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.
|