Appendix: Update on recommendations
Follow-up to recommendations made by the Environment,
Food And Rural Affairs Committee since 2001
We asked Defra to provide an update on a number of
recommendations that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
had made during Session 2001-02 and Session 2002-03. The Committee
identified a number of recommendations that the Government had
accepted and on which it had promised action.
The Committee's original recommendations and the
Government's response appear in italicised text and our
follow-up questions appear in bold italicised type.
Defra's updates appear in normal type.
Second Report from the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs Committee
The Countryside Agency (HC 386)
Session 2001-02
Published 13 February 2002
Government Reply:
Fifth Special Report (HC 829)
Session 2001-02
Published 14 May 2002
Recommendation: We therefore recommend that the
Agency make its highest priority to define what is a "rural"
area, and seek to ensure that other Departments and Agencies and
other public bodies adopt the same definition. Within that overall
definition the Agency should recognize the need to categorise
different types of rural areas to reflect the different pressures
they face. Final definitions should be available by Summer 2002.
Response: In the Agency's last submission to the
Committee it expressed frustration at the lack of progress in
this area. Since then the Agency and Defra have secured agreement
with the Office of National Statistics and Department of Transport
Local Government and the Regions colleagues on the need for a
revised interim definition, followed by a second phase of work
to create a final set of definitions based on a more sophisticated
approach.
The Agency has already produced and tested an
interim approach which deals with the current wellknown
anomalies and now has agreement from Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, Department of Transport, Local Government
and the Regions and the Office for National Statistics on its
immediate adoption. Talks are also underway to initiate the second
phase of work, which, due to the complexity of the task, has a
planned completion date of early 2003.
What progress has been made in producing a
definition of 'rural'?
A project to develop a standard basis for describing
urban/rural is nearing completion. The project is co-sponsored
by the Office for National Statistics, the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,
the Countryside Agency and the Welsh Assembly Government.
It has been necessary to wait for the 2001 settlement
boundaries and Census Output Area boundaries to be produced and
released before the proposed definition could be finalised. However,
by undertaking preceding preparatory work we plan to consult interested
parties in November or early December.
The definition offers a standard classification to
allow statistical analysis on an urban / rural basis at a number
of geographical levels. These areas include Census Output Areas,
wards and unitary/local authorities. This will allow application
of the definition at a geographical level that is consistent with
the data source, for example where the risk of disclosure prevents
the use of very small areas.
Along with the standard statistical classification,
the project will deliver a flexible, but structured framework
that will allow targeting, monitoring and evaluation of specific
policies and programmes in urban and rural areas.
Stakeholders from across central, regional and local
government, academia, and the private and voluntary sectors are
being invited to contribute to the consultation.
We are also holding discussions with the organisations
responsible for key data sets to make sure that, once finalised,
the definition is quickly and widely adopted. DA(RR) has lent
its support to this process.
* * *
Third Report from the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs Committee
Radioactive Waste: The Government's Consultation
Process (HC 407)
Session 2001-02
Published 13 February 2002
Government Reply:
Seventh Special Report (HC 1221)
Session 2001-02
Published 24 October 2002
Recommendation: We recommend that in order to
ensure that the roles performed by the various institutions involved
continue to be as clear as possible, a decision be taken quickly
about the future role of Nirex, about future responsibility for
the functions it currently performs and that it or its successor
should be independent of other nuclear companies.
Response: We agree that the question of the independence
of Nirex, or any successor bodies, from the industry needs to
be addressed. The UK Government White Paper Managing the nuclear
legacy recognises the arguments in favour of independence, but
considers it important that those funding Nirex (or successor
bodies) now and in the future are satisfied that they continue
to get value for money for expenditure undertaken on their behalf.
The relationship between Nirex and other organisations including
the Liabilities Management Authority will be considered as part
of the radioactive waste policy formulation process.
What progress has been made in reviewing the
remit and independence of Nirex?
In a written answer on 16 July 2003, Margaret Beckett
made a statement on progress in establishing a committee on Radioactive
Waste Management (CoRWM). That answer also included the following
comment about Nirex:
"It is very important that Nirex stands ready,
along with others, to help CoRWM reach its view and inform policy
decisions. It is important also that the company can do this from
a position where it is, and can be seen to be independent of industry.
The Government will consult Nirex shareholders on the best way
of making Nirex independent of industry and under greater Government
control and our aim is to establish and announce the appropriate
way forward by Autumn of this year".
Discussions are continuing within Government and
with Nirex shareholders and an announcement will be made as soon
as they are concluded.
---
Recommendation: We recommend a review of the remit
and independence of Nirex or its successor companies to ensure
that there is neither duplication nor a gap in the responsibilities
of the many parties involved in the disposal of nuclear waste,
especially in view of the formation of the Liabilities Management
Authority. Resolution of responsibilities for the various waste
streams would make the resolution of the definition of waste a
great deal easier.
Response: We agree that this issue is important
and needs to be addressed as soon as possible, as stated in our
response to recommendation d. This will be taken forward as part
of the radioactive waste policy process and as part of the process
set out in the UK Government White Paper Managing the nuclear
legacy.
How is responsibility for radioactive waste
streams divided between Nirex, the Liabilities Management Authority
and other organisations?
Nirex currently has the responsibility for considering
the long-term management option of deep disposal for intermediate
level waste (ILW) and the low level waste (LLW) streams that are
unsuitable for shallow disposal at Drigg in Cumbria. The waste
producers have responsibility for day-to-day management of their
LLW, ILW and high level waste (HLW). The Liabilities Management
Authority, now to be called the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
(NDA) will inherit the liabilities of UKAEA and BNFL which include
LLW, ILW and HLW. The NDA will also inherit the Drigg LLW disposal
site. Organisations other than those associated with the NDA,
such as British Energy, will continue to have responsibility for
their waste of whatever category.
* * *
|