The Public and the Quality of
the Debate
26. Engaging the public and enabling them along with
stakeholders to guide the development of policy is the key to
the success of the consultation process. Without such a commitment,
the whole process loses legitimacy and will founder in the same
way that previous efforts have failed.
27. The consultation document proposes "a major
programme of research and public discussion, using many techniques
- some traditional, some relatively new - to stimulate discussion,
and to involve as many people and groups as possible."[41]
Mr Meacher invited us to let him "just spell out the things
we are planning to do over the next three months; the consultation
ends, as you know, on 12 March. We are seeking to reconvene the
Citizens Panel from the 1999 Consensus Conference; we have commissioned
an omnibus survey of a representative sample of people; we have
commissioned a facilitated discussion with a group of people over
a weekend with a chance to question witnesses, BNFL, Nirex, the
NGOs (non-governmental organisations), and indeed in my view we
should do a lot of those all over the country if they work. We
are arranging a Radioactive Waste Seminar, which is targeted at
people who are delicately defined as 'previously unconsulted',
which I suspect is the great majority of the people in the country.
We are arranging meetings with specific non-nuclear groups, pensioners,
youth organisations, small campaign groups; and we have actually
even commissioned a schools pack, because it probably is future
generations who are going to bear the brunt of this perhaps more
than we are".[42]
28. We welcome this eclectic approach; we believe
that public involvement and engagement will be critical to the
success of the consultation. In her evidence to the Sub-committee,
Professor Judith Petts also welcomed the use of several consultation
methods, noting that "all experience of public participation
exercises shows that integration of multiple methods is essential
to ensure that the number of people who can contribute is extended
and that the full range of potential views on the subject is identified."[43]
There is however a danger that the public could see an ill- managed
attempt at public engagement merely as a way of gathering public
support for the Government's preferred policy. We recommend
that the Government come forward with a clear statement of the
purpose of its public engagement, and some indication of
how the outcome will be evaluated.
29. Earlier in this report we commented on the fact
that the parameters of the consultation process were not clearly
defined, because the values and principles thought by the Government
to underpin radioactive waste management policies have not been
spelt out. It has been argued that the public should play a part
in framing such basic values. The Nuclear Free Local Authorities
Steering Committee, for example, told us that "the (consultation)
paper fails to recognise that facilitating public involvement
in the framing of policy formulation is an essential first
step."[44] We agree.
The Government needs to elicit from the public consultation
and publicise the values and principles which should underpin
the process of developing a radioactive waste management policy.
If the public are properly consulted about such fundamental matters
at the outset, the outcome of the consultation process is much
more likely to attract public support.
30. Some suggestions of principles which might frame
the consultation process have already been made. The consultation
paper suggests some principles, such as the "need for an
open and fair assessment of options".[45]
RWMAC makes its own proposals,[46]
as does Nirex, which emphasises that "if any future project
is to succeed, transparency must be, and be seen to be, at the
heart of the project".[47]
Certain principles and characteristics are fundamental to the
consultation process. These include openness and transparency,
equity, public acceptability and legitimacy.
31. The Government must also make clear how much
control of the policy outcome will be given to the public. There
is potential for much scepticism about 'another consultation'.
This will only be overcome if a guarantee is given that the public
have some degree of real influence over the outcome. Public engagement
should be regarded as an aid to democracy rather than a substitute
for it. The consultation process should therefore be an opportunity
for democratic participation through existing representative bodies
at national and local levels. The Centre for Reform suggested
that "there should be substantial new powers for a Parliamentary
Select Committee with specific oversight of the Commission, and
a remit to monitor the entire nuclear industry".[48]
Professor Judith Petts, opposed that proposal, saying that "the
further you go into formalising new commissions and bodies, the
further away from the public you actually get."[49]
When asked whether Parliament should be consulted, Mr Meacher
replied that "it would be very helpful to have a debate in
Parliament. I certainly would be very keen for MPs to take a lead
in developing this debate."[50]
We believe that Parliament, having considered the advice of
the overseeing body, should decide the elements of national policy
including, most crucially, the preferred option for long term
management of radioactive wastes.
