CHAPTER 3: CORWM's working practices
The importance of evidence-based
reports
33. CoRWM described to us how its reports scrutinising
the MRWS programme were produced following extensive evidence
gathering and stakeholder engagement (Q 31). Lord Hunt, recognising
the quality of CoRWM's reports, told us that CoRWM had to ensure
its reports continued to be evidence-based if it was to "retain
the respect that it has built up over the past few years"
(Q 67); similarly, DECC said that the Committee needed "to
analyse and assess views and bring forward advice that is clearly
evidence-based if its words are to carry weight" (p 20).
The NDA also noted the importance of ensuring that CoRWM's work
continues to be based on comprehensive evidence gathering and
stakeholder engagement (p 24). We commend CoRWM's rigorous
approach to evidence gathering and stakeholder engagement in its
published reports to date.
34. Whereas CoRWM's formal reports to Government
are subject to this rigorous process, the NDA suggested that when
CoRWM published draft materials or working papers "there
have been instances where its evidence base does not seem to have
been tested with relevant stakeholders prior to publication. On
occasions, unsupported assertions and a few factual errors have
been presented. As well as impacting on the quality of CoRWM's
deliberations this can also misinform stakeholders" (p 24).
The NIA also noted that CoRWM's "operating method of producing
papers—often written only by one member—for debate
in plenary sessions sometimes leads to preliminary views being
interpreted as formal CoRWM positions" (p 42).
35. Professor Pickard told us: "I am
very confident that our final authoritative, formal reports to
Government which give recommendations to Government are solidly
evidence-based" (Q 28). He conceded, however, that CoRWM
expose their "preliminary thinking" and their "preliminary
drafts of reports at a very early stage", since its members
wanted to "give people every opportunity to see how we are
developing our formal advice" (Q 28). He felt that "it
is a price that we have to pay for openness and transparency that
occasionally we do have to show our preliminary workings"
(Q 54). He stressed that draft documents published by CoRWM
have "a leading paragraph which explains quite precisely
that this is a document in [the] process of development and it
should not be taken to present either the views of the Committee
or the views of the individual that actually wrote it" (Q 54).
36. We believe that the same high standard
which is applied in developing CoRWM's formal advice to Government
should apply to all documents published by CoRWM. While we commend
CoRWM's commitment to transparency, extreme caution should be
taken to ensure that its working papers are not published until
it is satisfied they are accurate and evidence-based.
Expertise of CoRWM members
37. Two concerns were raised by witnesses about
the range of skills possessed by the current membership of CoRWM:
first, that it had insufficient geoscience expertise and, secondly,
that it would benefit from additional members with practical knowledge
of business, operations and engineering.
38. The Geological Society felt that "as
currently constituted, CoRWM does not have the range of geoscientific
expertise required effectively to scrutinise" the geoscience
that will be carried out as the MRWS programme develops (p 38).
In response, Professor Pickard said that "there is adequate
representation of the different disciplines" on CoRWM, and
that "geological sciences are adequately represented at the
moment" (Q 36), a view shared by DECC (p 21) and
also by Greenpeace which stated that "CoRWM appears to have
sufficient scientific and technical expertise to meet its remit"
(p 40). DECC however assured us that the skill set of the
Committee "will be kept under review and can be revisited
in future" as the MRWS programme proceeds (p 21). CoRWM
also has the power to co-opt additional members, and Professor Pickard
said that he "would not hesitate" if he "felt it
was necessary" (Q 36).
39. The Environment Agency suggested that "the
makeup of the Committee is largely from the academic community.
Because of this, the Committee might benefit from additional membership
that has an in-depth practical knowledge of operations and engineering
on nuclear sites" (p 37). On the same theme, the NDA
commented that although "the current membership provides
for a wide range of scientific and technical expertise ... in
some areas that expertise is drawn heavily from members with an
academic or research background". It felt that, on occasion,
this led to an "emphasis on acquisition of knowledge driven
by curiosity", rather than being "driven by the needs
of the [MRWS] programme" (p 24). Although Professor Pickard
told us that CoRWM had sufficient "knowledge of the nuclear
industry" (Q 36), we find these arguments have some
weight.
40. We believe that, at present, the membership
of CoRWM includes an appropriate range of geoscience expertise
to enable it to scrutinise effectively the current stage of the
MRWS programme. However, we take the view that CoRWM would benefit
from more members with experience of business and practical on-site
operations and engineering on the main Committee, and we recommend
that the Government and CoRWM arrange for this additional expertise
to be recruited at an early stage. More generally, we welcome
the Government's commitment to keep the Committee's skill set
under review as the MRWS programme progresses.
