1.  We recommend that the Department produce a fuller estimate of the cost implications of this Bill before its presentation to Parliament. With future draft legislation more attention should be devoted to ensuring that there is a comprehensive estimate of the cost implications and that any Regulatory Impact Assessment is available at the same time as the draft Bill. (Paragraph 8)

2.  We consider that a clear and unambiguous statement of the overarching principles within which the NDA will work would be a useful addition to the draft Bill. Such a statement would have most force if it were given in the main body of the Bill. (Paragraph 13)

3.  We suggest that the draft Bill should be amended to make clear that, in fulfilling its obligations regarding clean-up and decommissioning, the NDA will operate in accordance with the concept of remediation and harm as set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended. (Paragraph 14)

4.  The White Paper gave an assurance that there would be no direct link between the NDA and new nuclear build. This assurance should be given force through a statement of policy by the DTI that approval of any proposal from the private sector for new nuclear plant would be conditional, amongst other factors, upon the establishment and maintenance of a segregated fund to meet the costs of clean-up at the end of its useful operational life. (Paragraph 20)

5.  As regards the widening of remit of the NDA, we feel that the Government has been prudent in giving the NDA wider powers to take account of the possibility that if British Energy were to cease trading (or another private firm in the industry) then it would be necessary for the Government to intervene in the interests of public safety, especially since legislating later, if such an event occurred, would be a lengthy process. (Paragraph 21)

6.  On balance, it seems to us logical that, since the primary objective of the NDA will be the decommissioning and clean-up of the nuclear legacy, there should be some reference made in the legislation to the need for a regular review of the justification for the continued operation of the nuclear facilities under the control of the NDA, and the publication of a timetable for their withdrawal from service. (Paragraph 24)

7.  We noted that while the development of the NDA's Research and Technology programme was an essential component of the Authority's work, the draft NDA management statement did not address this function directly. We recommend that this crucial activity be afforded a higher priority when the management statement is developed further. (Paragraph 26)

8.  We recognise the iterative and interactive nature of R&T and that it is not necessarily simple to separate out from BNFL's current R&T programme those elements that relate specifically to decommissioning, or to distinguish generic research not oriented towards new nuclear build from generic research which is so targeted. It is appropriate that 'New BNFL' retain the last, but it would make sense for it to have some capability in the first two—not least because it would need to maintain its competency as an Management & Operations contractor for decommissioning and clean-up. The Government should give more thought to the question of how these R&T functions are to be separated, before the Bill receives its second reading. In so doing the Government must ensure that the NDA does not lose its focus on decommissioning and clean-up. (Paragraph 28)

9.  In our view, one of the best ways of establishing whether openness, transparency and public confidence has been delivered is to include the public in the evaluation of such engagement right from the start of the process. Such participatory evaluation would help to define criteria for success that the general public understand and ensure that the outcomes of the evaluation are ones they can endorse. Establishing an interactive process that ensures credibility among a wide range of stakeholders could be a more flexible, less prescriptive process than using fixed criteria, formal measurement and audit. (Paragraph 37)

10.  We would have liked to have seen more information on how and whether performance against targets will be independently validated. This information should be included in the NDA's management statement in order to ensure that this process is fully in the public domain. (Paragraph 38)

11.  It seems to us that the requirements for stakeholder consultation by the NDA and its contractors strike a reasonable balance between prescription and the need to have the flexibility to adjust the consultation arrangements to suit the individual problems posed by any particular site. In practice, the NDA will be required to have regard to any representation made by a member of the public. Failure to do so, or do so adequately, would leave the Authority's decisions open to challenge through the process of judicial review. Bearing in mind that the processes for stakeholder consultation are at an early stage of development, we would expect the Government to monitor the NDA's efforts in this area closely and to take suitable corrective action should the need arise. (Paragraph 40)

12.  It seems to us that the rights and responsibilities of the NDA and its site operators and managers should properly be set out within the contracts between the two parties. That said, the three-way relationship between the Authority, its contractors and the nuclear regulators, and a framework for the conduct of this working relationship could usefully be recognised in the draft Memorandum of Understanding which is being developed by the Government in advance of the establishment of the NDA. (Paragraph 43)

13.  The Government should ensure that the transfer of assets and liabilities to the NDA is complete, and does not leave any residual long-term liability remaining with the site operator, unless provision for this is made in its site management contract with the Authority. (Paragraph 46)

14.  In principle, we agree that the creation of a nuclear industry pension scheme, providing benefits of membership equivalent to those provided by the existing schemes, could provide an incentive to join and remain in the decommissioning and clean-up industry. In any case, the pension rights of BNFL staff should be protected to remove any potential for discrimination between different groups of BNFL staff. (Paragraph 51)

15.  We are still of the view that the use of a Segregated Fund to provide the resources required by the NDA would be preferable to the Segregated Account that is proposed by the Government. However, what matters most is that the NDA is provided with the resources that it needs to carry out its responsibilities. The Government has provided assurances that the necessary support will be forthcoming, although it cannot provide more than a rough estimate of the resources that will be needed annually. That is understandable. However, before the Bill is presented to Parliament the Government should finalise and publish the process by which the level of its initial and annual contributions to the Account will be determined. (Paragraph 59)

16.  We note that more than two years will have elapsed from the issue of the Government's consultation document "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely", in September 2001, and the first meeting of CoRWM. We hope that the Committee will show a greater sense of urgency in its approach to its work than Government Departments have demonstrated thus far. From the outset, the NDA will need clear instructions from the Government as to the waste management strategy that it will be required to implement. Given the central role that the Government envisages for Nirex in the development of this strategy, the uncertainty over the future funding and management of the organisation should be resolved without delay. (Paragraph 64)