Trident renewal delay threatens hundreds of jobs in Derby, union claims
A UNION has claimed hundreds of jobs in Derby could be put at risk if the renewal of the country's Trident nuclear deterrent is delayed.
Chancellor George Osborne said yesterday the full £20 billion cost of renewing Trident must be paid by the Ministry of Defence.
Traditionally, the Treasury has always found the money for the submarines, for which Rolls-Royce's marine division in Derby supplies nuclear reactors.
But the MoD is already having to contemplate budget cuts of between 10 and 20 per cent, which has put into question whether the department will be able to afford renewing Trident.
Critics claim Trident is too expensive and there have been calls to either scrap the nuclear deterrent or switch to a cheaper land-based missile system.
But the Unite union has warned that if Trident is not renewed soon then 13,000 jobs could be lost, including about 1,400 at Rolls-Royce's Marine Power Operations site in Raynesway.
Bernie Hamilton, Unite's national officer for aerospace and shipbuilding, said: "Up to 13,000 jobs could be at risk if Trident is delayed and any lengthy delay will mean that Britain is in danger of losing the skills and ability to build such submarines."
As well as Derby, Unite said jobs could go at Barrow, where the submarines are built, Plymouth, where the subs are refitted and repaired, and Faslane, Scotland, where they are based.
Yesterday, Rolls-Royce declined to comment on Unite's claims over jobs.
In its half-year results released this week, Rolls-Royce chief executive Sir John Rose singled out the firm's marine division for its "strong trading performance", adding that underlying profits for the full year were expected to be higher than 2009.
2 Comments
by Joe, Sheffield
Sunday, August 01 2010, 2:22PM
“This is just pathetic scaremongering from the unions. Work on constructing the replacement for the current Trident nuclear submarines won't begin until the end of the decade at the earliest, so Trident's replacement is completely irrelevant to the current situation.
A big majority of the public think that Trident should not be replaced, because it is hugely expensive at a time when local services are facing big cuts. Who wants to spend billions of pounds on new nuclear weapons when your local school or hospital is facing the axe, or granny's care home is being closed down?
Work in the public sector generates more jobs, pound for pound, than work in the defence sector. The unions are completely out of touch on this issue and have once again shown how irrelevant they are to the modern world.”
by David Gale, Derby
Saturday, July 31 2010, 9:44AM
“However laudable the concept of preserving local jobs, it should not be the driving factor in a choice about the UK's nuclear deterrent.
Not only is Trident redundant in a modern world where a terrorist could detonate a 'dirty' suitcase bomb in a major city but it's full cost is closer to £100 Billion. The financial impact on conventional forces would put the UK at significant risk of not being able to deal with the kinds of conflict in which we have been involved over the past fifty years.
Any idea that Trident gives us an independent deterrent is laughable, since the missile system will be maintained in Georgia, USA.
Modern nuclear-powered, conventionally-armed submarines offer a far more diverse response to conflict prevention and resolution than Trident ever will.”