Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Second Report


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.

* * *


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 21 January 2004