Feature

Into the arms of the NHS

Many people would be shocked if NHS health authorities, trusts and medical charities invested money in arms-exporting companies. But they do — and disinvestment is long overdue, says Ray Hemmings

Did you see the headlines? ‘PLEASE GIVE (for missiles, jet fighters, tanks, radar, torpedoes and copters) GENEROUSLY’ (Mirror), ‘Dons profit from misery’ (Chelmsford Advertiser), ‘Health cash props up arms trade, says exposé’ (Nursing Times).

The ‘exposé’, by CAAT (the Campaign Against Arms Trade), detailed a large number of charities, churches, local authorities, health authorities and NHS trusts which hold shares in companies involved in the arms trade. Unsurprisingly, reaction to the report was surprise and shock: people do not expect hospitals, for instance, to be profiting from the sale of lethal weapons.

The people involved in CAAT want an end to all arms-trading. Politicians like to call it ‘selling defence equipment’ but it can’t all be for defence. There have been over 150 wars since the 1945 ‘peace’ and wars don’t just ‘break out’, someone starts them – usually someone who thinks they have enough weaponry to win.

Between 20 and 30 million people have been killed in those wars, of whom the majority (over 80 per cent) were civilian. In the last 10 years, over 2 million children have been killed in wars, far outnumbering the number of soldiers killed.

But arms don’t only kill: they also maim, destroy homes, livelihoods and economies, cause famine, disease, poverty, and create millions of refugees.

As Britain makes and sells more and more efficient, hi-tech weapons, it is stimulating arms races all over the world, making wars more likely and more destructive. And even if the arms we sell are never used, they are still damaging: they absorb money and resources which could have been used to provide education, healthcare, water, farming equipment and so on.

These weapons are used by military governments (the most avid buyers) to suppress democratic aspirations — tanks in the street or aeroplanes screaming overhead do not need to fire to damage health. A country which is supposed to be defending and promoting democracy is contributing to its demise.

Twelve years ago, Cardinal Basil Hume likened the arms trade to drug sellers. ‘Heroin has its foolish purchaser,’ he said, ‘but the greater crime is surely that of the pusher or salesman, peddling death at exorbitant prices. It is much the same with the arms trade... The Third World is wrong and misguided to buy, but the greater crime lies with...[those] who are responsible for this death trade.’

The Clean Investment Campaign

Why are health authorities and trusts supporting arms exporters by buying their shares? Is it ethical that professions dedicated to preserving life and alleviating suffering should invest in, and profit from, this ‘death trade’?

Some years ago, CAAT started its ‘Clean Investment Campaign’ to persuade public bodies to avoid giving support, by investment, to companies trading in arms. We started with local authorities which invest very large sums from their superannuation funds; more recently we have put pressure on charities, churches, colleges and health institutions.

We looked at the shareholder lists of seven of the largest UK arms exporters to find out which of these bodies held their shares. (Public companies are obliged to submit such lists annually to Companies House.) We found over 100 NHS trusts, health authorities and hospices among the shareholders.

We asked CAAT supporters to approach their local institutions, to ask them whether they thought this kind of investment was appropriate. Often those responsible are not aware of the nature of the companies in which they have shares. As one person wrote: ‘I thought GEC just made light fittings.’ (In fact it is the UK’s second largest arms producer.) In such cases, the institutions can be quite grateful to CAAT for pointing out their error or oversight, and quickly put their money elsewhere.

Others are less amenable: the most common negative response we get is that fund managers are obliged to get the best returns possible from their investments – apparently they are not worried how the profits are made.

But there is no obligation to invest in companies whose activities contradict the aims the investor. If equally profitable alternative investments can be found, it is perfectly legitimate to exclude any company or set of companies from a portfolio. And this is possible: excluding the major arms producers still leaves 92 of the top 100 companies to choose from. Moreover arms companies, because of shrinking demand and increased international competition, are not sound long-term investments.

Does the NHS really have very much money to invest? Not a lot, compared with local authorities or insurance companies. The money that a hospital or a health authority invests comes from its ‘charitable trust funds’ – money given, perhaps bequeathed, by people grateful for the services that health professionals render to the community. It is unlikely such donors expect their gifts to be used to make missiles or tanks.

Taking action

If you would like to join the action against these investments you can get a copy of the CIC pack from CAAT.* This gives full details about arms companies, letter-writing, pros and cons, as well as full lists of investments.

There is not enough space to print the full list of over 100 health institutions with arms investments, but we give a sample of them here.

*The full pack costs £5; or you can get the introduction plus the health/charities section for £2.50. Send a cheque to CAAT, 11 Goodwin St., London N4 3HQ.