Building New Nuclear- the challenges ahead: Government Response to the Committee's Sixth Report of Session 2012-13 - Energy and Climate Change Contents


Appendix: Government Response


My predecessor, John Hayes, appeared before the Energy and Climate Change Committee on 6 November 2012 as part of your enquiry into Building New Nuclear. He agreed to write and set out how Government would provide assistance to businesses who wanted to access the supply chain opportunities offered by new nuclear. I am pleased to be able to outline our actions below.

In order to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the major opportunities presented Government has established the Hinkley Strategic Delivery Forum (the Forum). The Forum brings together senior representatives from key Government Departments (DECC, BIS, DCLG, DWP and DfT), the local authorities, business representatives, educational leaders and EDF Energy.

The purpose of the Forum is to co-ordinate the approach across all parties to capturing the economic benefits arising from Hinkley Point C, to maximise employment, business development and inward investment opportunities and create a lasting legacy for the Somerset region.

The Forum has commissioned a number of workstreams covering areas such as inward investment, skills and employment. In addition the Forum is taking forward a project on the local and regional supply chain. The key objectives of the supply chain workstream, led by the Chief Executive of the Somerset Chamber of Commerce, are to ensure there are mechanisms in place to assist businesses to fund the capability, capacity and standards accreditation gap, deliver supplier excellence models and create an environment where innovation is required that taps into relevant SME experience. The project is also concerned with ensuring competitive bid funding addresses the nuclear new build environment and put collaboration models in place that stimulate and support supply chain development.

Activities to be undertaken by the supply chain workstream, targeted to the local region, include identifying and agreeing the key business needs and supply chain capability gaps and recommending solutions. Developing three packages of resource (funding, knowledge, delivery) that will start to meet business needs and identified priorities. The workstream will also seek to arrange for the NAMRC to deliver series of workshops addressing components of work packages of relevance to the local and regional supply chain to address targeted audience. Work on the workstream has already begun and regular reports, detailing progress of this project, are provided to the Forum.

We intend to replicate this approach with forums for the other sites as they develop, subject to local circumstances. This action has been taken within the context of our general policy which is to facilitate the formation of Strategic Delivery Forums at a local level (in accordance with action 2 in the NSCAP), bringing together local and national Government representatives with developers, education and business partners. Objectives include maximising local and regional employment and supply chain opportunities arising from both new nuclear and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority developments in the area.

In addition to this the NAMRC is specifically working with the UK supply chain manufacturing companies to compete for nuclear contracts worldwide and become part of the global supply chains of the reactor vendors and their Tier 1's through their 'Fit for Nuclear' programme. This takes a tiered approach to initially help companies assess their current capability with respect to entering the nuclear supply chain and then supports them through the process of developing their capability if required.

This information is also included within the Government response to the enquiry.

Michael Fallon  
Minister of State, DECC

The Government welcomes the Energy and Climate Change Committee's report on Building New Nuclear.

This response has been prepared by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), with input from HM Treasury, the Environment Agency (EA), the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and the Planning Inspectorate (PINS).

The Committee's recommendations are shown in bold and the paragraph references at the end of each recommendation correspond with those in the Committee's report. The Government's response is given beneath each recommendation, or group of recommendations.

Consequence of failing to deliver new build

1. We conclude that while the cancellation or reduction of the UK's new nuclear programme may cause challenges for energy security, it would have a much more significant impact on the UK's ability to meet carbon reduction goals, making our legally-binding long term targets extremely challenging, if not impossible to meet. (Paragraph 21)

Different technology mixes to meet decarbonisation and security objectives have been considered as part of the strategic work of the Department. While it is theoretically possible to meet our decarbonisation objectives without new nuclear, it would be very challenging to do so. We would also expect the costs of meeting the objectives to be higher without new nuclear, as it is a proven technology and expected to be the cheapest low-carbon source of electricity in the future.

However, the Government is working hard to reduce the UK's carbon emissions. Through the Climate Change Act 2008, we were the first country in the world to pass a legally-binding emissions reduction target of 80% by 2050 (on 1990 levels). The Act established a clear framework - a system of five year carbon budgets - for reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a trajectory to 2050. To date, we have already reduced emissions by 26%, and under current emissions projections we are set to overachieve against the first three carbon budgets; representing, at least, a 34% emissions reduction by 2020.

