This guest blog by economist Michael Burke explains his new report on jobs and Trident for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. We'd like to take this opportunity to thank Michael for his invaluable contribution.
Our new report published today sets out the truth about Trident and jobs. It is often argued that Trident and its planned replacement are vital to provide civilian jobs, some of them highly-skilled and well paid, many in deprived areas where alternative employment of the same quality is scarce. This is important for workers and their unions. Yet, while it is true, the extent of this job creation is tiny relative to the sums involved. In effect, they are among the most costly jobs in history. The money used could be spent on creating many more, better jobs.
CND has calculated that approximately 11,520 civilian jobs are directly dependent on Trident. Guaranteeing people's livelihoods matters but when you consider that every one of these workers could be given a cheque for £1 million for a cost of £11.5 billion, a little more than one-twentieth of the entire cost of replacing Trident, it's time to think again. £205 billion can be used far more effectively to create well-paid jobs than wasting it on replacing Trident.
It is also difficult to calculate how many of these jobs would be lost in the event of Trident's replacement being cancelled as many of these jobs would be maintained on, or re-deployed to, decommissioning work.
CND has previously argued that the government should take action to ensure alternative
industrial employment in those communities dependent on Trident replacement. What I propose in my report is a transformational programme of public investment which will generate additional new private investment and create many more high-skill and high-wage jobs than currently exist.
Potential new projects could include a science park for Barrow or renewable energy projects on the Clyde.
The money saved by not replacing Trident could be used for a massive level of investment that would create many more jobs than the current or future nuclear weapons systems can provide.
The sums involved are so vast that whole areas, such as the one around Barrow, where the Trident submarines are made, could be regenerated.
The skills of the current workforce would form the nuclei of a large-scale industrial investment programme. A host of industries are in need of investment, from wind and wave power, to nuclear decommissioning, to aerospace technology to marine industries and others. British industry as a whole faces chronic skills shortages which public sector led investment can address. The money saved by not replacing Trident would provide the finances for this programme.
This would amount to an industrial strategy for Britain with the existing workforce and regions at its core. There are far more, better and well-paid jobs to be created by this type of investment than in persisting with the replacement of Trident, a militarily useless yet hugely expensive weapon.
