Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
MONDAY 7 JULY 2008
PROFESSOR SIR
CHRIS LLEWELLYN
SMITH, PROFESSOR
JONATHAN BILLOWES,
DR STEPHEN
GARWOOD AND
DR GRAHAM
BALDWIN
Q1 Chairman: May I welcome our first
panel of witnesses this afternoon. Thank you all very much indeed
for coming to this the first evidence session for our nuclear
engineering case study, as part of our major inquiry into United
Kingdom engineering. We are particularly grateful that you have
come along, because obviously nuclear engineering and the development
of new nuclear power stations is very much high on the Government's
agenda at the moment and the one question that we are asking as
a Committee in engineering terms is, are we capable of actually
building a whole set of new nuclear power stations? Do we have
the capacity to do that and if not, what do we need to put in
place? I wonder if I could introduce our witnesses this afternoon:
Professor Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, the Director of UKAEA at
Culham; Professor Jonathan Billowes, the Director of Education
at the Dalton Nuclear Institute; Dr Stephen Garwood, the Director
of Engineering & Technology-Submarines, at Rolls-Royce; and
Dr Graham Baldwin, the Pro Vice Chancellor (Nuclear Industries)
at the University of Central Lancashire. I wonder if I could I
start with you, Professor Billowes. Could you give the Committee
a definition of what you see as nuclear engineering; what is it?
Your colleagues will then check to see whether you get the right
answer.
Professor Billowes: The narrow
definition, if you have an undergraduate programme called nuclear
engineering; it would have reactor physics and criticality, nuclear
fuel cycle, some hydraulics, basic nuclear physics and radio protection.
If you ask what a nuclear power programme would require, it is
rather broader, so it would have chemistry, radio-chemistry materials,
socio-economics and social sciences.
Q2 Chairman: Colleagues, would anybody
like to add to that?
Dr Garwood: I can give a slightly
modified, industrial view, Chairman. In the industrial arena,
I think it would be broader, in the sense that people with an
engineering background and a graduate degree who are then trained
in the nuclear arena in their specialisations which could be done
by the industry would also be nuclear engineers in the broad.
Dr Baldwin: From our point of
view, we took a fairly broad definition and looked at engineering
applied to the nuclear sector, so that we did not just narrow
it down to those people who required specific nuclear activities
but the engineering that is required to underpin the nuclear industry
broadly.
Q3 Chairman: So, if you were building
a nuclear power station, a significant amount of it, taking away
the reactor, is standard engineering, but would you include that
because it was part of the nuclear installation as nuclear engineering?
Dr Baldwin: Yes, we see a need
for specific programmes as well as more generic programmes and
within those generic programmes we would have a stream of core
engineering elements but then some nuclear modules attached to
that. But then when a graduate goes into the industry they would
then be able to apply that in the various different contexts and
they would get training on the ground.
Q4 Chairman: Sir Chris, is it important
for us as a Committee to make it absolutely clear what we understand
by nuclear engineering?
Professor Llewellyn Smith: Yes,
I should think so. Fusion is in the research phase at the moment
and is mainly dominated by plasma physics, but in the future it
is going to become increasingly dominated by engineering and development
and the United Kingdom programme must move in that direction because
that is where the intellectual value will be and that is where
the centre of gravity will be. We have lots of engineering skills
in what we are doing in particular to operate the Joint European
Torus at Culham at the moment in cryogenics, controls, high vacuum,
super conductivity and radio frequency systems but in the future
we are going to need just these skills, fuel cycle and others,
fluid transfer, high heat flux, which are broader than nuclear.
In building a fusion power station, there will be a core of some
nuclear skills but a very broad range of engineering will be needed.
At the moment we only have a limited range of specifically nuclear
activities to do with the activation of materials and the tritium
handling cycle, which we will probably have unique expertise in
the world—I am talking about half a dozen people, at the
moment. But if we are not moving there in 15 years, the United
Kingdom will not be there as a major player.
Q5 Graham Stringer: That leads neatly
on to a question of what are the nuclear engineering strengths
and weaknesses. What are the strengths in this country of nuclear
engineering and what are the weaknesses?
Dr Garwood: There is a very strong
strength on design still in this country. My company has been
designing pressurised water reactors for 50 years. We have 850
nuclear engineers in the broader sense working today on that activity
and that is a continuing skill. There is also a skill out in the
supply chain, which has come from the legacy issues in nuclear
engineering and I think it is that supply chain that we need to
advance with the new civil build. We still have a very strong
capability out in the supply chain and in certain industries in
the nuclear area.
Q6 Graham Stringer: Anybody else
on weaknesses?
Professor Llewellyn Smith: Yes,
if I look at the skills we need, it is much broader than just
nuclear, so the physicists we want we can get; the mechanical
engineers we want, with some difficulty; high voltage electrical
engineers, not for love or money; mechanical engineers with design
and project leadership skills, very difficult to get; in the future
when we need nuclear engineers, I expect they will be difficult
to get too.