32. Nirex told us that "we judge at the moment...that
we could dispose of the intermediate level wastes that we are
responsible for...in about 30 per cent of the deep geology of
the United Kingdom".[51]
In addition to a national public debate, the participation of
local communities which may be asked to host such a storage facility
is critical. In some other countries local communities may receive
compensation for hosting a facility and incentives may be offered
to encourage volunteers. In Finland and Sweden, local communities
may have a right of veto over proposals. Such overseas experience
should be considered when developing the UK's policy.
33. At some point in the process, the issue of the
siting of a prospective waste management facility will have to
be explicitly considered. There is a timing problem. On the one
hand, if siting issues are deferred, it may be relatively easy
to engage the public in debate and to reach a consensus on a management
option, but it may subsequently prove very difficult to achieve
agreement on siting. On the other hand, an early introduction
of siting issues may distract from the debate on overall strategy
and, at worst, result in conflict and political impasse, as has
occurred previously. We consider a better approach would be to
introduce the siting issues gradually, in stages, moving from
consideration of siting principles (compensation, incentives,
veto etc.), to a consideration of broad areas of search and eventually
to specific sites. In this way the ground rules for siting could
be established using the principle of equity. However, once this
process has begun it is vital that the Government is robust in
seeing it through to its conclusion. Any loss of will to reach
a final decision, against what could be a rising tide of controversy,
would fundamentally undermine a carefully structured exercise
in consultation. Those likely to be most immediately affected
would be consulted at a relatively early stage before any specific
siting decisions were made. We urge the Government to make
a decision as early as is practicable in the consultation process
as to the stage at which local communities likely to be asked
to host a storage or disposal facility will be identified, and
subsequently involved in the decision-making process. It should
also be determined in advance whether local communities, however
defined, will be given the power of veto over hosting such a facility,
and whether they will be provided with benefits for doing so.
34. We agree with Professor Curtis' comment in evidence
that compensation raises no ethical problems[52].
Incentives might however be construed as bribes. As the Minister
commented, "if you have a system of sweeteners, you are compromising
the rights of future generations in order to satisfy the present
one."[53] Incentives
might be used to seek out volunteers. Great care must be taken
to ensure the process is even-handed and does not produce sub-optimal
siting solutions. There is also a major political issue to be
addressed here. It is possible to argue that a repository for
radioactive waste is a unique case, and that the community accepting
it is acting in the national interest. It is however also easy
to imagine the same argument being used for other planning issues
such as airports, defence installations, incinerators and wind
farms. The Government will need to have a firm policy in place
if it decides to consider the use of compensation. As to the use
of a veto, careful consideration is needed as to when and in what
circumstances it might be applied and whether it could be overridden.
All these issues are complex and should be the subject of debate
during the consultation process
Identification of Sites
35. We considered the question of whether the many
sites considered by Nirex during the late 1970s and 1980s should
be revealed. Various views were expressed during the inquiry.
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities wrote "The Government
should publish Nirex's previous 'long' and 'short lists' of potential
sites. These potentially affected communities should be invited
to participate in Front End Consultation events and subsequent
stages of consultation".[54]
The Minister, when asked if he thought it would be useful for
the original list to be made public, replied "No, I do not.
I really do think it would be counter-productive".[55]
Mr Chris Murray of Nirex said "we ourselves have a debate
internally about this whole question of (revealing) the 12 sites,
because, given that we foresee that there will be a completely
new selection process...then there is a whole set of issues around
how you would choose that site".[56]
Undoubtedly such revelation would encourage participation in debate
by those potentially affected and it would signal an open and
transparent process. However, we are mindful that these sites
were considered some time ago in very different circumstances
and using different siting criteria from those which might be
employed today. On balance, we think the revelation of these sites
would prove to be a distraction. If siting questions, both generic
and specific, are introduced at appropriate stages during the
process, it should not be necessary to identify a range of specific
possible sites until relatively late in the process. However,
work should be undertaken now on how best to deal with the consequences
of eventually revealing possible sites if the whole exercise is
not to be sunk by local opposition.
Planning
36. Changes are currently being proposed in the planning
process, especially those concerning major infrastructure projects[57],
of which a radioactive waste facility would clearly be one. The
Government published its green paper "Planning; Delivering
a Fundamental Change"[58]
and "New Parliamentary Procedures for processing major infrastructure
projects"[59] in
December 2001. Paragraph 10 of the latter document says "We
propose that the Secretary of State should have discretionary
power to decide that a major infrastructure project was one to
which the new Parliamentary procedures applied." Paragraph
12 states "Examples of major infrastructure projects to which
the new procedures could apply include new airports and runways,
ports, trunk roads, rail schemes power stations, radioactive waste
disposal and other forms of infrastructure, such as new reservoirs."
