Memorandum submitted by TUV NEL (FC 14)
1. DECLARATION
OF INTERESTS
1.1 I am a director of TUV NEL Ltd (formerly
the National Engineering Laboratory) and as such have interests
relating to the National Measurement System (NMS) which is managed
by the National Measurement Office (NMO).
1.2 TUV NEL is designated as one of three
National Measurement Institutes (NMIs), the others being NPL and
LGC.
1.3 In my 25 year career at TUV NEL
I have been through the periods of operation within DTI; the operation
of NEL as an Executive Agency; the privatisation of NEL and sale
to Siemens; and the subsequent change of ownership to TUV. Prior
to working at TUV NEL, I spent 4 years in post-graduate engineering
research at Southampton University.
1.4 During the course of my career I have
had considerable dealings with the energy sector within the UK
and globally, as well as with the UK public sector. Much of the
experience with the energy sector has been on industry-funded
research projects.
2. SCOPE OF
REPLY
2.1 Comments and observations are largely
concerned with the area of scientific and engineering research
undertaken by the NMS as this is where the vast majority of my
experience has been gained over the years. This falls primarily
in the "demand-led" research category described in your
email.
3. PERTINENT
COMMENTS
3.1 The vision and commitment to the delivery
of practical engineering and science research is unfortunately
woeful in the UK mainly because of the short timelines involved
and the political aspects that have been all too evident over
the last 20 years.
3.2 The organisation I manage has by its
very nature major engineering infrastructure that needs to be
actively managed in a way that encourages innovation and modernisation
to address the national challenges. Over the years we have had
some great successes, but the vision for this has largely come
from within. There has been little, if any, encouragement from
central government to the active development and support of the
engineering capability located at TUV NEL. The infrastructure
relies principally on support from the NMS, and this has no more
than a 3-year time horizon, and as we are seeing now can be cut
at any point. This is no way to manage and plan a unique engineering
research resource within the UK.
3.3 When I took over the role I am currently
discharging in 1993, the budget for the NMS Flow Programme (NEL's
part of the NMS) was some £4.8 million per annum. It now
stands at £3 million per annum. Making the comparison based
on value today, this is a reduction from £7 million to £3 million
per annum on a like-for-like basis. And yet flow metrology is
right at the heart of many aspects of industry, business and taxation.
The famous saying about "measurement" by Lord Kelvin
is very true, but the strategic support within the UK to support
measurement research and innovation is effectively being left
to die a slow and painful death, either through neglect (no inflationary
funding increases) or through more direct cuts as witnessed recently.
And now with the prospect of more to come courtesy of the financial
sector.
3.4 The flow metrology programme referred
to is at the forefront of research into the challenges faced by
the change in structure of the energy sector in the UK. Recent
cuts within the NMS have had the bizarre effect of eliminating
virtually all the support for metrology research in the area of
low carbon technology. At a time when there should be vision,
support and growth of these capabilities, we have in fact gone
backwards. The programme is now faced with choosing which of the
challenges in the energy sector to ignore: LNG, carbon capture,
complex fluid metrology, low carbon technologies ….
To say this is short-sighted as a nation is an understatement,
but that is the reality today.
3.5 The questionnaire requested thoughts
on impact. This is always difficult to gauge in advance or whilst
in progress, but there are three different examples of impact
that stand out amongst many I have observed.
3.5.1 During the 1990s the succession of
cuts to funding saw all public support removed from the world
leading structural test centre at the then NEL. This was a unique
facility within the UK and Europe that allowed full-scale structural
testing of large engineering components such as aircraft wings,
oil platform legs and train carriages. The upkeep of the centre
was substantial as large facilities of this type are highly capital
intensive. Without the underpinning public funding the centre
was closed within 5 years. The free-marketers may argue that
this was a good outcome because industry should support such facilities.
However, the UK now wishes to invest heavily in offshore structures
for wind farms and the UK structural test and research capability
that previously existed will not be there to serve the many and
varied challenges that this will create. This is a good example
of a lack of strategic vision within the public sector that has
had major negative impact on the UK economy going forward.
3.5.2 The development of the atomic clock
at NPL has spawned many innovations. It is at the heart of mobile
phone technology and satellite technology amongst many other applications.
Would this research have been funded under the current climate
of "demonstrate impact"? A very resounding no is the
answer because back in 1955 nobody could have foreseen the
innovations that simply measuring time more accurately could have
led to. I agree that applied research should be able to identify
clear benefits and potential impact, but there is a strong case
to diminish these requirements as the research becomes more long-term.
It is after all this type of research that made the UK a leader
in the scientific world.
3.5.3 At NEL we have spent the last 25-years
developing and supporting the implementation of multi-phase flow
measurement technology. This is an important aspect of the oil
& gas production chain as it has allowed (along with other
innovations) the development of deepwater reserves. This research
has been underpinned throughout by the NMS through the provision
of the necessary facility infrastructure to undertake the research.
The impact has been multi-billion GBP. Contrast this with the
metrology challenges now facing carbon capture and storage, which
is at the same stage that the multi-phase flow research was some
20 years ago. The present funding cuts will mean that the
NMS will struggle to provide anything like the same level of response,
if any response at all to this challenge. This is where vision,
strategy and commitment are needed within BIS and DECC, to support
this type of grand-challenge on a long-term basis.
3.6 Competition between research organisations
and between departments within government has been encouraged
over the last 20 years. Is this a good approach to scientific
research? It is a culture that certainly breeds short-termism
and often hinders collaboration rather than promotes it. This
is most definitely true within the NMS (the 3 NMIs compete
albeit on a very unequal basis). It is certainly true also that
the TSB, RCs and NMS view each other as competitors when there
should be an underlying culture that actively breeds real (and
long-term) partnership between these organisations. On balance
I would be encouraging government to find ways of reducing competition
between research organisations, but in exchange I would be looking
for research organisations to be embracing the national challenges
more readily than they do at present. There should be much more
leadership and vision coming from BIS and DECC.
3.7 The involvement of industry in long-term
strategic research programmes must be actively encouraged. Other
countries, such as the US, have had very effective alliances between
energy companies and the state over many years. The Deepstar and
RPSEA projects in the US are good models to consider. Deepstar
in particular has been running since the 1980s. This is certainly
one method of helping to alleviate public funding shortages while
maintaining long-term research. The key in these programmes is
a shared vision.
The above points are a fairly wide-ranging set
of observations based on 25 years of working in an organisation
heavily involved in delivering publicly funded research.
I trust they are of interest to the committee,
and would welcome more dialogue if you so wish.
Dr B C Millington
Director, TUV NEL
| 
