Examination of Witnesses (Questions 143-159)
DR KATE
HUDSON AND
DR DOMINICK
JENKINS
21 NOVEMBER 2006
Q143 Chairman: May I welcome you
both to this second inquiry that we are doing in our string of
inquiries. Thank you for giving evidence to our first. As you
know, we will have several inquiries during the course of this
Parliament. We know who you are but nevertheless could you tell
us who you are and what you represent?
Dr Jenkins: I am Senior Disarmament
Campaigner for Greenpeace. I also have some expertise in the sociology
and history of science and technology which may be relevant, but
I am not a scientist or an engineer.
Dr Hudson: I am Kate Hudson. I
am Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Q144 Mr Jones: We have just had
the trade unions who represent people who work not only in the
civil nuclear industry but also in the construction of Trident
submarines and also at Aldermaston. If we abandon Trident and
do not replace it that is clearly going to have a major impact
on jobs in those local communities. First of all, what would you
say to those local communities and, secondly, is there any realistic
alternative for those communities other than what they do at the
moment in terms of supporting the independent nuclear deterrent?
Dr Hudson: First of all I would
like to say that this aspect of the issue is something that CND
takes extremely seriously. We have very good relations with a
number of trade unions. We have trade union affiliates and, of
course, we are aware that at the recent Trade Union Congress there
were a couple of trade unions who were not in support of the resolution
not to replace Trident because of their concerns about the jobs
question in particular. Amicus and GMB had concerns about the
jobs question. It is certainly CND's position that a decision
to replace Trident should not and indeed need not have a detrimental
impact on those workforces. We have been working for some years
to encourage the Government to adopt a viable arms conversion
project. There was much work done around this in the 1980s and
indeed the 1990s as well. We have just commissioned, supported
by Unison, a substantial piece of new work looking at that very
question. It is our understanding first of all that there are
not extensive or very significant numbers of jobs still related
specifically to the nuclear weapons industry, not on the kind
of scale that has been seen in the past, but also in particular
that, as there is a large number of physical scientists and engineers
working in that area, and those skills areas are well known to
be in short supply now with the changes in universities and shortage
of graduates, and in particular we know that there is a shortage
of relevant PhDs and so on, it is perfectly possible for those
skilled workforces to be re-employed in other sectors. In particular
we are aware that with the Government's support for the development
of sustainable energy forms and so on many of the scientists and
engineers working in that sector could find work in alternative
sectors.
Q145 Mr Jones: Yes, but both organisations
are also against civil nuclear power, so what would you say, for
example, to the county of Cumbria which relies not only on civil
nuclear power but also, in terms of Barrow, on nuclear submarines?
It is a bit of a double whammy and it is all right saying that
there are alternative jobs, and I have to say that over the years
I have read many of these ploughshares types of documents, but
it does not actually mean a great deal if your organisation, certainly
in Cumbria, for example, is going to close down two of the main
employers in that county.
Dr Hudson: It is certainly the
case that in the past when work has been commissioned by those
workforces themselves on alternative forms of employment they
have generally been orientated to the Government investing and
the companies investing in non-defence sectors and alternative
forms of manufacturing production. I do not know to what extent
it would be possible to convert into those areas, but as far as
I am aware it is possible for some of those workforces specifically
to be maintained through non-submarine production, for example.
Q146 Mr Jones: If you have been
to Cumbria and looked at the geography are you seriously suggesting
that you are going to get employers to move to Barrow or, for
example, to Sellafield, the Workington area, in large numbers
in terms of the jobs there are now both in the civil and the defence
nuclear industries? It is just pie in the sky, is it not?
Dr Hudson: I am not so sure that
it is pie in the sky. It is certainly the case, as far as I understand
it, that with the non-continuation of the work at Dounreay it
was possible for all the employees there to have continual employment
or to be re-employed in similar sectors, particularly with regard
to things like decommissioning, dealing with waste and so on.
Q147 Chairman: Dr Jenkins, I think
you should have the opportunity to answer those questions.
Dr Jenkins: The first thing is
that Greenpeace has historically been involved in developing precisely
these kinds of studies and it has had a long history of that,
but the overall perspective would be as follows. It is a national
issue whether we continue with the Trident nuclear missile system
with world ramifications. In such a case it is incumbent upon
the Government to put serious effort, serious money and serious
planning into taking care of workforces who have shown their commitment
to the nation over many years and it is in that context that this
should be addressed. My feeling is, and here I have to go back
to historic knowledge when I worked on issues for Friends of the
Earth about Sellafield and so forth, that there has been a real
failure of the Government and agencies and the MoD to really think
creatively and put real effort into defence conversion.
Chairman: I did not begin by saying,
as I should have done, thank you very much for your memorandum,
but Kevan Jones would like to come back to you on that.
