APPEG AGM 2nd March 2022

All Party Parliamentary Engineering Group

Minutes of the APPEG annual General Meeting 2022 Wednesday 2nd March 2022 – Room W2, House of Commons



Laurence Robertson MP (in the chair)

Professor the Lord Mair

Viscount Hanworth

Stephen Metcalfe MP

Lord Ravensdale


  1. Chair’s opening remarks

Laurence Robertson welcomed members to the meeting and thanked members for attending.

  • Apologies

Dave Doogan MP, Chi Onwurah MP and Chris Green MP

  • Election of Officers

The Co-Chairs, Laurence Robertson MP and Professor the Lord Mair were re-elected proposed by Viscount Hanworth and seconded by Lord Ravensdale.   

The Officers were proposed by Professor the Lord Mair and seconded by Laurence Robertson MP:

Lord Ravensdale, Chi Onwurah MP, Chris Green MP, Stephen Metcalfe MP, Dave Doogan MP and Viscount Hanworth

  • Report on year’s activities

There have been three meetings during the year, two virtual and one lunch in the Lords. 

There had been a waiting list for both events in the Lords with 14 schools participating and the list continues to grow

There was a general discussion on the quality of the speakers and their engagement with the young attendees

Future topics for the meetings were discussed

  • Statement of Accounts

The figures were presented and agreed by the meeting

  • AOB

It was agreed that the Houses of Parliament safeguarding policy be adopted by the Group and displayed on the website.

Lord Mair agreed to be the responsible peer, given that the Group’s meetings take place in the House of Lords

The Chair thanked the members and Secretariat for their support and closed the meeting

Signed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Laurence Robertson MP

Laurence Robertson thanked the members and the Secretariat for their support.

Signed:      ……………………………………………………………….

Laurence Robertson MP

Nuclear: The Real Story

Discussion over lunch in the House of Lords

Chair – Professor the Lord Broers


•   Paul Stein – Chief Technology Officer, Rolls Royce.

•   Andrew Cockcroft – Senior Manager – Community Relations, EDF

•   Karen Wheeler – Chief Executive Officer, Radioactive Waste Management (RWM)

Lord Broers began the meeting by thanking everyone for attending and introduced the first of the distinguished speakers, Paul Stein, Chief Technology Officer, Rolls Royce. 

Paul Stein

Paul Stein is responsible for Rolls Royce’s technology investment, ensuring close alignment with business strategy. His previous roles at Rolls Royce include Chief Scientific Officer, a role he had held between 2010 and 2016, and Director of Research and Technology from 2016 – 2017. He is also on the board of Energy Technologies Institute LLP.

Paul began his remarks by stating that renewable energy sources like wind and solar can only play part of a role in reaching net zero. At present, these intermittent renewables cannot be stored at the capacity needed to ensure that there is sufficient energy available to the grid. Thanks to small modular reactor’s (SMR’s), the cost of producing nuclear energy has reduced. This cost is only likely to reduce further as investment into manufacturing tech increases. It is not possible to rely solely on intermittent renewables and therefore investment and acceptance of nuclear energy is key.  

Paul further commented on the need for clean energy to power electric vehicles (EVs) and other forms of non-combustible transport. As we get closer to 2030 and the ban on the sale of combustible vehicles, the need for EV charging points is only going to increase. It is estimated that the UK will need an additional 20Gw capacity to meet the future EV demand. 

Lord Broers then welcomed the second distinguished speaker, Andrew Cockcroft, Senior Manager – Community Relations, EDF. 

Andrew Cockcroft 

Andrew Cockcroft is responsible for ensuring that Hinkley Point C continues to work collaboratively with external partners to maximise the social and economic opportunities of a such a large project. With an academic background in sustainability and energy policy, Andrew has been part of the Hinkley Point C project for over a decade – initially working as part of the team developing the planning application that provided the go-ahead for the first new nuclear power station in a generation.

Andrew opened his remarks by stating that there are three core reasons in favour of nuclear power.

