Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-108)
NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING
AUTHORITY
16 MARCH 2005
Q100 Chairman: The evidence we have taken
this morning from UKAEA and, even more so, from BNFL indicated
their willingness to be fairly pragmatic about the people with
whom they will enter into agreements for particular parts of the
programmes and they did not discount, understandably so, the involvement
of firms from outwith the UK, but in some people's minds this
has raised the issue that we will be using foreign skills and
that this might be an excuse for indigenous British companies
not developing their own workforce. Do you see this as a realistic
anxiety and, if it is, how would you want to ensure that the research
budget and the staff development budgets can sit alongside this,
or is it something of an exaggeration, we are not going to see
foreign skills edging out UK? How do you envisage the development
in this area?
Sir Anthony Cleaver: First of
all, in terms of where the skills come from, I think we want to
see the best skills in the world applied to the UK taxpayers'
liability, that is our responsibility. So we hope and believe
that the incumbents will look to partnering wherever they find
the best potential partners and some will come, I suspect, from
this country, some may well come from abroad and I see no particular
problem in that. In terms of the UK skills, we do have a responsibility
to ensure that the skills are available in this country and that
means, of course, that we are talking to the Sector Skills people,
we are talking to the universities, the local colleges and so
on and we will encourage them to put in place appropriate courses
where necessary and to try and ensure that people are coming through
the system right from the schools on, through the apprentice schemes
and so on to maintain those skill levels. We are encouraging the
incumbents to look at partnering, not least because we would like
to see a start made on cost savings and improving value for money
in the next two years. They are two years of preparation for competition,
but one would hope that in that period the incumbent companies
are able to show improvements which, after all, will position
them ideally for that competition when it comes. I think we are
encouraging them to work with whoever they feel can add real value.
Q101 Mr Hoyle: Will funds for long-term
waste management be ring-fenced within your budget, as Nirex would
like?
Dr Roxburgh: We are all awaiting
CoRWM's deliberations next June or July. The Government has decided
in the interim that Nirex, as I understand it, should continue
with business as usual on the assumption that it might be a deep
repository to carry on that work. At the same time they continue
to provide guidance on appropriate waste forms and waste containers
which would be compatible with that repository model. Whilst we
await CoRWM's decision we will have a contract with Nirex which
we will continue to put in funds to continue that work that the
Government wants.
Q102 Mr Hoyle: Does that mean that the
funds are ring-fenced?
Dr Roxburgh: In the sense that
we will have a contract with them, we will obviously honour that
contract and the funds are there, yes.
Q103 Mr Hoyle: Nirex is concerned that
you have not consulted the company on intermediate-level waste
retrieval and packaging. Is this true?
Sir Anthony Cleaver: We have had
discussions with CoWRM of a very preliminary nature. They have
their objectives which they have been set. I think we all await
the outcome of CoRWM's deliberations before a real strategy can
be arrived at. At the moment all the plans are based on what the
regulator currently requires, on the requirements that Nirex have,
where those are appropriate and those will be followed.
Q104 Mr Hoyle: It states that the NDA
has not consulted Nirex in the development of intermediate-level
waste retrieval and packaging projects. That seems absurd to me.
Surely that cannot be right, can it?
Dr Roxburgh: Those are issues
ultimately for the contractors, the incumbents, and there is one
example at the moment under way. Our friends in the UK Atomic
Energy Authority have a proposal to build a new packaging and
cementation plant at Dounreay. As part of that proposal they are
in conversation with Nirex to have both the grout and the packaging
approved by them. So in reality I am not quite sure where the
Nirex question comes from, but in practice they are being consulted.
Q105 Mr Hoyle: Have they been consulted?
I want a clear yes or no answer.
Dr Roxburgh: In the context I
have just described, absolutely, yes.
Q106 Chairman: They have not been consulted
by you because you are not yet in existence.
Sir Anthony Cleaver: We have not
had a formal consultation with Nirex. Our expectation would be
that this is exactly the sort of thing that would come out through
our strategy and at that point in time one would expect their
input to be taken into account. We have not been asked for and
have not had any specific consultation with Nirex in this context.
Mr Hoyle: I think you have got a problem
with transparency, something which you are supposedly signed up
for. People will question that in the future. I worry about the
transparency of the industry and I think we have just seen a lack
of that coming through.
Q107 Sir Robert Smith: On the issue of
pensions for the workforce where you are to establish an industry-wide
scheme, how is progress being made on that? When will they know
the shape of that?
Mr Hayes: The Department of Trade
and Industry has been doing some work on this over recent months.
The NDA will inherit that work from the Department on 1 April.
It will probably take us some 12 to 15 months to develop that
into a fully fledged industry wide scheme and our primary requirement
is to have that scheme in place before we compete the sites.
Q108 Sir Robert Smith: So in 12 to 15
months' time the UKAEA would know where they stood in terms
of whether they would be the preferred administrator of the scheme?
Mr Hayes: Absolutely. We are conscious
that UKAEA have a very good track record for the pension scheme
they are running out of Scotland. They would be one of the people
we would be considering in bidding for that work along with other
people.
Chairman: That is all of the questions
we have to ask you this morning. As I said earlier to our witnesses,
this is a fairly short inquiry, it was intended just to set a
backdrop for you getting up and running in a formal way. We are
very grateful to you for the time you have taken because we realise
that the closer you get to the deadline the busier and more hectic
things will become. If there are any other points that we have
to pick up on this morning, we will certainly get back to you.
If there is anything you want to pass back to us, we would be
happy to receive it.
Mr Hoyle: Chairman, I think we ought
to congratulate you on your chairmanship of this Committee over
numerous years. I think it would be remiss of this Committee not
to thank you for all that you have done to ensure all the evidence
is given and report after report comes out. We have always welcomed
the fact that you have chaired the meetings in an honest and open
manner. Some may regret coming before this Committee at times,
but I am sure they have welcomed the experience of meeting the
rottweiler in the chair!
Sir Robert Smith: I would just like to
reinforce those appreciations of the Committee. This all presupposes
that the Prime Minister calls an election on 5 May! This is our
last public appearance as a Committee together under this chairmanship.
We have very much enjoyed the four years of the chairmanship.
I hope that the reports have brought illumination to areas which
otherwise might not have seen the spotlight because they are not
in the public domain so much. The Chairman has managed to bring
consensus to this Committee without losing the edge on our reports.
Chairman: I think I had better quit while
I am ahead! Thank you very much.
| 
