports during the 1980s on the progress of Trident construction consistently reduced those figures until, by themid 1980s, they had declined to only 7,000 direct and 9,000 indirect jobs. Contracts included the construction of the submarines at Barrow, and the PWR 2 nuclear propulsion plant built by Rolls Royce at Derby. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper and would require a fuller analysis of the Trident network and employment at each facility, a reasonable assumption would be that the major capital investment of recent years has resulted in reduced demand for labour and that employment generated now will be at low levels.

5. Market forces and industry fluctuations

Defence employment is heavily dependent on market forces and ensuing MoD contracts. Although in the short term a replacement of Trident with a similar nuclear weapons system might boost jobs for some local areas it does mean reliance on employment from a handful of private companies whose commercial interests are naturally predominant. In Scotland, according to Jamison, "The SSBN was a source of considerable expenditure on the Clyde and as a consequence, of various forms of short-term employment, but it was not liable to be a source of long-term employment."[78]

The UK Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) was launched in December 2005 and was consequently criticised by Dr Steven Schofield in a BASIC paper.[79] Schofield highlighted the significant internationalisation and privatisation of the military-industrial sector during the 1980s and 90s with the emergence of BAE Systems as a "global military-industrial giant" being given over 50% of the major MoD contracts. The DIS drives "for ever-more sophisticated and expensive military platforms" and does nothing to reduce BAE's "stranglehold" on defence procurement. In fact Schofield points out that since BAE took over GEC in 1999 there was a decrease in jobs at the company from 115,600 to 68,100 in 2002. The following graph shows that employment at BAE has since declined even further.

BAE Systems

(Source: CAAT report, BAE Systems in 2005)

Any replacement of Trident would likely be subject to theses kinds of trends. Other examples of where market forces and industry fluctuations have resulted in job losses rather than increases was in the 1990s saw the refitting contract for Trident controversially being given to Devonport, Plymouth rather than Rosyth in Scotland where jobs relating to the complex were worth more than £200 million to the local economy and £100 million had already been spent on building new facilities for Trident. The loss of the contract is said to have resulted in 10,000 job losses[80]and overruns led to the work in Devonport costing £300 million more than it should have.

A controversial privatisation in 2002 led to many of the operations at the Clyde Submarine Base being handed over to a private UK dockyard company, Babcock Naval Services, with the loss of 500 jobs.[81]

ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT

6. Timescale

Work on alternative employment strategies would clearly need to take the regional nature of employment created by nuclear weapons facilities into account. If a replacement was not chosen and Trident was allowed to continue until it became obsolete then this would give ample time to allow diversification plans to be put into place. The Defence Diversification Agency could be instrumental in developing such plans. Research into how the Rosyth workforce moved into alternative employment after losing the Trident re-fitting contract might be particularly useful.

Moreover, facilities would not close down overnight, this would happen over many years and any employment decline in some areas could be managed. Dr Stuart Parkinson of Scientists for Global Responsibility believes that because the UK economy had the experience of quite recently being able to absorb a substantial reduction in employment dependent on the military sector following the end of the Cold War (from 555,000 direct and indirect jobs in 1990-91 to 300,000 in 1999-2000) a further reduction of several thousand jobs could similarly be absorbed.[82] An important increase in employment would actually result from the process of nuclear weapons being safely dismantled and the materials being stored and of the sites being decommissioned and cleaned up.

7. Opportunity costs

The opportunity cost of investing such large amounts of money into nuclear weapons should not be ignored. Investment in other areas can also create economic growth and substantial job opportunities—without providing a means of killing and mass destruction. A US assessment of this issue estimated that spending a billion dollars on education would create 41,000 jobs, spending this much on public transport would create 30,000 jobs but £1 billion spent on military procurement would create just 25,000 jobs.[83]

8. Skills

It is also argued that there will be a loss of skills if the UK chooses not to continue with a nuclear weapons system. Dr Stuart Parkinson argues that the nuclear weapons workforce could be swiftly re-employed elsewhere because it includes large numbers of highly skilled physical scientists and engineers for whom there is a high demand from other sectors of the economy. This demand comes from actual skills shortages as a result of the low number of graduates in these areas. This situation is becoming worse with enrolments for mechanical engineering degrees falling by 8% from 1999 to 2003 and 18 physics departments and 28 chemistry departments closing since 1997. Any replacement could actually increase this skills shortage with even more skilled workers being taken from other important sectors of teaching, research and manufacturing.[84]

Options for alternative employment opportunities, which could use the skills of the nuclear weapons workforce, could cover the areas of decommissioning and international disarmament work, development and production of renewable energy resources.

9. Decommissioning and international disarmament work

The decommissioning of nuclear facilities is a very large undertaking, which can go on for many years. If Trident was not replaced and some of the Trident facilities were closed down then dealing with the waste and the decommissioning process from these facilities and all of our old nuclear power stations would provide crucial alternative and regional employment for many years to come. An example of this is at the Dounreay nuclear plant where, according to the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), responsible for "cleaning up" this site, the decline in employment at the end of the Dounreay research programme has been reversed, with 1,200 people now employed in engineering, radiological protection, planning, environmental and waste management.

Several argue that Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment could become a centre of expertise for issues of verification, decommissioning and the dismantling of nuclear facilities and secure disposal of weapons-usable materials.[85] Dr Stuart Parkinson argues that the change in role could mirror that of Porton Down's when the UK signed up to the Chemicals Weapons and Biological Weapons Conventions.[86]

10. Renewable energy resources

Tony Blair has called climate change the greatest threat to civilisation.[87] It is widely agreed, however, that renewable energy sources can realistically and effectively provide sustainable and low-carbon energy. Major job opportunities for skilled physical scientists and engineers, amongst others, exist in this growing sector and this is where the government should encourage investment.

The Green Party maintains that green policies in the transport, recycling and waste management, agriculture and industry sectors could create a million UK jobs.[88] Several forecasts by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) have also been very positive. The DTI projects that renewable energy sector employment will rise from the current figure of 8,000 to 35,000 jobs by 2020.[89] Even just a Round Two development of offshore wind developments alone, the DTI estimated, could bring a further 20,000 jobs for Britain.[90]

11. Conclusion

There are other factors that also need to be taken into account when considering the livelihoods and wellbeing of nuclear-related workforces. A local economy with facilities to produce or support a nuclear weapons system must also consider the increased threat of being targeted by a conventional or nuclear military attack, the increased risk of radiological contamination from any accident, and the increased risk of terrorism directed at such a facility in the region. The risks from maintaining employment in nuclear weapons are considerable and are likely to increase in the current global situation. It is also the case that a decision to replace Trident will contribute to global instability by further undermining the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which we are required to disarm our nuclear weapons.

Redirection of investment and subsidies into non-nuclear production and facilities can more than compensate for jobs currently located in the nuclear sector, and the same applies to potential future jobs related to any proposed new nuclear weapons system. What is required is the political will to make the necessary choices. A majority of the British population opposes a Trident replacement when it is known that the acquisition and running costs may be as high as £76 billion. The investment of that sum in the health service or housing, education or alternative energy forms, could provide both significant employment in construction, engineering, nursing, teaching, scientific research and a range of other employment sectors, and at the same time contribute substantially to the social wellbeing of the British people. For the majority of the population, this is the preferred option, and it is not an option that will let down the UK in terms of either jobs or skills; on the contrary, it will make a significant contribution to peace and social progress.

9 October 2006