The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

MANAGING RADIOACTIVE WASTE SAFELY

Chapter Three: Engaging the Public

3.1 The extended focus groups conducted for phase one of the research explored the 2 themes of the project, the issues and opportunities of engaging people in decision making on managing radioactive waste safely and the issues and opportunities in engaging with people as part of decision-making processes. This chapter explores the understanding, expectations and information needs that focus group participants felt about the following questions:

• What do people feel they need to know to engage in decision-making processes about managing radioactive waste safely?

• Where do they currently get their information?

• How should other people become involved and informed?

• What role should engagement take in the future?

Importance of Public Involvement

3.2 During the focus groups most participants agreed that engaging the public should be an essential element of the decision-making process. They felt that practical solutions would be more likely to arise from enabling a broad range of voices to be heard. However, there was also recognition that this is not without its difficulties. Most participants did not feel that they knew enough about how decisions are actually made or how they could get involved if they wanted to. This also reflected some cynicism about the intentions of those seeking to engage the public.

"Is there a willingness, a commitment to consult? If the answer is yes then make it more to the point, easier to understand and provide sufficient information." ('Unaffected public' participant, Glasgow)

3.3 Participants in the 'community activist' group felt that "the time expected of you as an activist" created difficulties for those who are active in their communities. One participant in the 'affected public' group posed the question: " Should we ask people [in this kind of exercise] after all, we vote in elections." Ultimately public participation was considered " a right" because " everyone's opinion counts".

3.4 The focus group participants felt that enabling the public to become better informed and engaged was essential. Future developments in technology, new choices in energy supply and varying consequences for security, cost of energy supply and treatment of wastes might open up different solutions in future. Most participants believed that a commitment should be made to inter-generational public engagement (they also felt that future generations have the right to be considered in decisions about the safe management of radioactive waste).

"…so they can pass on the information from generation to generation. Everyone should be involved." (Young people's group participant, Argyll)

3.5 Pulling together responses from all groups on where action and decisions need be taken, common themes emerged. Groups thought action was needed at 5 different levels:

• community
• Scotland
• UK
• international
• over time (across generations)

3.6 Challenging our working distinction between the 'affected' and the 'unaffected' population, most participants came to the conclusion that everybody is affected, now and in the future, on different levels from local to international. Therefore, they proposed that engaging the public " should be expanded and part of an ongoing process rather than one-off" (Community activist participant).

3.7 Involvement at international level was identified as a priority. In defining who should be involved, participants included wider 'stakeholders', for instance NGOs and inter-governmental bodies, to ensure that global safety was central to collective decision-making:

"… there needs to be a wider [global] discussion on the environment as a whole." ('Unaffected public' participant, Glasgow)

3.8 The most important reasons identified for continued and expanded engagement included:

• lack of trust in both government and industry to make impartial decisions
• a sense that profit was more important for nuclear energy companies than safety
• concern that decisions that need to be made can be overturned if a government that makes the policy is voted out of office (participants from the 'unaffected public' and community activist groups)

The timescale involved in managing radioactive waste safely led some participants in all groups to identify an intergenerational responsibility to make open and transparent decisions that can be revisited if necessary.

3.9 All participants believed they had a personal responsibility, alongside Government and the industry, to become involved in developing a safe approach to managing radioactive waste.

Reasons for engaging the public

3.10 Participants were keen to discuss why government, its agencies and even private sector companies had become more interested in engaging the public directly in recent years. One 'community activist' participant wondered if one reason for increased interest among politicians was because " in the last couple of years they don't know what to do, so they are trying to find solutions." This echoed a view in the 'affected public' group that linked the discussions around radioactive waste to the complexities of the MMR triple vaccine. They identified similar issues around the need for understandable information, with opposing views held by 'experts' on the facts and the most appropriate solution. Another Stirling participant questioned the motives behind consultation exercises carried out by government more explicitly, making reference to an underlying issue of power:

"Consultation - a wonderful activity but what they've done is let consultation take over from negotiation." (Community activist participant, Stirling)

3.11 There was discussion in all of the groups (except among young people) about the possibility that engaging the public could be used to justify decisions that had already been taken, where the consultation process could be used to arrive at the 'preferred' solution (the perceived problem of "rubber stamping"). One 'community activist' participant voiced a common concern about how much difference getting involved would make: " They may listen, but do they do anything?" A number of the 'unaffected public' participants referred to a lack of trust in the Glasgow City Council's consultation processes:

"You get decisions without consultation or a consultation that was so low profile most people didn't know about it. Basically - what consultation? Community feedback isn't encouraged. The decision is already made." ('Unaffected public' participant, Glasgow)

3.12 These concerns and conditions did not undermine the basic belief across all of the focus groups that " everybody should have access if they want to become involved" ('unaffected public' participant, Glasgow) and that engaging people in decision-making processes can be beneficial both to the public and to the consulting organisation.

