When the results of the Labour’s long- awaited energy review were published in July this year, the nuclear industry was enthusiastic about the outcome.  Keith Parker, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association  (NIA), that represents 40,000 nuclear workers, “warmly welcomed” the review’s findings that nuclear would make a “significant contribution” to securing Britain's energy future.

“Nuclear power offers reliable, secure and affordable low carbon electricity for the benefit both of consumers and the environment,” said Parker. Note the words “secure”, “affordable” and “low carbon.” These are not off-the cuff remarks, but the continuation of a carefully crafted PR campaign to repackage nuclear from being seen as dirty, dangerous and expensive to one that is cheap, safe, secure and green. 

Parker had every reason to be pleased. After years in the political wilderness, nuclear was back in fashion. The pro-nuclear lobby had just pulled off one of the most successful public relations campaigns in recent years. So how had they done it? Over the last few months, we have tracked the industry's hidden persuaders and the tactics they have been using for a website called NuclearSpin . It is a project of SpinWatch that monitors corporate and government PR and spin.

A key tenet of our work has been accessing government documents through the Freedom of Information Act. Climate change is everywhere. The PR company Weber Shandwick wrote a briefing paper called “the Case for Nuclear Energy” for BNFL, the state-owned company that runs the controversial Sellafield site in Cumbria. The paper argues that nuclear power has become “essential” in combating carbon dioxide emissions, the main gas causing climate change.

Climate change features in a series of “Racecards” or key messages that the PR company, Strategic Awareness, developed for BNFL to promote nuclear. One is “CO2 Emissions = Climate change = Irreversible damage to our environment.” The racecards, whose task is to make the issue of energy, “personal” and “real,” also use another key selling point: energy security. “We, in the UK, are facing a shortfall in our supply of energy versus our demand for energy. Without nuclear we will be reliant on other countries for our energy supplies”.  

In terms of energy security, another Strategic Awareness document from October 2005, notes that “Without nuclear newbuild, renewables will not make a difference. Nuclear provides ‘always on’ electricity. Renewable energy is, by its nature, intermittent”.  This same document covers the safety angle too arguing that “everyday emissions into the air are safe”. There is more radiation “in a bottle of mineral water.”

Controversially the industry has got others to push its message. It has been employing the “third-party” public relations technique, which is where you put your words in the mouth of someone else who has more credibility than you. It has been used before by contentious industries such as oil, tobacco and pharmaceuticals to manipulate issues such as climate change and health. Now it is nuclear’s turn.

Philip Dewhurst is the Public Affairs Director of BNFL and also chair of the NIA. He is a key nuclear spin-doctor. Interviewed by PR Week, he let slip that BNFL was spreading its messages “via-third party opinion because the public would be suspicious if we started ramming pro-nuclear messages down their throats.”

Third parties targeted include independent researchers, academics, parliamentarians, the media and trade unions. For example, last summer, the NIA and BNFL approached key academics and independent researchers to attend a “Media Training Workshop” along with staff from BNFL and NIA, run by Weber Shandwick.  

BNFL has been paying travel and other expenses of the trade union lobby group Nuklear 21. The strategy is clever. Instead of the sinister nuclear lobby, you have workers fighting for jobs. But it has led to accusations that BNFL has created a “front” organization, whilst fellow trade unionists accuse Nuklear 21 of being “compromised”.

Other key groups have also been accused of having their independence questioned. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) was set up by the government to resolve the issue of nuclear waste. It is meant to be free of industry and government influence; however it is closely intertwined with a nuclear company, AMEC NNC that has a vested interest in both new nuclear build, as well as decommissioning.  

Our investigations found that AMEC NNC acted as CoRWM’s programme manager, as well as managing the discussion at its plenary meetings, organizing its public consultation and procurements procedures as well as its PR company, Luther Pendragon. In fact Luther Pendragon was not contracted to CoRWM, but to AMEC NNC.

When we put in a Freedom of Information request for all correspondence between CoRWM and Luther Pendragon, there was a discussion as to whether the information could be released.  In the end it was Luther Pendragon who chose what was released not government officials.  

With the publication of the energy review, nuclear cleared a significant hurdle. There is still a long way to go before the first new power station is built. Although the industry may have convinced key politicians that nuclear is the solution to our energy needs, the public may be harder to win over. Especially if they feel the debate is being manipulated by the nuclear industry and its spin doctors. 

A version of this article appeared in the October edition of Public Affairs News