THE new coalition government has inherited many huge and difficult problems from previous administrations of which the storage of nuclear waste is one. The last government, in  2008, produced a White Paper in which they offered,  what they believe is,  a solution to the nuclear waste  problem. That is, to induce local authorities around the country to store this material. The Forest of Dean District Council was in fact approached by Defra but declined to agree to the proposals set out in the White Paper.

This 2008 proposal may still be a consideration of current government policy. It is difficult to know for sure as nuclear issues are treated with a degree of secrecy  and  with great sensitivity  by governments. Our local Member of Parliament, Mark Harper, now in a cabinet position as a Parliamentary Secretary  to the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg MP,  probably knows the answer to this question but that does not necessarily mean that Mr Harper  would wish to talk openly about it.

On November 9, I sent the following email to Mr Harper: "I have listened to your comments on the television this evening regarding the selling off of the Forest of Dean and am not convinced by your argument that this would benefit the Forest.

It sounds very much like a typical done political deal behind closed doors without any open and democratic consultation with the voters. There is an underlying indication here of politically expedient vandalism rather than of benefit. It looks very much like the same attitude past governments have applied to the nuclear test veterans and widows. In many ways similar to the proposed act of environmental vandalism, by the previous administration, two years ago to attempt to store nuclear waste in the Forest of Dean.

 Experience tells me that politicians cannot be trusted to act in favour of protecting the environment. So how can you be trusted to protect the unique environment of the Forest of Dean ?

The Forest of Dean has a unique heritage: free mining, sheep badgering and the verderers' court etc. You will need to tread very carefully here, with open and proper consultation, unlike that afforded to the nuclear test veterans, or you may very well suffer the consequences at the next general election.

I am very busy with the nuclear veterans and widows at the moment but will be writing to local newspapers on this matter."

A meaningful reponse to the above is not expected.  Mr Harper often says much,  but reveals very  little.

In local newspapers Mr Harper is recently quoted as saying the new approach to Forest management "is about the State stepping back to allow ordinary people to take control of their local environment and make decisions about how it is managed." Firstly, you don't mend something that has worked for years unless it is broken. The Forestry Commission is managing the Forest well, so why attempt to take this management away? Secondly, Mr Harper's statement could be both fatuous and disingenuous. It may be an attempt to hide the true agenda of government interest in the Forest of Dean's sell off , as shown below.. .

Alarm bells should be loudly ringing. Lord Taylor, who introduced the Bill in the House of Lords, is a government spokesman for the Department of Energy. This is a department responsible for  the building of more nuclear power stations which, besides generating electricity, is crucial to the need to produce the fissionable materials to make the new nuclear warheads needed for the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. This is a fact of nuclear life, as shown by the worry and concern of our own government when any other nation sets up a nuclear industry, 'for the purpose of generating electricity'. They are inevitably accused of not doing so to generate electricity but primarily to get the high grade materials needed to make nuclear weapons, Iran being a recent  example of this dilemma.

What has all this got to do with the Forest of Dean?  Probably nothing, but possibly a lot. With the unused coal mines the Forest, in the eyes of government planners, is probably perceived to have excellent potential to store nuclear waste. After all, an approach was made to do just that in 2008.

The nuclear waste from an expanding nuclear reactor programme will pose additional storage problems from the already overburdened nuclear waste storage facility at the huge Sellafield nuclear complex in Cumbria which explains why the government  sought, in 2008,  to disperse  the expected additional nuclear waste elsewhere and everywhere.

Caroline Spelman, Environment Secretary, in support of the Bill, told Parliament recently: "It is quite right...to consider giving the community who live nearest to the Forest the opportunity to own it, as that community and the society are most likely to give it the best protection." Her political support of the Bill should be treated with some caution however. Michael Meacher MP, former Environment Minister in the Blair government, was sacked in 2003 for setting up a scientific committee to examine the danger to the public from radiation near to  nuclear establishments. One would assume in a democracy it is the job of the Environment Minister to protect the environment. This does not, however, appear to be the case where nuclear industry needs are concerned.

In June 2008,  the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs ( Defra) issued a government White Paper which outlined local authorities who 'volunteer' to store nuclear waste will be paid incentives  from a £1 billion fund of taxpayers money if agreeing to store radioactive waste locally. The sum of money involved in this proposal is shocking when compared to the proposed saving to the exchequer of the annual 'mere £10 million', quoted by Baroness Jan Royall of Blaisdon, to support the Forestry Commission's management of the Forest...

In June 2008, I  contacted Tim Perrin, CEO of the Forest of Dean District Council about the Defra White Paper. Tim thanked me for sending a 10 page report on the subject and confirmed that Defra had indeed approached the council to store nuclear waste in the Forest. He later confirmed the council had voted on and had rejected Defra's offer.

A great deal of nuclear waste remains a lethal hazard for future generations for a period in excess of 24,000 years. The CVFI's report said it was folly for this to be dispersed around the country it should be confined to the holding facility at Sellafield where it can be properly monitored over the years and protected from access by terrorist organisations, besides which,  if the storage containers leak into the water supply it would be an environmental disaster..