Experience of involvement

3.13 Participants discussed their knowledge of consultation and involvement before moving on to exploring practical suggestions about ways of making it more effective. This provided scope for them to share experiences about what they felt works, what does not work and to discuss what support other people might need to become involved. One participant defined a three-step process to effective involvement that was agreed by other group members as a useful summary:

1. "Finding out about the issues and opportunities that are involved in dealing with the issue.

2. Providing information as a critical part of the process - if we don't understand, how can we have a view?

3. We can then reach a decision if we understand."

('Unaffected public' participant, Glasgow)

3.14 Knowledge of current systems for engaging people in discussion and in decision-making was minimal in the focus groups with the public. The majority of participants did not feel that they had avenues to influence decisions at either local or national level. However, the community activist participants who were actively involved in communities and the young people involved in youth work activities did feel that they had some knowledge of how to influence decisions.

3.15 The majority of participants identified a high level of distrust with how current engagement processes tend to work in practice, alongside the widespread belief that engaging the public is a positive thing in principle. This lack of trust was reinforced in discussions about previous engagement experiences. Some participants were concerned that even when they have become engaged nobody appears to be listening to them:

'"Previous experience skews your view, it makes you cynical." ('Affected public' participant, Thurso)

3.16 When asked in the initial questionnaire how they felt their involvement in the focus groups would influence future engagement exercises, just over half of participants felt that this was an important thing to be involved in, with a similar number hopeful that their participation would make a difference (Table 3.1). Results from the concluding questionnaire show a marked difference. A large majority felt that it was both an important thing to be involved in and were hopeful that it would make a difference. A small number of participants from each of the focus groups indicated they would be happy to continue to be engaged in the process.

Table 3.1 - How participants felt involvement in the focus groups would influence future consultation.

Motivation for the public to become involved

3.17 Participants were asked in the initial questionnaire to select responses from a list of considerations which led them to decide to take part in the focus groups, and to determine how important each was. This was based on a scale of "very important" to "not at all important". When asked to respond to the statement "It is a good way of getting my views heard", 39 of the 44 participants rated this as either very or fairly important compared with 44 of the 47 in the concluding questionnaire. Four participants at the outset (one in the 'unaffected public' focus group and 3 from the community activist group) indicated this was not an important consideration, compared with 3 in the concluding questionnaire. Almost all felt that this type of forum offered the opportunity to get their views heard. There was little difference between the views expressed in the initial questionnaire and those in the concluding one.

3.18 "Being paid to attend" was considered as very or fairly important by only 13 of the participants, 9 of these were in the 'unaffected public' group in Glasgow. The community activists in Stirling, who are more used to giving their time in this way, were least likely to view payment as important. The young people rated payment as either not very or not at all important, although they appreciated the accommodation and refreshments provided ¹³.

3.19 More generally, participants identified varying levels of interest in different issues as an important factor in engagement. This was echoed in the community activist group, where one participant felt it was important to recognise the different motivations for engagement involved in discussions of national policy compared with discussions with communities that stood to be directly affected by any decisions taken. This led to a discussion on different reasons for non-participation:

"Joe Public turns away from the solution, intuitively. They don't know the answers, so they turn their backs. Unless you offer real solutions that will work, people will ignore these issues because they feel out of their depth." (Community activist participant, Stirling)

3.20 One participant in the 'affected public' group suggested that as others who are viewed as 'experts' influence decisions, a high proportion of the public feel no need to get involved. Another possibility identified in the group was that some non-participants are either content or at least unconcerned. If people are not responding, "it may mean that they trust the information, not that they don't know [how to respond] ". Relatively high levels of distrust of government and industry sources of information and consultation motives were identified across the groups, although these were not considered to be a primary reason for non-participation.

3.21 Participants felt it was important that people should be able to find out about options and decisions made, with the emphasis being on availability and accessibility of relevant information, but few participants saw involvement as an obligation. While one 'unaffected public' participant suggested that " compulsory civic duty" to get involved in discussions like these might be needed on a similar basis to jury service (random selection across all adults without payment), others agreed that public engagement should be by choice.

Information expectations

3.22 To test public opinion on their expectations of the access and availability of information on the management of radioactive waste in the future, participants were asked in the initial questionnaire " If you or your family were still living in this area 5 or 10 years from now, what would you expect to find?" Findings are shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Participant expectations of information provision in relation to radioactive waste management in 5 or 10 years time

3.23 There was initial expectation among the majority (30) of participants that in 5 or 10 years the public will be better informed about how radioactive waste is managed. This was borne out during discussions where many participants felt that young people and children could be better informed through increased environmental education, 8 participants expected access to information to more or less stay the same, and 2 (both in the community activist group) felt that the public would become less well informed.

Sources of information

3.24 In the introductory questionnaire, participants were asked to identify how they currently get information on radioactive waste issues and, in a concluding questionnaire, where they would look for information in the future.