  1. The social argument is rooted in the need for upskilling the next generation in order to secure a green future. This issue is not going to be solved by one generation of engineers. At Hinkley Point, there has been a £16million investment in new training facilities to ensure that the necessary training can take place.
  2. There is also an economic argument for nuclear power. Not only is energy cheap and clean, but investment at Hinkley Point currently supports 22,000 jobs across the UK. There has also been a £4.1billion direct spend with local businesses and this figure will only increase as the project continues.
  3. The environmental argument for nuclear is clear. The production of low carbon energy is vital for the UK to achieve its 2050 net zero ambitions. New nuclear reactors are under construction right now; it is more reliable that intermittent renewables like wind and solar and as environmentally friendly (as confirmed by recent life cycle carbon analysis). At Hinkley Point, the project is beginning to move into the mechanical and electrical installation phase. It is anticipated that it will be 5 years before the site becomes fully operational and begins to produce power for the grid.  

Lord Broers then welcomed the final distinguished speaker, Karen Wheeler, Chief Executive Officer, Radioactive Waste Management (RWM)

Karen Wheeler

RWM, as part of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority group, is leading the way for the safe, secure, long-term management of the most hazardous radioactive waste in the UK. 

Karen’s previous roles include working as Director General of the Border Delivery Group, leading the border planning for EU exit, and NHS England’s National Director for Transformation and Corporate Operations, as well as leading major change and infrastructure projects in the Ministry of Justice – so she is used to embracing important and complex challenges.

Karen is leading the geological disposal project solution to deal with the by-products of nuclear energy: radioactive waste. In the 60 years that nuclear technology has been available globally, there have been no permanent solutions for managing highly radioactive waste. Currently, most toxic waste is stored above ground. 

Geological disposal is the long-term solution for waste. Finland’s geological disposal facility is due to start operations in 2024; France, Canada and Sweden are also well underway with their respective Geological disposal programmes. There is a large quantity of legacy highly radioactive waste from decommissioning previous nuclear facilities; 750,000 cubic metres, which is a similar size to Big Ben cubed. It will take hundreds and thousands of years for some of this radioactive waste to decay to a safe state. This waste will be disposed of in a highly engineered facility between 500m – 1km below ground. Now we have made progress in identifying some “willing communities” prepared to consider hosting a GDF, , it will take 30 years to test the suitability of potential sites, and to design and construct a facility deep underground site for the waste, and a further 100 years at least to place all of the waste. The GDF programme has very considerable benefits for the local community that will host it, and will create between 800 and 2000 jobs, which will last over the lifetime of the programme.   

Questions and Answers

Q1 – Dr David Boyce

            Question – Many of these projects will span different governments and therefore different political agendas. How vulnerable are these projects to a change in government direction?

            Answer – Andrew Cockcroft

Andrew noted that since the Hinkley project was given the green light in 2010, for 5 years the project has remained within the planning process. However, politically there is a realisation of the need for nuclear power. Any risks associated with nuclear power are mitigated by the need for clean energy and the potential catastrophic affects of climate change. 

            Answer – Paul Stein

Paul noted that many of the programmes are now international and would continue to be worked on should the Government change its mind on nuclear energy. It is now a truly international enterprise comprising engineers from all over the world. Paul quoted Exelon, who run 100 global power stations.

Q2 – Wahid Fakry

            Question – What is the UK regulatory framework and how will it help to innovate, as SMR’s are not the endgame. 

            Answer – Paul Stein

UK regulators are amongst the toughest in the world, which is beneficial as almost all other countries accept certification from regulators. In order for technology to be robust in the long-term, there must be a strong case that the technology is safe. 

            Answer – Andrew Cockcroft

SMR’s, just like larger nuclear power stations, are a large design and are therefore subject to a strong design assessment regulator – the GDA. One of the benefits of the UK regulatory regime is the scope it allows for learning.

            Answer – Karen Wheeler

Karen noted that all sites are closely regulated, and that a positive relationship with regulators is vital to public confidence. Geological Disposal Facilities (GDF) are one of a kind and as such, require international co-operation. International collaboration is vital to ensure any project is successful. 

Q3 – Chi Onwurah MP

            Question – Certain political parties argue that the UK can achieve its net zero targets without the need for nuclear energy. How can I make a convincing argument that nuclear needs to be part of the solution to achieving net zero?

            Answer – Andrew Cockcroft

The biggest argument in favour of nuclear energy is the energy security that it brings. Intermittent renewables, for example, do not provide this level of security as the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. Nuclear is a proven and reliable method of producing electricity at all times of the year.