CoRWM's work programme
41. Each year, CoRWM agrees a three-year rolling
work programme with all its sponsor ministers (p 22). Several
witnesses expressed concern over the scope of CoRWM's past and
proposed work programmes. The Environment Agency, for example,
told us that "during the past year, the Committee's work
programme may have been rather broad", and suggested it "focus
on matters which are vital to the effective and safe management
of the [radioactive] wastes" (p 37). Likewise, the Geological
Society felt that CoRWM's "proposed [work] programme [for
2010-2013] is very broad, lacks a clear focus and runs the risk
that the Committee will be too thinly spread"; the Society
advised that it should focus on areas where it has "the potential
to add real value" (p 38). The NIA also suggested that
CoRWM "could be more effective if its work were more focused
on specific topics, relevant to the stage the Government has reached
with its MRWS programme" (p 42). Both the NDA and the
Environmental Agency noted that CoRWM should be careful that its
work did not overlap that of relevant regulatory agencies (pp 37,
25).
42. In response, Professor Pickard explained
that CoRWM starts developing its future work programme by considering
a wide range of potential issues, but then it goes "through
an extremely lengthy iterative process of trying to focus down
on which items need to be looked at" (Q 24). He argued
that this process was necessary "to be inclusive and to win
the confidence of all stakeholders and the general public in particular"
so that they see "that we are aware of all the different
issues" (Q 25). He stressed, however, that "we
are also continuously consulting with our sponsors ... they will
feed in very critical information about the timeliness of that
advice that they would like to see" (Q 24).
43. There are clearly some misgivings that CoRWM's
work programme may spread its scrutiny and resources too widely.
We recommend that CoRWM ensures its future work programmes are
focused on specific issues relevant to the current stage of the
MRWS programme.
MAINTAINING CORWM'S INDEPENDENCE
FROM GOVERNMENT
44. CoRWM's scrutiny role is important, both
in holding the Government to account and in maintaining public
trust and confidence. We have noted (in paragraph 41 above) that
CoRWM has to agree its work programme "with all sponsor ministers
annually" (p 22). While we agree that CoRWM should work
closely with Government when setting its work programme, and that
the Government should be able to request advice from CoRWM where
appropriate, we do not believe that the Government should be able
to determine what topics an independent scrutiny body should examine.
It is vital that stakeholders and the wider public can see clearly
that CoRWM is independent, and we believe that this is necessary
to ensure that high quality members from business and practical
backgrounds, as we conclude are needed in paragraph 40, are not
discouraged from joining. We recommend that CoRWM should be
free to set its work programme and that it should not be subject
to the agreement of sponsoring ministers, although ministers should
continue to be able to request advice from CoRWM on specific topics
as necessary.
A WATCHING BRIEF
45. The NIA were concerned that CoRWM might re-scrutinise
its own policy decisions, and suggested that "there is a
danger in re-opening issues ... For example, we think that opening
the issue of borehole disposal again is neither helpful nor productive"
(p 43). CoRWM told us they felt it was necessary to encourage
Government to keep different technological options open during
the MRWS programme. According to Professor Pickard, "we
do find that implementers tend initially to be resistant to our
encouragement to keep options open ... because they themselves
only have a limited resource". He continued, "the Committee
is at pains constantly to encourage implementers not to burn alternative
boats in terms of design and engineering solutions until they
really have to" (Q 55). CoRWM clarified that its advice
to "keep options open" referred to alternatives "within
geological disposal, not alternatives to geological disposal"
(pp 17-18).
46. We feel it is appropriate for CoRWM to
keep a watching brief on technological alternatives to design
and engineering solutions within the context of a geological disposal
programme, so that it can advise the Government in the event of
the evidence base underlying Government policies changing.
Social and ethical expertise
47. According to Greenpeace, "social and
ethical matters will become an increasing part of the discussion
on MRWS processes on legacy waste"; they suggested, therefore,
that CoRWM should either recruit or co-opt members with expertise
in these fields (p 40). Professor Pickard said that
CoRWM would not "embark on a large philosophical study of
the broader aspects of societal and ethical issues" but that
it might consider such matters where "they are clearly identified
to be influencing the success of the implementation process"
(Q 46). However, when Lord Hunt was asked whether CoRWM should
comment on social and political issues, he replied that "in
the end it [CoRWM] plays a very important role in terms of technical
advice as to how policy can best be carried out" (Q 109).
48. While ministers have the ultimate responsibility
for weighing the broad social issues of government policy, we
recognise that there may be circumstances where such matters have
a material impact on the implementation of the MRWS programme.
In these situations it may be appropriate for CoRWM to comment.
However, we take the view that CoRWM should primarily concentrate
on providing evidence-based comment on technical issues.
| 