In December 2011, we published the Carbon Plan, which set out proposals for achieving the emissions reductions committed to in the first four carbon budgets, on a pathway consistent with meeting the 2050 target. We are acting now to deliver the changes necessary. The Energy Bill set out proposals for reforming the electricity market to support low carbon generation, changes which should lead to a doubling in the normal rate of investment; we are supporting continued take-up of energy efficiency measures through the Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation; building a market for renewable heat through the Renewable Heat Incentive; and have put in place a Green Investment Bank to help catalyse the private investment that is needed in low carbon technology.

2. We also conclude that failing to deliver the 16GW new build that is currently under development could undermine any hopes of developing new funding models for subsequent nuclear new build. This would make it likely that future projects would not be able to raise the necessary capital, raising the prospect that it would not be possible to build any further nuclear plant without state funding (see paragraph 45). (Paragraph 23)

The Government welcomes the ambition set out by industry to develop up to 16GW of new nuclear capacity, and remains firmly committed to its efforts to ensure that the conditions are right for investment in new nuclear power in the UK. We have removed barriers to investment in new nuclear build, through completing the facilitative actions of the 2008 White Paper on Nuclear Power, to make the UK one of the most attractive places to invest.

The UK's new nuclear programme is advancing positively with three projects currently being taken forward by NNB GenCo, NuGen and Horizon Nuclear Power, and the purchase last year of Horizon Nuclear Power by Hitachi is clear evidence of the attractiveness of the new nuclear market in the UK. Interest in buying Horizon was strong, from credible potential new entrants to the UK market, emphasising that new nuclear in the UK is a highly attractive proposition. Taken together with the market reforms we are introducing in the Energy Bill, we are confident that we will see investment move forward, in the context of the Government's policy on no public subsidies for new nuclear as set out in a written statement made to Parliament in October 2010.

Will the new nuclear programme be delivered?

3. We commend both the Government and industry in their efforts to date to learn lessons and adopt best practice from nuclear new build projects in other countries. It is still early days for new build projects in the UK, so it will be important to keep monitoring developments elsewhere in the world for emerging lessons and ideas that could be adopted in the UK. (Paragraph 30)

4. We note that the first new nuclear power plants in the UK are likely to take longer to build than subsequent plants of the same design. This is because while some lessons can be learnt from experience overseas, differences between the UK context and other countries will mean these projects should still be considered "first of a kind" initiatives. (Paragraph 31)

We are pleased that the Committee has recognised the steps DECC and industry have taken to ensure that lessons are learned from early new build programmes across the world, both by Government and by developers. We know that the progress of construction of the first new nuclear power station will be watched keenly by potential investors and developers. We also know that an inability to deliver to time and budget will affect the level of interest in nuclear new build in the future, and could therefore severely limit the potential for a new nuclear programme. This learning process will continue as the UK new build programme progresses. DECC will use this engagement to ensure issues that have the potential to delay new build are identified and addressed though work with industry and other Government Departments.

5. The Government is taking steps to facilitate and encourage new build nuclear in the UK but the final decisions to go ahead or not will be taken by boardroom executives rather than Ministers. Given that ultimately these decisions are beyond the Government's control, it is worrying that DECC does not have any contingency plans in place for the event that little or no new nuclear is forthcoming. Crossing one's fingers is not an adequate or responsible approach when the UK's legally binding climate change commitments and energy security are at stake. For a department whose principal priorities are to ensure energy security and carbon reductions, DECC appears to be overly reliant on aspiration and hope. While we share the Minister's hope that new build will be delivered as planned, we nevertheless recommend that DECC begins exploring contingency options as a matter of urgency. (Paragraph 35)

Our long term energy strategy is sound. Our deliberate policy of an energy mix will ensure that the lights stay on and that we meet our legally binding carbon reduction targets. The scenarios in our Carbon Plan show that we have always been aware that different technologies may deliver more or less than forecast.

Our plans for new nuclear are based on more than one project and we have never been bound to any one developer. There is strong interest in new nuclear and its supply chain in the UK, attracted by the framework we are putting in place.

Moreover, our energy strategy is based on more than one form of generation. We have other plans in place to meet the challenge resulting from the gradual closure of our nuclear and coal fired power stations.

Electricity Market Reform (EMR) intends to bring about a far-reaching reform of the UK electricity market, in order to deliver the investment needed to maintain security of supply, meet our renewables and decarbonisation targets, and minimise consumer bills.