Q148 Mr Jones: Just in terms of
studies, obviously, we cannot replace the jobs by just getting
people to produce studies, of which I have read many over the
years. None has actually ever been implemented and obviously they
have employed a lot of people in your organisations or certain
university bods to write them, but in practical terms, in terms
of replacement jobs, you say it is a job for Government, but surely,
as an organisation which is advocating wholesale unemployment
for large parts of west Cumbria and the southern Lakes, you have
a responsibility to come up with a better argument than that it
is Government's responsibility to do this. Secondly, in terms
of a response to the point about alternative jobs, do you not
also recognise that there is an issue around the types of jobs?
What you are talking about here are very highly skilled jobs and
replacing them with a baked bean factory, for example, in west
Cumbria would not replace the skill set or the types of jobs which
you would be taking away by closing down our civil nuclear programme
or the defence side.
Dr Jenkins: Just to be clear,
here I have to refer to my historic knowledge because today I
come to focus on Aldermaston, where there is not a similar job
problem. I have been located in the centre of a very prosperous
part of England. The studies that were done in the past were not
trivial at all. I remember a study done in the 1980s which looked
at how jobs in Barrow, nuclear submarines, could have been diversified
into the area of equipment for North Sea oil, so in terms of my
organisation we have never simply said, "This is a problem
for somebody else". We have been involved in such studies,
but I think this is a serious issue and demands response in detail
and today I have not come with that focus and I am not prepared
to give it that kind of consideration.
Chairman: We can ask Dr Hudson questions
about that.
Q149 Linda Gilroy: This is on
the same issue so it may be that you can deal with this in the
course of answering the question I have got. We have heard this
morning, and I think you were probably observing the trade union
contributions this morning, that the scientists, engineers, the
design people but also the skilled trades people, are very proud
of what they do. They do it very specifically because they believe
in it, and we have certainly had a sense of that on the various
visits that we have paid, particularly to Barrow, where they were,
I think, not unrealistically comparing what they do with the work
on the space shuttle and the complexity of what they do, the safety
case justification work that is done there. Is it not therefore
probable that a proportion of those people—and we have heard
from the trade unionists that some of them would not—would
go elsewhere, probably abroad? They would obviously have restrictions
placed on them as to where they could take their specialist knowledge
in some cases. Is that something which CND have given consideration
to? Would you be comfortable with that idea, that they would be
taking their skills elsewhere rather than retaining them within
the United Kingdom?
Dr Hudson: First of all, in the
discussions that we have had with trade unions in the recent past
I remember a particular discussion we had with PCS, and the point
they were making was precisely the one you are making about comparing
like job with like. Jobs in that sector are very good jobs with
very good conditions, and those people do not want to go and work
in a supermarket. CND is absolutely opposed—and as a trade
unionist myself I would be absolutely opposed—to anything
which would suggest that, but we do not think that that is necessary.
Just to refer back to my point about the Dounreay nuclear power
plant, this point is made in our paper, but according to the UKAEA
which is responsible for clearing 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. We made
a similar point about the new role of Porton Down, given the biological
and chemical weapons conventions, so we believe that it is absolutely
possible for like employment to be found. I wonder: is it the
case, and it seems unlikely to me, that it would be possible to
sustain the works at Barrow solely on the commissioning of four
new submarines?
Q150 Mr Jones: It would be a better
alternative to what you are proposing.
Dr Hudson: It would be a big help
but how sustainable is that? There is also the Astute class, of
course. There is also presumably the production of surface ships
and commissioning of other forms of production.
Q151 Mr Jones: You are against
all these things anyway most of the time.
Dr Hudson: No, no. I am only talking
about nuclear weapons.
Chairman: Was that the answer to your
question, Linda?
Q152 Linda Gilroy: It was an answer
but it was not exactly an answer that I think the people that
I represent would understand because the comparison I made was
with the space shuttle. It takes 18 months to two years just to
do the long overhaul of these submarines, let alone build them.
We heard that it takes nine years to train up to the level of
skill that is required. These really are unique jobs and I am
a bit disappointed with the reply.
Dr Hudson: As far as I understand
it, part of the work at Devonport is the refitting of the existing
Vanguard class submarines and that is a kind of periodic but regular
thing where the ships come in and are refitted and so on. That
work will continue. There are other nuclear powered submarines,
for example, and there is a whole range of jobs there and commissions
and contracts and so on.
Q153 Mr Jones: Which you are against.
Dr Hudson: No, we are not. I am
here specifically to make the case as to why a decision not to
replace Trident need not destroy Britain's skills and manufacturing
base. I am not here to make any comment about having the Astute
class submarines or refitting the existing ones or having decommissioning
of all those types of things that are necessary and could occupy
skills and provide employment.