Table 3.3 Current and potential sources of information on radioactive waste management

3.25 Newspapers and television were by far the most likely current sources of information, with low levels of usage of the other sources recorded in each group. Internet usage was low (only 4 participants reported using the Internet for this purpose) even among young people. The end of each focus group meeting noted some significant changes between current and potential future sources of information. By this stage of the engagement major changes in the potential sources of information noted across the groups were the Internet (which rose from 4 to30), government (4 to 29), libraries (3 to 19), waste management agencies (6 to 19) and community groups (9 to 20). Participants in all but the community activist group identified how the US television cartoon series ' The Simpson's', where Homer Simpson (the father character) works in a dangerously ill-managed nuclear power plant, as another source of information.

3.26 Participants suggested that the source of information could create questions about the validity of the information provided:

• who is providing the information?
• what vested interests, if any, are involved in providing the information?
• what are the right answers (if indeed 'right answers' exist)?
• how can answers to these and other questions be identified?

Understandable information

3.27 Based on discussion of the materials on display, views on what they would read and not read were influenced by:

• length - it should be short
• language - explanation should be clear
• visuals - pictures and diagrams are useful

3.28 This is mirrored in the young people's response to the Dounreay advertisement where the graphics and some parts of the text were considered helpful. The young people preferred the leaflets, which were considered to be more attractive and easier to understand.

3.29 Within the adult groups, there was general agreement that leaflets produced by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) and United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) were most accessible. Participants felt these used plain language and explained technical terms. The SEPA leaflet was felt to be particularly well designed, with maps, diagrams and other illustrations adding to the text. The British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) fact file report was considered to be "dense" because it lacked any illustrative material to break up the text. Young people reacted more strongly against technical language, while adults were more willing to pass over parts they did not quite understand.

3.30 Across the groups, participants felt that access to understandable information was an essential starting point. While there was an acceptance that some of the terminology might be difficult to translate for the layperson, there was general agreement that some of the language used was unnecessarily difficult. It was agreed that information should not only be in Plain English, but that attention to the type of information provided and its presentation would help to engage the public more successfully.

Provision and presentation of information

3.31 Concerns about the level of understanding required to become fully involved were expressed in all of the focus groups. This prompted a variety of suggestions on how information should be developed, presented and shared. The adult groups identified publications, advertising and media campaigns, a free phone service "with a person rather than a computer to talk to", interactive TV and debates on TV, focus groups, documentaries and cartoons as possible options. The young people agreed that schools and existing youth services, as well as peer support, were the most effective way to inform young people's understanding. The younger participants did some work in preparing materials for their peers. They felt strongly that peer education is an important way of engaging young people. One participant from the young people's group felt that it was important to think about people who face language barriers, such as asylum seekers and those who have difficulty with reading.

3.32 Environmental education through schools was identified as a promising route to engagement, in part because some participants felt that children and young people would then be an effective source of information for parents. While there was some disagreement on how well this would work in practice, the main reason for this suggestion was the belief that, with such a long-term issue, young people should be able to become fully informed and involved.

3.33 When asked about the ease of understanding of the MRWS consultation document, the response was largely positive among community activists in Stirling. It was considered informative and comprehensive, although difficult in parts because of the technical aspects, and there was general agreement that "understanding is dependent on educational advantage." Participants in the 'unaffected' and 'affected' public groups, as well as in the young people's group, found the document overly technical and dense and felt that it would be difficult for the general public to understand.

3.34 The younger participants felt that experts could make understanding information difficult, due to the use of technical language. A 'jargon-busting' exercise, where participants read out a piece of information which was then translated into Plain English by a member of the Scottish Executive, was reflected upon as an important element of how they made sense of the consultation questions. There was agreement across the group that this had been essential to their level of understanding:

"We need a better format so that young people can understand. Once[explained] through the jargon buster - before that it was gobbledegook. What was written on the cards [information from the consultation document] was for professor to professor rather than professor to people. The jargon buster made it easier to understand." (Young people's group participant, Argyll)

3.35 The community activist participants were more experienced in dealing with consultation documents, which appears to have made it easier for them to respond to the MRWS document. They also commented on the fact that the information briefing sheets provided had helped them to navigate the document more easily. The briefing sheets were considered by most participants to offer a more accessible means of engaging the general public.

3.36 The highly technical and detailed nature of the MRWS consultation document led to agreement in all groups that the information has to be as accessible as possible to 'lay people', who in turn need support to become involved in this kind of dialogue. While accepting that some technical detail may be required, they believed this should be kept to a minimum in order to enhance understanding and enable them to reach their own conclusions about appropriate solutions. The majority of participants felt that the whole process of engaging the public, irrespective of the issues involved, could fail if information is not written in Plain English and presented in a more accessible format.

« Previous | Contents | Next »