The key elements of EMR are Contracts for Difference (CfDs) and the Capacity Market. CfDs will stimulate investment in low carbon technologies, including renewables, nuclear and Carbon Capture and Storage, by providing predictable revenue streams that encourage investment and make it easier and cheaper to secure finance. The Capacity Market will ensure security of supply by giving providers of new gas plant other forms of reliable capacity financial incentives - making sure that the lights stay on at times of peak demand. These measures will create a dynamic new market in low carbon electricity and will make the UK a prime destination for energy investment, decarbonising and diversifying our energy mix in the most cost effective way.

The Government recognises that there is uncertainty about future costs and development for all technologies, which is why our EMR measures must be robust to all future outcomes.

EMR has therefore been designed to be flexible to different outcomes and to allow opportunity for all forms of generation to come forward, to provide a least cost mix. The long term vision is a market where low carbon generators compete fairly under a robust and stable carbon price. New nuclear power should be able to contribute as much as possible to the UK's need for new capacity within that competitive framework.

The Government's solutions

6. We support the introduction of Contracts for Difference as a way of reducing revenue and policy risk for nuclear new build projects. However, new nuclear should not be delivered if the price is too high. It is essential that any contract represents value for money for the consumer. We reiterate the recommendation made in our pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Energy Bill that at the very least, the nuclear strike price should not be higher than that given to offshore wind, which is hoped to be around £100/MWh by 2020. We further note that other low-carbon technologies are likely to receive strike prices significantly below this level and that nuclear will need to offer advantages compared with these technologies if it is to deliver good value to consumers. (Paragraph 49)

Negotiations with NNB GenCo Ltd about the potential terms of an Investment Contract that might enable them to make their final investment decision on the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant project are ongoing. Throughout the negotiation process we have been clear that an Investment Contract will only be offered to NNB GenCo Ltd if the deal is fair, affordable and value for money, as well as consistent with European state aid rules, and takes account of the Government's policy of no public subsidy for new nuclear. 

As with all forms of low carbon electricity, there will be transparency over the terms of any Investment Contracts offered to developers and details will be laid before Parliament. Any Investment Contract will be subject to supporting legislation and a positive state aid decision by the European Commission.

7. The UK Guarantees scheme may help to bring forward investment in Hinkley Point C, but it is not clear whether support will still be available for nuclear new build projects that are further away from making a final investment decision (such as the NuGen and Horizon projects). Given the important role for nuclear generation in the UK's future energy mix, the Government should extend this support to all nuclear new build projects, which may require increasing the amount of available assistance to more than £50 billion. (We note that the UK Guarantees scheme does not involve expenditure, as long as the guarantees are not called in.) (Paragraph 54)

All applications for the UK Guarantees Scheme, including those in relation to nuclear power projects, will be considered on their merits. On the specific points of timing and amount, it is within Ministers' discretion to extend the availability of the UK Guarantees Scheme beyond the end of 2014 should the Government desire to do so generally or in relation to specific projects; however, increasing the total amount available would require Parliamentary approval as set out in the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012. There is currently no timetable for reviewing the scheme.

Alternative approaches

8. As discussed in paragraphs 50-51, above, there is still a great deal of concern about the level of transparency of the strike price negotiations between nuclear developers and the Government. Although Mr de Rivaz told us that construction cost overruns would not be incorporated into the strike price for the Hinkley Point C project, the Minister was less clear on this point. We urge the Government to set out in its response to this report who is going to take the risk of construction costs being higher than anticipated: consumers (by incorporating this risk into Contracts for Difference), taxpayers (through the UK Guarantees scheme) or project developers. (Paragraph 58)

The Government has stated its view that the contractual arrangements should largely be standardised across different low-carbon technologies providing an efficient allocation of risk between generators and consumers. This provides a stable basis for investment, and is aligned with the Government's longer term plan to deliver least cost decarbonisation by providing a framework in which technologies compete for CfDs.

The Government does not view the CfD as an instrument allowing generators to pass through all costs and risks associated with generation. There are a range of risks that developers can, do, and should take without material incremental pressure on strike prices. Hence, noting the objectives of EMR, the CfD will not be designed to pass otherwise bearable risks fully to the consumer. The Government has made clear that in most cases we believe that developers are best able to manage construction risk through existing mechanisms (such as fixed price EPC turnkey or principal construction contracts).

For certain contract provisions, however, we recognise that it will be necessary to provide for some variations on a technology-specific, or similar, basis to ensure that a range of low-carbon technologies can come forward at a reasonable cost and in a manner that reflects distinguishable differences in risk profile. For example, the Government considers that a degree of distinction should be drawn between intermittent plant and baseload plant, and investment contracts entered into as part of the FID Enabling process may also require additional variation. We remain of the view that any such variations should only occur where they constitute an efficient allocation of risk, represent value for money for the consumer, and are consistent with State Aid requirements.

