The NDA acknowledged that its funding settlement for 2025–26 means “there are difficult decisions to be made about some of the less critical aspects”.70 It subsequently told us that it would ideally “remove risk/ hazard and liability at the earliest opportunity” and that decommissioning can free up space for other uses.71 This matters because the Sellafield site is highly constrained, and Sellafield Ltd believes it may need to build some new buildings on land outside the current boundary.72 Sellafield Ltd told us that its current preferred approach for providing analytical services–which it expects to cost much less than RAP would have – is only possible because it had “drive[n] on a broad front” and cleaned out another building.73 It is even possible that slow progress could mean facilities become obsolete while there is still a need for them, at great cost to the taxpayer.74 We are aware from evidence submitted by Cumberland Council that the adequacy of budgets is a matter of local concern.75 68 C&AG’s report, para 16 69 Qq 95–97 70 Q 91 71 Letter from the Group Chief Executive Officer at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority relating to the oral evidence session held on 20 March on Decommissioning Sellafield, 4 April 2025, page 6 72 C&AG’s report, para 3.11 73 Q 66 74 Qq 50, 95 75 DS0006 19