Concerns
157. The Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research (EPSRC) Council is responsible for fusion research in
the UK. EPSRC identified the short timescale of Framework Programmes,
compared to the long-term nature of fusion research, the risk
of perpetuating already well-developed areas of research, and
the problem of financing major new capital facilities as possible
areas of concern with the EURATOM programme.[240]
One activity of EURATOM is to provide loans for the construction
of nuclear power plants in the EU, accession countries and the
former Soviet Union. However the nuclear loan facility is nearly
exhausted.[241]
158. Of the evidence received by the Committee,
only British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) and the Nuclear Industry Radioactive
Waste Management Executive (NIREX) submitted substantial evidence
on the EURATOM programme. BNFL was concerned that the EU was investing
the majority of the EURATOM programme (around 60%) into fusion
technology which would leave a gap in fission technology and future
energy systems.[242]Additionally,
BNFL raised two main concerns resulting from the lack of a UK
domestic programme for fission R & D: that the UK had "nothing
to take to the table in international programmes that gives us
credibility" and the lack of a skills base in the UK made
it difficult to capture know-how and technology advancement abroad
and bring it back to the UK.[243]
BNFL pointed out that the contribution by the UK towards the nuclear
aspects of the FP6 programme was supporting the overseas skills
base in the JRC whilst the national skills base was currently
in decline.[244]BNFL
claimed that there was very little Government involvement in batting
for England in getting the EURATOM programme focused on what would
be our priorities."[245]
BNFL and NIREX shared the concern that the shortage of nuclear
skills was a European-wide issue, and that the industry needed
to invest both, nationally and internationally, to ensure that
future energy systems did not struggle to replenish its skills
base.[246]
159. BNFL, rather than rely on the Government,
puts its views to the Commission through FORATOM, the European
trade agency for nuclear companies.[247]
BNFL told us that it actively works with UK universities to put
in coordinated proposals for FP6 programmes.[248]
NIREX had worked with most of the other EU waste management organisations
to submit expressions of interest to the Commission.[249]
160. NIREX repeated EPSRC's concern that
in the past the Framework Programmes had duplicated previous research
on radioactive waste management, rather than develop it, but NIREX
considered that FP6 showed signs of developing a more integrated
approach to research.
161. It is clear that there are concerns
over the long-terms investment in the nuclear skills base. Whilst
the Commission have decided to invest most of EURATOM funding
into a long-term strategy of developing nuclear fusion, this could
lead to a gap in the development of fission technology in the
years before the first fusion power stations are operable. There
is also a concern that very few young people will wish to join
an industry which is intent on winding itself down, and decommissioning
its reactors, which could result in a serious skills gap for the
future nuclear fusion industry. This issue is tackled in our Fourth
Report of Session 2002-03.[250]
Once the Joint European Torus project has finished at Culham,
future EURATOM funded projects will move to mainland Europe, and
the UK will have to consider how its investment to EURATOM will
be returned if its own nuclear skills base is not developed using
national funding. We urge the Government to consider how it will
develop the national nuclear skills base and negotiate accordingly
in future framework programmes.
234 
