This report examines the Government's proposals for radioactive waste management following the publication of the final recommendations of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) in July 2006. In particular, we focus on the institutional arrangements for implementing the next phase of the Government's Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) programme.

The Government accepted CoRWM's key recommendation that geological disposal currently presented the best available approach to long-term management of radioactive waste and gave a commitment to finding a suitable site for a geological repository not only by geological criteria but by a participative process. However, CoRWM's recommendations were made as part of a package which as a key component contained the setting-up of an independent body to oversee the programme. The Government have watered down this recommendation and plan to set up an independent advisory body, the "new CoRWM", instead.

We therefore have serious concerns over the institutional framework for the next, implementation phase of the MRWS programme. We found the Government's proposals to be incoherent and opaque. The Government must acknowledge these deficiencies and seek to rectify them by establishing clearer lines of accountability and independent, expert scrutiny.

We once again recommend, as we did in 1999, that the Government establish an independent, statutory body, independent of day-to-day Government control and accountable to Parliament, with overall responsibility for implementing the geological disposal programme.

Failing that, we strongly urge the Government to give the new CoRWM greater independence and authority to scrutinise proposals for implementation. Its recommendations should be properly responded to, and its relationship with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority must be clearly defined and set out in the latter's governance arrangements.

In 1999 we urged that progress in radioactive waste management should be "steady and measured". Instead we have had years of procrastination, followed by what now appears to be unseemly haste. This is not the way to inspire public confidence. The new CoRWM, if that is to be the body charged with providing independent scrutiny and advice, must be involved with all aspects of implementation from the outset. We therefore call on the Government to delay the publication of their forthcoming consultation document until the new CoRWM has been appointed and has had time to consider the proposals. In particular, any proposals regarding site selection must be given full and careful consideration, including by the new CoRWM, rather than being rushed through in a matter of months.