Public and Commercial Services Union

November 2009 update:

On 11 November the government announced 10 suitable sites for the next generation of nuclear power plants. One, at Kirkstanton in Cumbria, will mean one of the oldest and most efficient windfarms in Britain will be dismantled to make way for the nuclear plant.

The energy and climate secretary, Ed Miliband, said nuclear power was essential to combat climate change and to ensure energy security and described it as a "proven, reliable source of low carbon energy". He said the first new plants could be up and running by 2018. See the Guardian website for the full story.

In response Greenpeace said: "Miliband can name as many sites as he likes for new nuclear power stations, but the fact remains that the figures simply don't add up.

"Even the Thatcher government realised this. It was exactly 20 years ago to the day that they pulled nuclear plants from the energy privatisation scheme when they realised that nuclear power was not an attractive investment for private companies. And it still isn't.

"Our lawyers will be examining this announcement very closely. You can't justify building more nuclear power stations when there is no solution to radioactive waste and when international regulators are saying there are huge uncertainties surrounding the basic safety of new reactor designs." See the Greenpeace website for the full press release.

The Energy Challenge

In 2006 we supported Greenpeace in a judicial review of the government’s energy review, The Energy Challenge, on the grounds of failing to consult properly on plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations.

In a resounding victory Greenpeace won the case.

No future in nuclear

After losing the High Court challenge the government published a second consultation, The Future of Nuclear Power, in May 2007.
In September, Greenpeace along with Friends of the Earth, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), CND and other members of the Green Alliance pulled out of this consultation alleging that it was inaccurate, biased and misleading - an attempt "to spin us into accepting new nuclear power plants."

Greenpeace takes up the challenge

Greenpeace believes the consultation was fixed by the market research company carrying it out and lodged an offical complaint with the Market Standards Research Board (MRSB).

Greenpeace claimed the company broke its industry's own code of conduct by designing questions and materials that were deliberately misleading and factually inaccurate.

PCS says no to nuclear

PCS supported Greenpeace in taking this action. PCS assistant general secretary Chris Baugh said:

"The only conclusion we can draw is that the government‘s only concern is pandering to the multi-million pound nuclear lobby and ensuring they meet the timescales of the private companies that stand to benefit from contracts to build new nuclear power stations.”
People who attended a series of consultation events in September 2007 complained about their biased nature.

Government bias in favour of nuclear

One said she left the event furious about "the government's blatant marketing of nuclear power". For example, Greenpeace have said the fact that a new generation of nuclear reactors could cut our carbon emissions by only 4 per cent was buried at the back of a huge pile of information that participants had to digest on the day.

On 19 September 2007 Channel 4 News ran a feature in which it reported that twenty senior academics will be writing to the government because they believe the process was "deliberately skewed" and that participants were "misled".

In January 2008 PCS condemned the government's decision to give the go ahead for more nuclear power stations. Instead we believe there should be increased investment in clean, renewable technologies that would create more green collar jobs.

MRSB verdict

In October 2008 the Marketing Research Standards Board upheld Greenpeace's complaint that a second public consultation on nuclear power was fixed.

The board found that market research company Opinion Leader Research breached a code of conduct because information was "inaccurately or misleadingly presented, or was imbalanced".

There's more information on the Greenpeace website.