Q7 Graham Stringer: What do you think
the Government should do about those weaknesses, those areas where
we do not have the skills?
Professor Llewellyn Smith: It
needs things to encourage young people at all levels. Starting
off, we are doing things in primary schools, for example. By the
way, I would like to invite the Committee to come and visit us,
in particular, to see what we are doing with primary schools,
which is very interesting. We get the kids in and I can give you
a quote from an independent reviewer, "I used to think that
science was boring but now I see it can actually be interesting",
etc. All the way up, we are doing what we can at schools for the
very long term; at university we have summer placements, and so
on, and we are trying to get engineering graduates in, but there
is competition out there, but we are growing our own. We have
also restarted our own apprenticeship scheme, which was dead for
many years, and it is going well. The first entry is just coming
through; two of them are now doing part-time degrees. We are doing
what we can, but it is a drop in the ocean, so it needs something
to really stimulate engineering generally in schools. I have got
some ideas on that.
Q8 Chairman: Is there anything you
want to add?
Professor Billowes: Yes, on the
weakness side, which apart from the fusion programme, in the fission
area, our engagement with Europe and America is weak in basic
R&D and if we could get that done at universities and with
the National Nuclear Laboratory, it would encourage young people,
it opens up a pipeline to general engineers to get into that area,
so GEN 4 type systems, GNEP.
Dr Baldwin: I think we need clarity
of message. I would agree that we have got a long history and
experience of delivering high-quality engineering education and
that capability still exists, but there is a challenge in the
throughput of new people into the industry, or into the subject
area, so we have to be innovative in terms of our delivery. We
have to have clarity of message because we have not recruited
significantly as there has been hesitancy and uncertainty around
nuclear and its future. So, we welcome the fact that there is
that clear message but we need that clarity and we need to translate
that into innovative programme design and to encourage young people
to come through and take on science, technology and engineering
subjects, as we have heard, at school and right the way through
into university. We have got to have that clarity and joined-up
approach.
Q9 Graham Stringer: So, we have got
an immediate skill shortage in certain areas. What are the other
big challenges over the next 50 years?
Professor Billowes: I think there
are three areas that we need to work in. One is that we are going
to need operators to operate plant from 2018, and they should
be in the educational system now and they need a career path;
they have got to be suitably qualified and experienced, and getting
experience takes years. In the short term, the expertise is in
the country, it will probably be in the National Nuclear Laboratory,
the Nexia Solutions people, provide enough expertise in the licensing
process to start off with, but that expertise needs to be carried
over to the next generation as well because those people are older
than average and will be retiring soon.
Q10 Chairman: All this is pie in
the sky. We were talking about major civil build for four and
up to 10 nuclear power stations, starting within the next six
to eight years—if we are going to meet the 2018 target that
the Government has set, some of them are going to have to be coming
out of the ground within five to eight years. If that is the case,
we have missed the boat, have we not? We are not going to be able
to grow the new group of engineers in that space of time, so where
are we going to get them from?
Professor Billowes: I do not think
we have missed the boat. I think the bigger problem may be the
bottlenecks in the supply chain.
Dr Garwood: I agree with what
Jon says. I do not think we have missed the boat. We have a new
generation design going on in the military field and obviously
there is somewhat of a threat in the civil programme of drawing
people from the military programme which will only just resource
it. But I believe the United Kingdom can support those programmes.
Timing and resources are everything though, because the next generation
of civil build will not be designed in the United Kingdom, the
design will come from abroad, whereas the military designs are
UK-based. So you can see that the designers currently learning
their skills in the military field will then move on to the civil
field when we go on to the GEN IV programmes. Equally, the resource
basis can be partly filled by the people from Europe in the interim,
but we need to build a United Kingdom resource for the longer
term when we are operating these plants. So, timing and resource
planning is the key to this.
Q11 Graham Stringer: May I take you
back to the answer about one of the weaknesses being our relationship
with Europe and the United States. I would be grateful if you
could expand on that and explain why that is a weakness, and also
explain what the United Kingdom's nuclear engineers' role will
be internationally over the next 20 years or so.
Professor Billowes: At the moment,
I think the United Kingdom has a lot of expertise in different
reactor systems; some of the technology is in the GEN IV system.
The DTI pulled out of GEN IV three or four years ago and since
then we, for example, are trying to do basic science and we cannot
get research money from EPSRC for that because there is the perception
that the United Kingdom is not longer supporting advanced reactor
R&D. So, it is GEN IV we have pulled out of; we are in GNEP.
Q12 Graham Stringer: Can you quantify
that a bit in terms of the damage in terms of fund allocations?
Just ballpark figures.
Professor Billowes: I am not sure
I can give a ballpark figure but it might have been £4 million
spread around several universities and companies like AMEC, Nexia
and Serco. It allows research to be done and it brings in young
people; new blood.
Q13 Graham Stringer: So you would
like that decision reversed, essentially?
