IN THE wake of Chernobyl, Kinnock and Cunningham have taken pains to point out that they have no intention of following party policy on nuclear power. In fact they support the development of that FER however have produced a paper for the party's national executive which takes up the positions of last year's conference. they say, 'believe that it is important that the public should be told the real position' and they call on the Labour NEC to set up a working party to prepare a statement for this year's conference. in full below their paper to the NEC.
THIS paper argues that the Chernobvi disaster has now made it very urgent for the NEC to follow up the policy agreed at the 1985 annual Come ence calling for all nuclear to be phased out when the Labour government takes office after the next election, and to spell = will be done.
Members will recall that the resolution on fuel policy which was carried by 3,902,000 votes to 2,408,000 was absolute. ly specific in its reference nuclear power, as the text of the resolution set out below shows.
All nuclear science and technology originally was motivated by the desire to produce atomic weapons, the effort American British scienusis. and the moner that went into it during the war, was for that purpose.
After the war the US legislated to stop the excha Britain information, found itself cut off from its old partners.
After Mr Alllee nac decided that Britain needed an atom bomb, Ine work to produce had US to ne gone woul cooperation, quired the building of a reactor to produce the warheads, a task that was undertaken at in a great hurry, and at a industry in Britain. TONY BENN and ERIC HEF'The authors of the paper,' We reproduce time when little was known about the hazards involved.
Windscale Is still
military installation though, while the UK continues to produce nuclear weapons, it will be needed for then purpose the mitment the party coce down our nuclear weapons programme will remove its reason for ex. istence. Moreover much of the high cost of research development of all nuclear technology is still paid for out of the defence budget, and when British nuclear weapons decommissioned all these tos electricily consumer, electricity consumer, radically altering the economic basis for nuclear power important uncerstand that, despite all the talk about Atoms for Peace, CIVIl nuclear power is still seen primari y as a source for weapon. grade plutonium, and the whole programme provides a 'safe' cover for nuclear weapons. One of clearest examples ot this has come to light receniiv when the govern was forced to admit - including all the years when Labour was in power - - plutonium from our own civil power stations was going to the purposes. This also explains why so many third world Contres have wanted to build nuclear power LOUS. first step towards the production of their own Despite all the assurabout the relative cheapness OI nuclear compared coal, the published figures often did not compare like WILl пке, TOI example on the costs of R and D see doover unic custs of decommissioning old nuclear which the French now admit ELI. H1LU hundreds of millions of pounds per station, and the cost of storinhich no safe meted has nuclear waste, yet been found. Even allowing for this the Department of Energy had to admit that there was no significant difference between the generating costs of a new coal or nuclear base-load station of the same size Although there hazards in all energy industries the scale, duration and are or ne TICKC with nuclear power are in a of their own, cannot be compared deaths or injuiries in dinary industrial cidents. This Darl because of the magnitude of the nuclear accidents that could occur, in part because the consequential viroment, which can cross spread world-wide also because of the legacy risks for future not be sure they could han« The Chernobyl disaster underlines all these facts and we must not be put off by the arguments that are now being used to reassure the British people While it is essential that all governments be open about nuclear matters the charges that the USSR is especially secretive and incompetent wholly false. The USSR has always been widely respected for the skill of its nuclear scientists and, at the top academic level, there has always been the cooperation between Soviet, American, British and French atomic experts, who have a high regared for each other's abilities.
In particular the USSR has been the most meticulous nation in the efforts it has made to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries, which cannot be said for some of the nuclear 'salesmen' the West. The pursuit of that line of anti-Soviet argument dictated by cold war factors that. completely contemptible, part of the cover-up by the British government itself to conceal the true facts of the nuclear danger tne brusn people 1985 fuel policy resolution: plants because of:
Mb) the obvious power plant.
security al power stations.
ton trequently caused The 'it could not happen here' argument wholly untrue as we have had some major accidents, serious leakages, and some misses too, Windscale and Bradwell, quite apart the ac. cidents the USA. pretend that we are exempt null luc askss i ceceive people and human error as well as a design faults could happen anywhere 'In the wes open about nuclear matters' is wholly untrue too, since there have been endless cover-ups by the nuclear authorities in London, Washington Paris, which can be easily documented In particular, the CIA and the AEA collaborated in con tron British sinisters the 195 Soviet sIon reprocessing Khystem, and the the theft OT AN ORSO uranium from Euratom was similarly withheld For all these, and many other reasons the decisior This conference views with abhorrence and anxiety the present exploitation and abuse of the environment, anc in particular the potentially catastrophic effects upon the environment of the continued use of nuclear power. 1 Conference therefore calls for a halt to the nuclear programme and a phasing out of all existing a) the links between the civil nuclear industry and the Generating Board and the nuclear industry's claim that can estimate the cost of decommissioning a nuclear c) the threat to civil liberties posed by maintaining d) the dangers of disposal of nuclear waste and the polluconstitutes a long-term health danger through radiation (from generation, transportation and re-processing) to those who work in the industry taken at the 1985 conference was the correct one, and public opinion is now moving rapidly towards unle VIeW and will expect the Labour Partv to have clear policy statement in its manifesto at the time of ahd nixt menst celer all must cover aspects of the matter.
We therefore recommend to the NEC that we should reaffirm our support TOl come eld decision, set up working party immediatedetailed to prepare more policy for this year's conference, designed to the SCCure following objectives when Labour reluns to power 1 The cancellation of the order for PWR Sizewell 2 The abandonment of the plans for a new reprocess3 The discontinuance of the reprocessing work al Sellafield, and the redirection of all work at that and of future generations. 2 Conference calls upon the Labour opposition and the next Labour government to formulate and implement a) the funding of measures for the de-sulphurisation of coal to solve une aco rain prodiem. b) the funding of research into the provision of alter native energy forms ie hydro-electricity, wind power etc; c) the restoration of the research grant from the existin £5 million to its previous £25 million to the Coal Board for research into producing liquid fuel from coal d) a national programme of energy saving; e) the re-cycling of waste and pollution control: f) research into safer means of nuclear waste disposal g) the stopping of the export of all plutonium abroad; h) the setting up of policy working groups (at all levels) o car out tuese Dollets 3 Conference calls upon the Labour opposition to begin discussion with management and unions in the nuclear power and energy supply industries to plan for and proSocialist Action 23 May 1986