9. We recommend that DECC monitors progress toward developing small nuclear reactors, so that the possibility of including these as part of the UK energy mix remains open. (Paragraph 60)

Ultimately it is a matter for developers and operators to decide what type of fuel and technology to propose for future reactor systems and for the UK's Nuclear Regulators to be satisfied that plants meet their safety, security and environmental requirements.

DECC continues to maintain a watch on a wide range of reactor technologies that have the potential to contribute to the future energy mix. The Long-term Nuclear Energy Strategy, published alongside the Nuclear Industrial Strategy on 26 March 2012, sets out Government's wish to see a range of options explored in terms of reactor technologies and fuel types.

Building public support

10. It is important that local communities have an opportunity to engage in genuine dialogue about risk management with both the regulators and the developers. It is disappointing that there does not appear to be a natural forum for this kind of debate at present. The ONR and Environment Agency should plan their public engagement activities to coordinate better with the planning process, so that regulators and developers can be present at the same public meetings. (Paragraph 78)

We agree that communities should be able to engage with regulators and developers but the regulators' independence from Government and industry is important and we must not do anything which compromises or is seen to compromise it.

Regulators have a clearly defined role in advising the Planning Inspectorate during the planning application process. However, if regulators are considered to have too close an involvement with Government or developers during this process, it risks their independence being questioned and could potentially lead to a challenge of any decision made on the basis of their advice. It must therefore be for the regulators to decide how they use opportunities to engage with local stakeholders and to ensure that their independent status is not compromised.

We agree that the regulators engage with the local communities in a number of ways, and do not recognise the suggestion that the regulators (or the developers) are removed from the local process of risk management.  

The regulators recognise their responsibility to engage with and inform communities around proposed new nuclear sites about their roles and the decisions they make. They attend site stakeholder groups and meetings with local and national non-governmental organisations, including the DECC NGO Forum. They also hold community engagement forums at proposed new nuclear sites and attend public exhibitions hosted by developers. The EA sought local feedback at the outset on their proposals for engagement with the local community over their consultation on EDF's application for environmental permits for Hinkley and adapted their proposal to take account of this advice.

The regulators also play an important part in the Government's own nuclear consultation processes such as site meetings and exhibitions during the consultation on the draft energy National Policy Statements and the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Partnership meetings in Cumbria.

However, the regulators welcome comments and suggestions as to how they might enhance their stakeholder engagement. They continue to review their options for future engagement and will take the Committee's recommendations into account in doing so.

We have consulted the ONR and the Environment Agency about this reply.

11. There is a mismatch between the capacity of developers and that of local communities to participate fully and effectively in the planning process, particularly where large, complex and technical projects such as building a new nuclear power station are concerned. The Government should consider whether it is possible to provide advice and support to local communities living near to nationally significant infrastructure projects in a more systematic way than the current approach, which depends heavily on individual local authorities. For example, an independent advice service for communities living near to any nationally significant infrastructure project could be established. It could help local communities with interpretation of technical documents and provide advice on what types of compensation might be permitted under Section 106 agreements. It could be funded by levy on developers submitting applications to the Planning Inspectorate. (Paragraph 81)

Major infrastructure projects such as Hinkley Point are necessary but the Government appreciates that such large projects place particular pressures on local authorities and communities and that Government and developers therefore need to engage with these communities. The Government believes that the necessary measures are already in place, although these do of course need to be kept under review.

The Planning Inspectorate publishes guidance on its website on planning legislation and advice notes, for example on how local authorities can prepare Local Impact Reports and how communities can engage with its pre-application outreach work. The Planning Inspectorate held such outreach events in the run up to the Hinkley Point C examination.

The Department for Communities and Local Government also funds Planning Aid, a free advice service on planning issues. The Planning Aid's website provides detailed guidance on the preparation of local plans and their free telephone service provides advice on planning issues. The Citizens Advice Bureau also provides advice on planning questions.

The Localism Act requires developers to consult locally in advance of applications for development consent, including consulting local authorities on an appropriate consultation strategy, which can include funding independent advice. EDF made clear in its evidence to the Committee that it had carried out considerable levels of engagement and consultation with communities near Hinkley Point. This included contributing financially to help local authorities examine the application. The Planning Inspectorate took this consultation into account in assessing the application. EDF also acted through a Section 106 agreement negotiated with local authorities on planning obligations to alleviate the negative impacts of the construction process. EDF have also recently conducted the first consultation in the equivalent process intended to lead to an application for development consent for a new nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk.