Q154 Chairman: Dr Hudson, could
you tell us: do you oppose the position by the United Kingdom
on nuclear powered submarines?
Dr Hudson: We are not in favour,
under conference policy, of new build nuclear power stations for
a number of reasons, particularly because we think that it will
not provide a solution to the problems of climate change. Constitutionally
as an organisation we are only for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
That is overwhelmingly our concern and I am not particularly interested
here in making any kind of case against nuclear powered submarines.
I see that as a separate issue.
Q155 Chairman: But as a separate
issue is it the policy of CND to oppose the existence of nuclear
powered submarines?
Dr Hudson: I do not actually know
if we have got a conference policy on that specific issue. It
is certainly not something that we campaign against.
Q156 Linda Gilroy: I just want
to clarify something. You suggested that the refits on the current
Vanguards would go on. Is it the position of CND therefore that
the Vanguard submarines should continue until the end of their
lives?
Dr Hudson: Our current campaigning
priority is to prevent the replacement of Trident. That is our
absolute focus at the moment. Obviously, we have campaigned for
scrapping Trident and so on for many years. We are for the abolition
of Britain's nuclear weapons, but I would say personally that
there is very little likelihood of the Trident nuclear system
as it currently exists being scrapped prior to a decision on a
replacement being taken and prior to the end of its natural life.
As these things take very long times to achieve and to bring about
we nevertheless believe that there will be sufficient skilled
work provided for those communities for very many years, whether
it is decommissioning the submarines or dealing with problems
of waste and so on around nuclear reactors in submarines, all
those things. We believe very strongly that there will not be
a detrimental impact on those workforces.
Q157 Chairman: But, Dr Hudson,
in your evidence to our first inquiry did you not suggest that
if there were a decision not to replace Trident it would be based
on the principle that nuclear deterrent no longer worked and was
not a good thing, and therefore that it should follow that we
should immediately abolish the existing deterrent? Did you not
suggest that?
Dr Hudson: I think this is a bit
of a red herring really because obviously CND is an abolitionist
organisation. We want British nuclear abolition and we also work
for global abolition. We have a kind of unilateralist plus multilateralist
position. That is what we are very strongly committed to on moral,
legal and security grounds. That is absolutely the case. Much
as I might like it to be otherwise, I do not think there is any
immediate chance that those things are going to happen. What is
possible, however, is that there is again a very serious national
discussion about whether or not we need to renew the Trident system,
and that is what we are engaged in talking about.
Mr Hancock: I think that is a
very fair point. I think some members here are trying to twist
the issue, Chairman.
Mr Jones: I just want straight
answers.
Q158 Mr Hancock: No, no. The debate
we are having today is about the replacement of the Trident missile
system, whether or not we should continue with it. We are not
debating whether we are going to stop the current programme tomorrow.
I think the answers they have given are about the brief we have
in front of us today. I am interested to know, particularly regarding
jobs, about the suggestion that the Government have a responsibility
to look at that in Barrow, for example. The answer we got from
the people from Barrow was that in a total population of 70,000,
and I do not know exactly what the working population is, 5,600
are on some form of disability benefit. I was interested when
you said that Government have a responsibility to look to diversify.
Why would they want to do that when they are still committed to
building nuclear submarines? You would not set up a diversification
programme at the same time that you wanted this very skilled,
uniquely placed workforce in this very difficult location to continue
to build at least another three submarines for you in the Astute
programme and possibly two replacement Trident boats, would you,
so when does this kick in?
Dr Jenkins: The first thing is
that if I indicated that one agency solely had this responsibility
that is not what I am saying. When I worked for Friends of the
Earth I was deeply involved in talks with British Nuclear Fuels,
which, of course, has the Sellafield plant in the area, and right
from the Chairman down they were interested in a major, indeed
visionary, re-orientation of British Nuclear Fuels that would
take it from being a reprocessing company into being a global
nuclear clean-up company which would, for example, have contracts
in the United States to clean up giant plants there and would
be involved in dealing with the horrendous problems of the nuclear
waste of the former Soviet fleet and so forth. The approach there
was a dialogue between British Nuclear Fuels, organisations like
Friends of the Earth and Government. In the larger picture that
is what one wants. On this issue of jobs in the Barrow-in-Furness
area I can only indicate my broad frame that that is the approach
that should be taken and certainly this issue of jobs would not
immediately arise because of the Astute programme.
Q159 Mr Holloway: It strikes me
that all your comments are around mitigation of the central point
for both of you, your sincerely held view that unemployment in
these places is completely preferable to having a nuclear armed
UK.
Dr Jenkins: No, because I think
that is a false alternative. It is completely possible, and it
is indeed the business of Government, to take care of its citizens
without—
| 