            Answer – Paul Stein

The storage of renewables like wind and solar are very expensive and the technology is not yet ready to store it at required capacities. This is where the economics of net zero come into play, as well as the short time scale to reach the UK’s climate ambitions. The Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) currently use University College London’s (UCL) model to determine the UK’s energy needs and grid capacity.

Q4 – Maddie Connor 

Question – Is nuclear power the long-term answer once we have reached net zero? It seems as though this is just another short-term solution and some of the by-products could have lasting global implications in the future.

            Answer – Karen Wheeler

It is important to reassure people regarding the safety of nuclear power, whilst learning lessons from the past of the best way of operating. Unfortunately, the impacts of climate change are imminent and there are current, pressing issues which need to be solved using the technology that we currently have available. 

            Answer – Paul Stein

Currently, the debate is between CO2 and nuclear waste. CO2 has detrimental impact on the environment and will cause catastrophic impacts on the environment. Global scientists have agreed that temperature rises must be limited to no more than 1.5 degrees to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Using present technology, geographical disposal of nuclear waste is the best available option we must reach net zero and avoiding some of the worst climate impacts. 

Q5 – Ben Jeffries

            Question – What do the speakers think about pivoting toward thorium salt reactors at some point in the future, or even cold fusion?

            Answer – Paul Stein

As an engineer, I have seen no evidence that cold fusion works. There are a variety of different reactor types, and they are all great science projects but are unachievable in the timeframe. Starting now on a whole new science for nuclear power is not going to impact net zero by 2050. We need to stop talking about new science and get on with engineering to decarbonise the grid. Our own SMR uses pressurised water reactors and we as a company have made 45 of them – however first power to the grid will be 2030. I am worried by any science that starts with a new science. For the sake of this generation, we have to crack on now and get on with decrabonising the grid.  

Q6 – Phillip Foster

Question – How can you persuade communities that have not been treated well by fossil fuel companies that they will be treated better by nuclear companies?

            Answer – Andrew Cockcroft

It is the wrong assumption to make that people will automatically be happy to have nuclear facilities built in their area. It is vital to build people’s trust in nuclear power and the benefits that it can bring both locally and nationally. Building trust with local communities is key to obtaining local acceptance of construction. 

            Answer – Karen Wheeler

A GDF will only be built in a community that explicitly accepts it, through a formal “test of Public Support”.  In order to achieve that Test of Public Support, we will have to make a  very positive case to the local community, based on the very significant benefits which will come to the community.   

Q6 – Marco Pereira

            Question – France is leading the way with nuclear power, with other Western countries like the United States close behind. How we can ensure other countries can catch-up, particularly when states like Iran limited in their nuclear development. 

Answer – Paul Stein

We need every Conference of Parties (COP) to move the issue forward, and it is good to see the next event will be held in Egypt. This will help developing countries to catch up. Countries need to run nuclear power within a strict framework. There are some countries that are particularly anti-nuclear power. These include Italy, Austria and Germany. 

Q7 – Jade Galliford 

            Question – What are some of the geopolitical implications of foreign direct investment in British nuclear sites?

            Answer – Andrew Cockcroft

It is a question for our government, fundamentally, in terms of investment. We do have to realise the global expertise of the nuclear industry – it is very good and sharing this expertise. The International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) do a fantastic job of binding nations together and sharing learning. I am often asked about my security concerns about Chinese involvement in Hinkley Point C, but from our perspective, they are a partner with a lot of expertise and we can learn from that. It is too simplistic to say that one nation is good and one nation is bad. 

Q8 – Anna-Sophia Bond

            Question – Could hydrogen energy be a better investment that nuclear energy?

            Answer – Paul Stein

Hydrogen is a vector and cannot create its own energy. Furthermore, the cost of hydrogen is too high and would result in average energy bills going up by 3 or 4 times. What we need is a combination of all technologies, including wind, solar and hydrogen, in order to achieve net zero in such a tight timeframe. However, for the bulk of energy decarbonisation we must have nuclear power.

Q9 – Emily Quinn

Question – How pivotal are geologists and others to finding spaces for GDF’s? It is alarming to see graduate numbers declining at such a quick rate. 

Answer – Karen Wheeler

You are right; it is concerning because geologists play a pivotal part in the GDF team. In order for us to be able to successfully manage the GDF programme and deliver a GDF, we need skills across many disciplines: science, engineering, geology, environmental and other areas.. We are starting the first seismic study on a potential site next year, and during the end of the 2020s and beginning of 2030s, we will be drilling bore holes in potential sites to begin to understand the geology and make a recommendation for a particular site. Geology and geo-science are critical capabilities that we need to support these activities. 