However, it became clear to DECC in the course of the Hinkley Point process that there was a role for Government to act at times as a facilitator between the developer and local authorities and communities. DECC therefore set up a Hinkley Strategic Development Forum to bring together central Government (DECC, BIS, DCLG, DWP and DfT), developers, local authorities, local business, local educational bodies and EDF Energy. The purpose of the Forum is to co-ordinate the approach across all parties to capturing the economic benefits arising from Hinkley Point C, to maximise employment, business development and inward investment opportunities and to create a lasting legacy for the Somerset region. In specific relation to planning, the Forum aimed to identify unnecessary obstacles to the process of bringing forward a proposed development and how these might be addressed, without discussing the merits of the planning application.

The Government is also establishing such a forum for Sizewell, and in the case of the proposed new nuclear power stations at Wylfa in Anglesey and Moorside (Sellafield), will make use of existing bodies, the Energy Island Programme Strategic Forum and the West Cumbria Strategic Forum.

The Government has also recognised the impact of new nuclear power stations on communities through a commitment in the National Infrastructure Plan to come forward with proposals for a community benefit scheme beyond what is available through a developer's Section 106 agreement. The Government is currently finalising the proposals for a community benefits package for sites that host new nuclear power stations. Details of the package will be issued shortly.

On major planning proposals, the final decision will be taken by the Secretary of State on the advice of the Planning Inspectorate. As stated in our response to recommendation 10, it is important that all such decisions are robust against challenge. Direct involvement, including funding, by either body in the preparation of a planning application would risk successful challenge on the grounds that this prejudiced consideration and decision on the application. In general our view is that community engagement support is best delivered by non-governmental bodies and the voluntary sector, facilitated by Government, in a way which does not compromise the independence or impartiality of the consenting body.

The Government will keep its policies under review, but we think that we are following the right approach. We understand that local authorities and communities sometimes want to go further and discuss the merits of a planning application with the responsible authorities, but this is not something we should do.

12. The Government has argued that communities hosting renewable energy installations play a vital role in meeting a national need for secure, clean energy, and should be able to benefit from hosting such projects. Communities hosting nuclear power stations are contributing towards the same aims, and so it seems reasonable that they should also be able to benefit from hosting new-build projects. We recommend that Government extends the scope of its proposal to allow local authorities hosting renewable energy projects to retain business rates to include all forms of low-carbon energy (renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage). (Paragraph 83)

As outlined above, the Government is currently finalising the proposals for a community benefits package for sites that host new nuclear power stations. Details of the package will be issued shortly.

13. Unlike renewables, nuclear power stations take a long time to build and therefore have the potential to cause considerable disruption to local communities for an extended period of time. Government should investigate whether it could be possible to provide any additional forms of community benefit during the construction period (beyond the compensatory measures already agreed to in the section 106 deal). (Paragraph 85)

Section 106 agreements are paid by developers to Local Planning Authorities in order to offset the costs of the external effects of a development or to make a development acceptable for planning consent. S106 provisions are intended to mitigate the impact of the construction. At Hinkley, an agreement was made around the valuation of the s106 package and it would be contrary to the Government's no subsidy policy to provide additional funds for this purpose.

Potential for bottlenecks and delays

14. We recommend that DECC's Office for Nuclear Development (OND) investigates ways in which it might open a dialogue between the different consortia that are involved in nuclear new build in the UK. The OND should aim to facilitate a smoothing out of orders to supply chain companies in order to avoid crunch points and resultant delays. (Paragraph 91)

The Office for Nuclear Development is working alongside the Nuclear Industry Association Programme Management Board (PMB) to facilitate the smoothing of orders into the UK supply chain. The PMB comprises members of industry from both the client and supplier groups as well as Government. As part of this the PMB Nuclear Readiness Steering Committee is actively targeting the following six aspects of the nuclear new build programme to help mitigate risks and ensure that the programme can proceed with the maximum possible UK content.

  • Design Engineering and the Safety Case
  • Product manufacturing and Supply Chain Delivery
  • Civil/Site Construction
  • Installation and Commissioning
  • Quality
  • Skills

In addition to this, several actions within the Nuclear Supply Chain Action Plan (primarily actions 2 to 8) are specifically aimed at ensuring transparency of the forward programme to the UK supply chain.