Paragraph 19 reads: "Parliament would consider the principle
of, the need for and location of a project. The precise terms
on which Parliament's approval was sought would be determined
by the Secretary of State case-by-case on the basis of the specific
proposals concerned. The terms of the approval sought would be
included in a draft affirmative Order that would be debated in
both Houses."
37. Referring to these changes, Mr Meacher said "What
the Planning Green Paper is trying to do is to speed up and streamline
the planning process over relatively more minor matters - small
housing developments, small scale developments in localities.
If it is a major development, and this of course is a very major
development, there is no question whatever that there would have
to be public inquiries. It would be impossible to get agreement
for a particular management option selected at a particular site
without there being an opportunity for everyone locally involved
to have a say. The Planning Green Paper is not designed to prevent
in any way public discussion but to streamline it where that can
be done."[60]
38. We recommend that the issues of siting a potential
radioactive waste facility should be debated as part of the consultation
process in stages moving from generic issues to specific siting
questions; that among the generic issues to be debated and decided
should be compensation, incentives, volunteerism and vetoes; that
the devolved administrations and local authorities should be fully
involved in the decision-making process; and that the planning
process should not be changed in any way that would impede the
process of public debate and staged policy formulation which is
necessary for effective decision-making.
33 Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Proposals for
developing a policy for managing solid radioactive waste in the
UK, DEFRA, September 2001, Paras 6.1-6.2. Back
34
Memorandum submitted by RWMAC, Ev 69, para 2.10. Back
35
Memorandum submitted by the Nuclear Free Local Authorities Steering
Committee, Ev 94 (apps). Back
36
Evidence taken on 26 November 2001, Ev 6, Q.11. Back
37
Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Proposals for developing a
policy for managing solid radioactive waste in the UK, DEFRA,
September 2001, Paras 6.13-6.16. Back
38
Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Proposals for developing a
policy for managing solid radioactive waste in the UK, DEFRA and
the devolved administrations, September 2001, p.51, Box 10. Back
39
Further Memorandum submitted by Nirex, Ev 12. Back
40
Memorandum submitted by Nirex, Ev 2. Back
41
Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Proposals for developing a
policy for managing solid radioactive waste in the UK, DEFRA,
September 2001, Executive Summary p.7. Back
42
Evidence taken on 17 December 2001, Ev 84, Q.267. Back
43
Memorandum submitted by Professor Judith Petts, Ev 58, para 5. Back
44
Memorandum submitted by the Nuclear Free Local Authorities Steering
Committee, Ev 93 (apps). Back
45
Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Proposals for developing a
policy for managing solid radioactive waste in the UK, DEFRA,
September 2001, Executive Summary p.10. Back
46
RWMAC Advice to Ministers on the Process for Formulation of Future
Policy forthe Long-Term Management of UK Solid Radioactive Waste,
DEFRA 2001. Back
47
Memorandum submitted by Nirex, Ev 2. Back
48
The Nuclear Age: Cleaning Up the Mess, Centre for Reform,
p.5, para 1.5. Back
49
Evidence taken on 3 December 2001, Ev 64, Q.211. Back
50
Evidence taken on 17 December 2001, Ev 89, Q.293. Back
51
Evidence taken on 26 November 2001, Ev 8, Q.24. Back
52
Evidence taken on 17 December 2001, Ev 78, Q.246. Back
53
Evidence taken on 17 December 2001, Ev 85, Q.275. Back
54
Memorandum submitted by the Nuclear Free Local Authorities Steering
Committee, Ev 95 (apps). Back
55
Evidence taken on 17 December 2001, Ev 87, Q.281. Back
56
Evidence taken on 26 November 2001, Ev 8, Q.18. Back
57
Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions Planning
Green Paper Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change, Chapter
6. Back
58
Planning Green Paper, Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change,
DTLR, December 2001. Back
59
Planning Consultation Paper, New Parliamentary Procedures for
Processing Major Infrastructure Projects, DTLR, December 2001. Back
60
Evidence taken on 17 December 2001 Ev 87, Q.280. Back