Q10 – Dr David Best

            Question – It was said that when Henry Ford was asked about what people would think about the car he’d just invented, he replied: ‘If I’d asked people, they’d have wanted a faster horse.’ I’d be grateful to hear the panel’s thoughts on how any nuclear programme would be funded given current restrictions on the public purse.

Answer – Paul Stein

Henry Ford took a largely hand-crafted industry and applied at the time, marvellous engineering methods involving quality engineering and systems. With SMR, we are keeping the same ‘combustion engine’ (ie the basic way it works) and rewriting the rulebook. We can produce digital twins of entire products which drives the cost down. Humans are always striving for better development, with new ways of creating the physics that unlock the power of the atom. 5% of the money needs to go into the long-term science, 95% of it needs to go into solving the problem now.

Professor the Lord Broers closed discussions by thanking our distinguished speakers, excellent guests and event organisers. He also told the meeting that he will be stepping down as Co-Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Engineering Group at the end of the year. Fellow Co-Chair Laurence Robertson MP thanked Lord Broers for his contribution to the Group over the last 9 years and wished him well for the future. 

Lord Mair noted that the next meeting will be on the engineering in the space industry on 8 February 2022.

Low Carbon Aviation

The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Engineering

1 March 2020

 Low Carbon Aviation

  Discussion over Zoom


Chair – Professor the Lord Broers


•   Paul Stein – Chief Technology Officer, Rolls Royce

•   Professor Rob Miller – Chair in Aerothermal Technology and Whittle Lab Director, University of Cambridge


Lord Broers began the meeting by thanking everyone for attending and introduced the first of the distinguished speakers, Paul Stein.


Paul Stein – Rolls Royce

Paul Stein is the Chief Technology Officer at Rolls Royce and is responsible for Rolls Royce’s technology investment, ensuring close alignment with business strategy. His previous roles at Rolls Royce include Chief Scientific Officer, a role he had held between 2010 and 2016, and Director of Research and Technology from 2016 – 2019. He is also on the board of Energy Technologies Institute LLP and received an honourary degree from the University of Derby in 2017.

Addressing the virtual meeting, Paul highlighted the need to get to net zero by 2050 to limit the impacts of climate change. One of the key ways to achieve this is to stop using fossil-based jet fuel, as aviation accounts for 2.6% of global emissions, and 7% of globally used crude oil is used as jet fuel.

Paul then discussed some of the initiatives that are being explored by the industry to reduce emissions in line with the 2050 target. Citing that 70% of fuel is used for trips over 1500km, the industry is particularly excited about sustainable aviation fuel’s (SAFs). Amongst these are synthetic hydrocarbon that originate from atmospheric forces rather than fossil fuels. Furthermore, efuels synthesise fuel into aviation fuel, and this process is carbon neutral.

SAFs and hydrogen are both net zero and have the same atmospheric impact. It is also important to consider fuel economics and efficiency. Improving efficiency lowers overall consumption. Finding solutions in a relatively short period of time is another challenge to overcome; technology that will not be completed within 20 or 30 years will not help reach net zero by 2050. Quick engineering maturity is needed to achieve this goal.

Recent tests on electric aircraft have highlighted the potential of this technology but also some of its limitations. Current technology is limited to 200 miles and is able to carry 19 passengers. One of the key issues with this technology is battery size and the amount of electricity that can be stored within it.  Another option to reach net zero is the advancement in hydrogen technology. Hydrogen can be compressed into a tank and through the use of a fuel cell can be turned into fuel.

Paul ended his remarks by saying that he believes aviation can get to net zero by 2050, although it will require major changes to reach that goal. This will be driven by major changes to larger aircraft consuming SAFs rather than fossil fuels. Furthermore, for short range flights, airplanes can use a mix of hybrid, hydrogen and electric power.


Lord Broers then welcomed the second distinguished speaker, Professor Rob Miller.

