BNFL, the controversial nuclear company, is at the heart of the multi-million pound PR and lobbying campaign for new nuclear power stations in the UK. Yet the publicly-owned company refuses to divulge important details of how it seeks to manipulate public opinion and governmental support. By Chris Grimshaw.

Central to the campaign has been the Nuclear Industry Association[1], the trade asociation for the UK's nuclear industry representing 123 companies. With the British Nuclear Energy Society, and other partners in the public relations business, it has conducted a behind the scenes campaign cultivating sympathetic journalists (press, television and radio) and politicians. As with most modern public relations campaigns, the aim is to build a coalition of interested organisations largely out of the public eye in order to stay 'under the radar' of anti-nuclear forces. Influence has been built informally through: careful intelligence gathering, favoured access to off-the-record briefings, long lunches, drinks and dinners.

The NIA's accounts show that it has a turnover (from members subscriptions and donations) of slightly over £1m per year[2], more than half (over £600,000) is supplied by BNFL: £200k in the form of its own subscription; over £200k on ad hoc grants for NIA activities; and another £200k which it generously supplies on behalf of Foratom[3], a nuclear industry group representing many highly profitable European nuclear companies such as EdF, E.ON, and RWE. BNFL's Group Corporate Affairs Director (Head of PR), Philip Dewhurst is also the Chairman of the NIA.

BNFL also bankrolls Supporters of Nuclear Energy (SONE) a pro-nuclear campaign fronted by the rabidly anti-environmental Sir Bernard Ingham[4] who also campaigns against wind power. In 2004/5 BNFL channeled at least £21k through the NIA to SONE. BNFL documents released under Freedom of Information (FoI) rules show that Ingham was asked by the NIA to lobby Digby Jones, head of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), in April 2005. Jones 'put forward a number of ideas as to how to put the pressure on the government to take decisive steps, [including] a direct approach by himself to the Prime Minister' as well as enlisting the support of the Energy Intensive Users Group, a single issue coalition of big UK industrial groups. It is perhaps no coincidence that coincidence that Blair announced his enthusiasm for nuclear at the CBI's annual dinner in May 2006. SONE claims to want 'to promote an informed debate' about nuclear power. A very different attitude was expressed by one SONE member, Dr David Fishlock, in evidence to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee investigation of underground nuclear storage in 1999: 'the public should not be expected to have an opinion. There are many things for which quite legitimately the public looks to government to make up the mind of 56 million people. Nuclear energy is a matter that is largely in government hands and is a matter for government decision'.

Corporate Watch has made extensive inquiries to BNFL under FoI rules, trying to find out how this public relations campaign has been conducted. Whilst we have extracted some illuminating insights from them BNFL has been continually obstructive to the requests, breaching both the spirit and the letter of the Freedom of Information Act, dragging its heels continually over requests, and seeking to give as little information as possible. Whilst we know that BNFL spent around £11m in the five years up to 2005 it refuses to give a break-down for how this is spent, how much it pays Weber Shandwick, and the other PR agencies it employs, and has refused to divulge crucial details of its agencies' activities. Several documents requested BNFL claimed to have lost and when we phoned on 7th July 2005 to try to find out what was going on with an FoI request filed in early January, the spokeswoman tried to suggest that the tragic bombings in London that day were holding up the process. In an absurd conflict of interests, final control of FoI requests is retained by Philip Dewhurst, BNFL's head of PR.

We did learn however that Weber Shandwick is employed to monitor relevant Parliamentary processes, for instance the deliberations of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, whose Sixth Report (published in March 2006) throughly refutes the arguments for new nuclear power. After taking evidence from over 41 expert witnesses from industry, NGOs, government and science, the cross party committee reached some very clear conclusions: that the 'history of the nuclear industry gives little confidence about the timescales and costs of new build'; that 'nuclear can do nothing to fill the need for... new generating capacity... by 2016, as it simply could not be built in time'; that 'uranium mines can only supply just over half the current demand for uranium, and the situation is likely to become more acute'; whilst 'nuclear power can justifiably be regarded as a low-carbon source of electricity... the level of emissions associated with nuclear might increase significantly as lower grades of ore are used'; and that 'no country in the world has yet solved the problems of long-term disposal of high-level waste. The current work being conducted by CoRWM (the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management) will not be sufficient to address the issue.' Unsurprisingly its conclusions received very little coverage in the national press. Meanwhile the British public continues to pay to be covertly propagandised with the message that nuclear will keep the lights on and save us from global warming.

References
[1] www.niauk.org
[2] FAME database
[3] from BNFL documents obtained by Freedom of Information requests
[4] former press secretary to Margaret Thatcher, lobbyist for BNFL, director of PR multinational Hill & Knowlton, and journalist.