 Alan Robertson (Letters page of the Review November 12) asks the question: "Is Mark naive?". The answer is a resounding 'No'. The Forest's MP is far from naive but I believe he mistakenly thinks  his constituents are naive and ill informed  In fact, far from being naive, as a Shadow Minsiter for Veterans, Mr Harper was well aware of the science of radiation damage to health from inhaled or ingested radioactive dust from briefing given to him by officials in the MoD. On March 1, 2007,   confirming his understanding on the type of radioactive isotopes found in nuclear weapons fall out  Mr Harper wrote that: "If ingested however, alpha particles ionise particles (cells) in bodily tissue harming the body and destroying internal organs." An admission, of course, that did not change his denial, to this day, that this type of radiation had anything to do with the ill health, disabilities and premature deaths of nuclear veterans and the genetic damage passed to their children and grandchildren.

Nigel Costley writes also: "At some point  Mark is going to have to choose between his parliamentary career and his constituents on this issue."  Mr Harper's track record in dealings with him since 2002 show it is unlikely he  will back his constituents view in favour of enforcing government policy. He is a career politician who follows policy and therefore is not destined to a life sat on the back benches as a useful and incisive questioner of government policy. His support for the  Iraq war is a good example. Good for him, but proving, as many warned at the time, bad for us.

When Mr Harper  was made Shadow Minister for Veterans in the mid 2000s, I wrote to him (as co-founder of the Combined  Veterans' Forum International) and contacted him personally to ask for his support for getting a settlement of the long running  nuclear veterans issue. His response was, and remains to this day: "The standard practice of government in these matters is to settle them  through litigation ." In other words the health damage done by radiation to servicemen, or indeed chemical or biological weapon toxins, the so called legacy health issues that sometimes take years too manifest,  are treated the same as industrial injury claims similar to the coal miners or those who have inhaled asbestos etc. This confirmed the opinion of the CVFI's legal advisor, international nuclear advocate and attorney at law, Ian Anderson, based in New York, who emailed: "The rules of the military – industrial nuclear game is the suppression of information and the manipulation of reports. In many ways the tactics of the UK government are no different from those of corporations sued for product damage."

Four years or so ago, when the nuclear veterans and widows applied to the government for legal aid to launch the current and successful Atomic Veterans Claimant Group litigation all legal aid was denied to us by the government. Our gallant servicemen and their families are treated with contempt whilst the government panders to people like Abu Hamza and others who have cost the country millions in legal aid which is granted to them to fight against extradition from a country they hate.  In direct contrast loyal servicemen who did their duty during the cold war are politically excluded from the military covenant to receive any duty of care and are denied any legal aid. This then, is the policy Mr Harper has fully supported from being a Shadow  Minister for Veterans until this day. That is, to be an enforcer of policy against the interests of veterans.

In early 2007 Mr Harper attended a consultative meeting in the constituency to debate the government's policy decision to renew the Trident nuclear deterrent system. I was unable to attend this meeting because I was abroad at the time. On return, I found the meeting had  produced an overwhelming vote from constituents against Trident renewal. Despite this, Mr Harper voted for the Trident renewal Bill to be passed into law. I wrote to him on this matter  and he replied on March 5, 2007: "I can assure you that we have taken this decision from an independent and rational standpoint. I enclose a copy of an excellent article written by my colleague Dr Julian Lewis MP on this matter." This was hardly a document written from an 'independent and rational standpoint' because Dr Lewis at that time was a Conservative Party Whip and also, like Mr Harper, a Shadow Defence Minister.

Since the General Election I have naively failed to appreciate  the new Coalition Government could possibly also be prepared to spend a staggering £1 billion of taxpayers money on a policy to bribe councils to store nuclear waste. However, if the Government is still following this policy,  the 'mere £10 milllion' paid by Government annually to support the Forestry Commission will be shown to be very tiny drop in the ocean.

In the past I have made an effort not to write locally about the plight of nuclear veterans and widows which of course has nothing to do with the Forest.  However, my wife was born in the Forest, we have lived here all our married life since 1975 and I have grown to love this unique and glorious land between the two rivers. It is therefore not possible for me to ignore and say nothing about what could possibly happen to the Forest of Dean we all love.

The way ahead is clear. As we veterans have found, we have litigation successfull in process for a group of over 1000 nuclear veteans and widows against the Ministry of Defence, achieved against against all odds. We veterans have only progressed against the Government because we have conducted our campaign  under a banner of 'strength in unity' by exchanging information between veterans here, in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere to get to the truth. Working  together is the key. Do not allow the Forest of Dean to fall under government or private control. Fight this Bill  to get  rid of the Forestry Commission.

We nuclear veterans and widows have been labelled over past decades, by various Defence Ministers, that our quest for truth and justice is  'against the national interest'.  Fifty years after irradiation this is spin and nonsense and is viewed as water off a duck's back. Have no doubts,  once the Government or a private company has taken control of the land from the Forestry Commission they will do as they wish with it or are paid to do with it and at some point they may simply say, with Ministerial and legal backing: "If you refuse to allow nuclear waste to be buried in your local authority you will be acting against the national interest". Or some equally politically expedient non-sense.

This is sent for publication and circulation so that councillors, others with local political influence and local protest groups are fully aware that if the 2008 Defra White Paper has become an accepted  policy of the new Coalition Government then this could be a sinster underlying motive for scrapping the Forest Commission and selling off the Forest. In which case it is to be hoped that any proposal to store nuclear waste in the Forest of Dean will be rejected, as it was in 2008.

– Dennis Hayden.