Managing our radioactive waste - committee review

**This consultation has now closed. **The Government would like to thank respondents to this consultation for the evidence they provided to the Triennial Review of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). The Government has published the findings of the Review which concluded that CoRWM should continue in its role as an advisory Non-Departmental Public Body providing scrutiny of and advice to Government on issues relating to the management of radioactive waste in the UK.

On 12 March the Government announced the Triennial Review of CoRWM and is seeking the views of stakeholders who wish to contribute to the Review. Triennial Reviews of Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public life.

• to challenge the continuing need for CoRWM to carry out this role - both its functions and form; - and if it is agreed it should remain as an advisory NDPB -
• to review its control and governance arrangements to ensure it is complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.

1. Do the key functions performed by CoRWM continue to be necessary and appropriate for the successful management of higher activity radioactive wastes in general and the successful implementation of the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) programme in particular?
   _You might wish to consider issues such as: is independent scrutiny and advice, over and above that already provided by the independent safety, security and environmental regulators, necessary for the successful long term management of higher activity radioactive wastes and the delivery of geological disposal?; is stakeholder engagement and transparency of information important? _
2. If you consider that CoRWM’s functions remain valid, are these functions best delivered by a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB)?
   You might wish to consider issues such as: could delivery of the functions be taken in house and performed by civil servants or the wider public service?;could the functions be delivered through more informal ad hoc arrangements?;could the functions be merged with another NDPB?
3. If you consider that an advisory NDPB is the right delivery mechanism for the functions of CoRWM, what improvements could be made to support the effective and efficient delivery of CoRWM’s remit?
   You might wish to consider issues such as: does CoRWM do a good job - does it offer value for money?; is CoRWM politically impartial?; do you trust CoRWM as a source of independent advice and authoritative information?; Has CoRWM the necessary skills and experience to fulfil its remit?

Email: radioactivewaste@decc.gsi.gov.uk Post: Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Team

Department of Energy and Climate Change

3 Whitehall Place

London

SW1A2AW