Professor Rob Miller – Cambridge University

 Professor Rob Miller is Chair in Aerothermal Technology, Director of the Whittle Laboratory and Director of the Rolls-Royce Whittle University Technology Centre at the University of Cambridge. In 2013 he set up and led the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Centre of Doctoral Training in Gas Turbine Aerodynamics, a partnership between Cambridge, Oxford, and Loughborough Universities, aimed at training the next generation of leaders in the aerospace and power generation sectors. He is a member of the UK Department for Transport Science Advisory Council. His research focuses on the decarbonisation of the aerospace and power generation sectors. His honours include the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Thomas Hawksley Gold Medal (2010) and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Air Breathing Propulsion Award (2008). He has won the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Best Paper Award eight times and their highest honour in the field, The Gas Turbine Award, four times.

Professor Miller opened his remarks stating that one return flight from London to New York produces more Carbon Dioxide (986kg) than individuals in developing countries produce in a year. This shows the scale of emissions produced by the aviation industry. He said that the good news was that the decarbonisation of aviation is possible.  However, the size of the challenge is immense.

He then turned to possible paths to decarbonising aviation. The first Professor Miller highlighted was battery electric flight . If powered by renewable electricity, this removes from the process both the CO2 and non-CO2 bi product of aviation. The problem with battery electric is the weight of the battery limiting potential range to about 250 miles.

Another option being explored is the use of SAFs. This would use renewable electricity to electrolyse water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. Carbon is then either pulled directly from the air or is sourced from sustainable biomass and then combined with the hydrogen using the Fischer Tropsch process to create a switch-in fuel. Using this method, you don’t have to change the infrastructure that currently exists within the aviation industry. One of the principal issues with SAFs is the sheer quantity that needs to be produced. To give an idea of the scale he said that if all of the renewable energy generated by wind in the UK last year was used it would be enough to create 1/6 of the air fuel used by the UK.

A third option on the pathway to decarbonisation is to power aircraft using hydrogen. Airbus have said that they would have a commercially available aircraft by 2035. This method will probably use around a half the renewable electricity of the SAF option. The problem is that this option will require new aircraft and new infrastructure and has a range limited to about 2000 miles.

Professor Miller then discussed the work undertaken at the Whittle Laboratory, the world’s leading jet engine laboratory. It works with and its success is linked to partnerships with Rolls-Royce and other companies. They have focused on speeding up the technology development process. Traditionally the aviation sector has taken 6-10 years to develop a single new technology. The Whittle Laboratories aim has been to reduce this by an order of magnitude. Drawing on inspiration from Formula 1, a rapid technology department has been created. New design systems linked directly to in house manufacturing processes and rapid test facilities. By changing 95% of processes this was shown to reduce the time to design, build and test a new concept from  months to days. This has created a new culture as the pace of innovation increases.

Professor Miller concluded his remarks by explaining the need to take a whole systems approach to decarbonisation of the aviation sector. At a recent roundtable set up by The Prince of Wales the Aviation Impact Accelerator had been set up. This was a whole system approach to accelerating the delivery, scale-up and the associated infrastructure, investment, and policy in partnership between Cambridge, the Sustainable Markets Initiative, and the World Economic Forum.


Questions and Answers

Q1 – Laurence Robertson MP

Question – In order to get the technology in time to reach the 2050 target, is it a matter of how quickly technology can be created or is it a funding issue?

Answer – Paul Stein

Aviation is a global industry and therefore whilst the UK can take the lead on solving many of the problems, it needs to be a global response. SAF scale-up is a big problem; crude oil accounts for 4% of global GDP and this needs to be repurposed over the next 20-30 years. There needs to be a redeployment of trillions of dollars of capital globally. Government’s need to co-ordinate on a global level to solve problems.

Answer – Professor Rob Miller

The world needs to adopt a war-like mentality to achieve the necessary pace of technological advancements. During the Cold War, Kelly Johnson developed the A12 in four years to first flight, and this dominated the sky for a generation. However, because the aviation sector has been relatively stable for 40 years it is currently not well placed to achieve this pace of technology development. There also needs to be sophisticated policy to look at the various pathways to decarbonization.


Q2 – Bridget Donaldson

Question – What should policymakers do in the UK to drive both national and international progress?

Answer – Paul Stein

Paul began his answer by stating that in his opinion, there are two ways to help the SAF scale-up. Firstly, through the use of international bodies and summits, like COP26, a pathway to making SAF’s cheaper and more widely available needs to be agreed amongst global players. Secondly, there needs to be an alignment of research pathways over the next 10 years to develop new technologies that make things like SAF’s easier to produce.