15. We were pleased to see that DECC's Nuclear Supply Chain Action Plan (published after we had finished taking evidence) acknowledged that the costs involved in quality accreditation could be a barrier to entry into the nuclear supply chain. However, we were disappointed by the timetable for action - the first meeting with industry to "understand issues" will be held in the first quarter of 2013 and further meetings were not mentioned. If, as is widely expected, EDF makes a final investment decision to go ahead with Hinkley Point C in the near future, potential suppliers for that project might miss out. We urge DECC to bring forward solutions to this challenge by summer 2013 in order to maximise opportunities for domestic supply chain industries. (Paragraph 96)

The Nuclear Supply Chain Action Plan (NSCAP) does have a specific action looking at the barrier to entry due to the nuclear quality standards which is being progressed. In addition both the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (NAMRC) and the Nuclear Industry Association PMB have activity that is already underway looking at specific aspects of this that will supply the UK supply chain in this area.

The NAMRC's Quality, Codes and Standards workstream works with UK manufacturers to ensure they have clarity and knowledge on quality requirements, and nuclear codes and standards. The Nuclear Industry Association PMB Supply Chain Quality group works with clients and suppliers to look at best practice and improvements in both application and development of the quality standards for the nuclear industry.

16. We asked the Minister whether the Government would provide assistance to businesses who wanted to access supply chain opportunities. He told us "I think we will look again at how the process we have already begun can be tailored to bring about exactly what you suggest, which is the opportunity for as many smaller businesses as possible to engage. When I have done that I would be more than happy to write to the Committee setting out what we have done already and what more we think we might be able to do to ensure that outcome". We look forward to receiving the Minister's report on this matter. (Paragraph 97)

In order to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the major opportunities presented Government has, as mentioned in our response to recommendation 11, established the Hinkley Strategic Delivery Forum (the Forum). The Forum has commissioned a number of workstreams covering areas such as inward investment, skills and employment. In addition the Forum is taking forward a project on the local and regional supply chain. The key objectives of the supply chain workstream, led by the Chief Executive of the Somerset Chamber of Commerce, are to ensure there are mechanisms in place to assist businesses to fund the capability, capacity and standards accreditation gap, deliver supplier excellence models and create an environment where innovation is required that taps into relevant SME experience. The project is also concerned with ensuring competitive bid funding addresses the nuclear new build environment and put collaboration models in place that stimulate and support supply chain development.

Activities to be undertaken by the supply chain workstream, targeted to the local region, include identifying and agreeing the key business needs and supply chain capability gaps and recommending solutions. Developing three packages of resource (funding, knowledge, delivery) that will start to meet business needs and identified priorities. The workstream will also seek to arrange for the NAMRC to deliver series of workshops addressing components of work packages of relevance to the local and regional supply chain to address targeted audience. Work on the workstream has already begun and regular reports, detailing progress of this project, are provided to the Forum.

We intend to replicate this approach with forums for the other sites as they develop, subject to local circumstances. This action has been taken within the context of our general policy which is to facilitate the formation of Strategic Delivery Forums at a local level (in accordance with action 2 in the NSCAP), bringing together local and national Government representatives with developers, education and business partners. Objectives include maximising local and regional employment and supply chain opportunities arising from both new nuclear and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority developments in the area.

In addition to this the NAMRC is specifically working with the UK supply chain manufacturing companies to compete for nuclear contracts worldwide and become part of the global supply chains of the reactor vendors and their Tier 1's through their 'Fit for Nuclear' programme. This takes a tiered approach to initially help companies assess their current capability with respect to entering the nuclear supply chain and then supports them through the process of developing their capability if required.

Skills

17. Significant training will be required for the UK to benefit from new job opportunities. Initiatives like the energy centre in Bridgwater College are encouraging, but stronger leadership from Government about the future role of nuclear could help to encourage more people into this area of work. (Paragraph 103)

The Nuclear Energy Skills Alliance (comprising the National Skills Academy Nuclear, Construction Skills, ECITB, SEMTA, Cogent, Dalton Nuclear Institute, DECC, BIS and the Welsh Government) issued a Skills Delivery Plan in December 2012 which detailed actions to both create robust labour market intelligence for the future nuclear programme and implement action to immediately target specific critical skills priorities (as developed with industry). These actions look at both up-skilling for those transferring into the nuclear sector from related industries as well as developing and implementing specific skills strategies for higher level and R&D resources. Progress on these actions is well underway.



 
previous page contents


© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 17 May 2013