Professor Billowes: Yes, and also
investment in R&D in the long term, you recover that money
by factors or two or three further down the road.
Dr Garwood: It is important to
note that we have not missed the boat because on the military
programmes the R&D has started. The Government, through the
Ministry of Defence, have already put in £25 million of R&D
money into those programmes. So, that activity is going on and
that is giving an unpinning to the skill base. But I agree with
Jon, for the future programmes, we need a future into the R&D.
Dr Baldwin: We have also got to
take into account that we are looking at new blood into the industry
but also looking at the reskilling and the upskilling agenda and
as we go through the phase of nuclear decommissioning and we see
that there are people who are no longer required within that activity,
then there is an opportunity for reskilling and upskilling work
to increase the pool of people who could work in the new build.
Q14 Chairman: In terms, Sir Chris,
of the learned societies and the professional bodies, how significant
does nuclear engineering feature?
Professor Llewellyn Smith: I am
probably not the right person to ask that because the professional
bodies that I belong to have no interest in it whatsoever, as
far as I know. I am not an engineer.
Q15 Chairman: Are you all members
of professional bodies?
Dr Garwood: Yes. The Royal Academy
of Engineering is now a large focus and the Academy is looking
at this very seriously. I do not know whether you are taking evidence
from Academy members. It is back on the engineering agenda and
I would just like to say that we have recruited 230 engineers
in the past two years in Rolls-Royce to do nuclear engineering
in the broader sense. They are engineers who would either be trained
to do engineering or are from a nuclear background. These guys
are coming into the programme because there is a future in the
programme now. They can see 40 years of design and operation of
these new plants and that is what stimulates engineers to come
into a future.
Q16 Chairman: I can see that. You
have all displayed a real enthusiasm for nuclear engineering this
afternoon. I was with a group of people this morning who were
telling me there was a huge disconnect between the vision of the
learned societies and the institutions, and what was actually
happening on the ground. I wonder whether you share that view?
Dr Garwood: Not really, no.
Q17 Mr Marsden: I wonder if we could
just drill down a little further on some of the issues of skill
shortages in nuclear engineering. Perhaps I could start off by
asking you, Professor Llewellyn Smith: the statistics that are
knocking around, or the reported statistics that we have received,
are pretty worrying. Professor Faulkner said, in his written evidence
to us, that the nuclear engineering skill base reduced approximately
10% per annum for the past 15 years. We have got other reports
from British Energy and elsewhere that suggest that the United
Kingdom needs to double the number of STEM graduates it produces
in general from 45,000 to 97,000 by 2014. Has the melt-down, if
one can put it that way, in terms of skill shortage been so much
worse in nuclear than other branches of engineering, and if so,
why?
Professor Llewellyn Smith: For
us, in fusion, we do not really need nuclear skills today; we
foresee the need in the future. We are not feeling a melt down,
we are feeling a problem in the many areas of engineering. As
a citizen, I am concerned about the figures that you quoted and
we can see a problem in the future, but it is not actually affecting
what we are doing today.
Q18 Mr Marsden: Do any other members
of the panel want to comment on the broader aspects affecting
the industry?
Dr Baldwin: I think you are right,
we do need a significant increase in the number of engineers over
the next few years. With regard to nuclear, there are a number
of factors that have influenced its attractiveness. The uncertainty
that I alluded to earlier, people not sure about what the future
will be for nuclear, the advent of nuclear decommissioning was
not necessarily very well understood. The fact that nuclear decommissioning
has quite a significant lifespan but the term decommissioning
suggests an end game and therefore does not necessarily attract
new people into it. With the increasing interest in energy generally,
and with a greater understanding of the future of nuclear, there
is now an opportunity to attract more people into education and
into the STEM subjects. There is an awful lot of work being done
now that will pay dividends over the next few years, so there
is a reason for confidence that we can meet the demands as we
move forward, but it will take significant action.
Q19 Mr Marsden: Just on that specific
point, the issue as always with these things—to quote Keynes'
famous dictum "in the long term we are all dead"—is
whether in fact the degradation in terms of skills, the statistics
that I have quoted, can be sufficiently reversed in the medium
term to preserve the position for the summing up plans that the
broader picture suggests. I wonder whether you think that we have
got the time to do that.
Dr Baldwin: I think we are doing
the right things in terms of making sure that we do have the skills
in the timeframe that we are discussing.
Professor Billowes: There are
two points. One is that until Lancaster University started their
nuclear engineering undergraduate degree two years ago, there
was not a single nuclear engineering undergraduate degree in the
country. So, that is one reason why you do not have people coming
through that route. There have been a few masters programmes in
the nuclear engineering area—Birmingham's physics and technology
of nuclear reactors has been running for over 50 years; HMS Sultan
have been doing courses for graduates within the nuclear department,
and we have now a national Nuclear Technology Education Consortium
involving 11 universities. These are producing masters-level people
doing nuclear engineering who come from a general background,
so it nuclearises them.
| 