Q3 – Finlay Asher

Question – What emissions price (£ per tonne CO2) do the participants expect for aviation emissions in 2030 and 2040?

Answer – Professor Rob Miller

If you look at the way that wind has been unlocked in the North Sea, the government has incentivized companies to move into that area resulting in a price reduction. The government needs to look at policies that incentivize businesses to enter the industry to explore the different pathways to decarbonization. In his personal view, the world will fly less in the future, but the cultural and economic benefits of flying mean high rates will persist. It would also be morally wrong to deny developing countries the right to enjoy its benefits. However, we have to be honest with the public on the importance of delivering this.

Answer – Paul Stein

Policy could come in the form of a requirement to use sustainable fuels rather than a tax on fossil fuels.


Q4 – Edward Talboys

Question – Impurities in airplane fuel can clog up aircraft engines. Will there need to be a loosening of the limits to account for a reduction in the impurities in SAFs?

Answer – Paul Stein

There will be no loosening of the limits, precisely the opposite. Currently, fuel safety needs to be demonstrated to acquire certification. Synthetic fuels have fewer impurities to lubricate the seals. Research has focused on looking at new seals which can cope without the impurities from fossils. Currently, we can fly with a 50% blend of SAFs. The key difference between industry and academia is the pace of change. Industry need to be certain of safety before making any changes.

Answer – Professor Rob Miller

At Cambridge, our team has looked at over 238 possible future fuels. It is important to take a multi-disciplinary approach to understand all aspects of the fuel if they are to be of practical use in flight. Whatever the choice the fuel will require very rigorous testing before use.


Q5 – Amina Abid

Question – Would the efficiency of a car be reduced the larger the size of battery?

Answer – Paul Stein

The bigger a battery gets, the heavier it becomes to a point that it cannot lift itself. Growing battery size is only possible to an upper limit.

              Answer – Professor Rob Miller

Whilst battery technology alone would not be sufficient for medium and long range flights, using it in combination with other sustainable fuels could unlock other technology. For example, it could be used in combination with hydrogen fuel cells, which could be used when cruising at high altitude, whilst using the battery to help during take-off and climb.


Q6 – Kenneth Sanders

Question – Does pilotless flying have a role in improving aircraft efficiency?

Answer – Paul Stein

Currently moving from two pilot operations to trialing one pilot in the cockpit, where the AI system can land the plane should the pilot become incapacitated. The next step is to reduce pilot workloads and therefore training, and this is something that the military are particularly interested in. Future generations are likely to trust AI systems more.

Answer – Professor Rob Miller

Black box data is increasingly being looked at to monitor pilots, and this data is showing that variations in pilot behaviour is important. There may be some quick wins that could reduce carbon emissions by changing air traffic control, operations and pilot behaviour.


Q7 – Huw Williams

Question – As Rob and Paul have described, the energy infrastructure to deliver SAF’s sustainably does not currently exist. How do we ensure that the potential negative impact of SAF’s are highlighted and isn’t hidden in carbon trading?

Answer – Paul Stein

Any form of decarbonization needs to look at the whole carbon lifecycle, including relevant supply chains, in any decarbonization model. The UK electricity grid needs to double in size between now and 2050 just to cater for electric vehicles and other forms of sustainable transport, not even taking into account SAF’s production.

Answer – Professor Rob Miller

Any systems models that are produced need to be big enough to solve the real problem. It’s not good enough to replicate a subset of reality; models need to predict in their entirety. For example, you need to look at where your electricity to produce the SAFs is coming from, you need to factor in the journey of a person to the airport, and you need to consider the fuel burn in taxiing the aircraft before take-off.


Professor the Lord Broers closed discussions by thanking our distinguished speakers, excellent guests and event organisers, particularly in these challenging times. It is hoped that events will return to the House of Lords as soon as guidance permits.

The Year of Engineering 2018

Report of the discussion held on the 12th June 2018 in Cholmondeley Room, House of Lords

Chair – Professor the Lord Broers
• Stephen Metcalfe MP, Government Envoy for the Year of Engineering
• Chi Onwurah MP, Shadow Minister for Industrial Strategy
• Oxana Grigoryeva, Business Development Manager, Robert Bosch Limited
• Ruby Holmes, Assembly and Manufacturing Leadership Development Trainee, Rolls Royce