Recommended Free Tools
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
NEC’s Livingston plant was not confirmed to have cut 800 jobs. In July 2001, a newspaper reported that up to 800 jobs were at risk; by December, Scotland’s enterprise minister told Parliament that about 600 jobs had been shed over the summer and NEC had decided to mothball the plant. The £80m investment cited in the July report was made in 2000, but the available dates do not establish an exact twelve-month interval between investment and the mothball decision.
What happened at NEC’s Livingston plant?
NEC had invested in Livingston for years before the 2001 restructuring. The Independent reported that the company had put more than £1bn into the plant since 1981. It also reported a £80m investment in 2000 to develop low-powered chips for mobile handsets. That investment did not prevent a later retrenchment as the chip market weakened.
In April 2001, NEC said it would stop producing DRAM memory at the Scottish site by March 2003 and shift output toward more profitable products. At that point, the company said redundancies were not planned. In July, amid a global chip-market slump and a restructuring, The Independent reported that up to 800 jobs were at risk. In December, Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Wendy Alexander told the Scottish Parliament that about 600 jobs had been shed during the summer and that NEC had decided to mothball the plant.
Timeline: investment, job risk and mothball decision
| Date | What was reported | Status and source |
|---|---|---|
| Since 1981 | NEC had invested more than £1bn in Livingston. | Historical investment figure reported by The Independent in 2001; not a yearly spending total. |
| 2000 | NEC invested £80m to develop low-powered chips for mobile handsets. | Investment reported by The Independent in 2001; the report does not specify a month or day. |
| April 2001 | NEC said it would halt Scottish DRAM production by March 2003 and shift production to more profitable products. | The July report says NEC then had no redundancies planned. |
| 11 July 2001 | Up to 800 jobs—about half the Livingston workforce—were reported at risk. | Potential losses, not a confirmed redundancy count. NEC had not confirmed redundancies, and the number had not been decided. |
| Summer 2001 | About 600 jobs were shed, according to Alexander’s later statement to Parliament. | Completed job losses as described by the minister on 20 December. |
| 20 December 2001 | Alexander told Parliament NEC had decided to mothball Livingston. | Official parliamentary account; NEC would review its position if market conditions improved. |
Were 800 workers actually laid off?
No. The 800 figure was an estimate of jobs at risk in The Independent’s 11 July 2001 report, not a final tally of redundancies. The report said NEC had not confirmed redundancies and that the number to be cut had not been decided. NEC official Daniel Mathieson was quoted as saying, “We can’t rule it out.”
#1 Best Overall
The later figure is different: on 20 December, Alexander told the Scottish Parliament that about 600 jobs had been shed during the summer. The two figures describe separate stages and have different evidentiary status: a July risk estimate and a minister’s December account of summer job losses.
Why did NEC mothball the plant?
Alexander told Parliament that market conditions had continued to deteriorate and that the summer downsizing and refocusing had not achieved the intended outcome for Livingston. She said officials had initially understood the restructuring to be necessary to safeguard the plant’s long-term future. Reporting NEC’s explanation, she said the decision was “in no way a reflection on the skills and commitment of the work force.”
The Independent’s July account also placed the restructuring in the context of a global chip-market slump and plans to move away from DRAM production toward more profitable products. The available accounts support a connection to worsening market conditions and an unsuccessful restructuring; they do not establish a more detailed financial or operational rationale.
Did the £80m investment precede the decision by exactly 12 months?
That interval is not established. The Independent dates the £80m investment only to 2000, while Alexander’s mothball account was delivered to Parliament on 20 December 2001. Without a month or day for the investment, the records do not show that the decision came precisely twelve months later.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Did NEC permanently close Livingston?
The December parliamentary account uses the word “mothball,” not a verified permanent-closure date. Alexander said NEC would review its position if market conditions improved. The cited record therefore supports saying that NEC decided to mothball the plant in December 2001; it does not, by itself, establish when or whether the site permanently closed.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Sources
- The Independent, 11 July 2001: “800 Scottish NEC jobs to go” — contemporaneous reporting on the investment, proposed DRAM changes and jobs at risk.
- Scottish Parliament, 20 December 2001: official report — Alexander’s statement and answers on summer job losses and the mothball decision.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
