Nuclear Power Stations: ConstructionPaul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change pursuant to the oral answer to the hon. Member for Tamworth of 16 December 2010, Official Report, column 1039, on nuclear power stations, what the names are of each of his contacts around the City who have indicated that there certainly is an appetite to invest in new nuclear plant. 
Charles Hendry: It would not be appropriate for the Department to provide names of individuals who have offered their views on this subject in a personal capacity. However, the fact that energy companies have announced plans to build up to 16 gigawatts (GW) of new nuclear in the UK demonstrates that they see a future for new nuclear generation in the UK and are willing to make significant investment to make this happen.
Nuclear Power Stations: DecommissioningCaroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change with reference to his Department's consultation on revised funded decommissioning programme guidance for new nuclear power stations, if he will take steps to recover from (a) NNB GenCo, (b) Horizon Nuclear Power and (c) NuGeneration Ltd the expenditure from the public purse since 1973 on payments to (i) (A) the International Atomic Energy Agency and (B) Euratom and the Joint Research Centres for research on nuclear waste, (ii) NIREX and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for research and development on nuclear waste and (iii) the UK Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels for research, development, demonstration and deployment of technologies and materials used for nuclear waste management in proportion to the proposed use by those companies of the technological advances in nuclear waste management so funded from the public purse. 
Charles Hendry: The UK has a legacy of nuclear waste from the UK's public sector nuclear programme which has accumulated over the last fifty years or which is already committed. The costs identified in this question have been incurred in relation to the management of this legacy waste. In line with the polluter pays principle, it is not appropriate for operators of new nuclear power stations to pay towards the historic costs of managing this legacy waste.
As set out in the "Consultation on revised Funded Decommissioning Programme (FDP) Guidance for New Nuclear Power Stations", published on 7 December
10 Jan 2011 : Column 145W
2010, the Government's objective is to ensure that operators of new nuclear power stations make prudent provision for their full share of the costs of safely and securely managing and disposing of their waste. The draft FDP Guidance and the "Consultation on an updated Waste Transfer Pricing Methodology for the disposal of higher activity waste from new nuclear power stations", also published on 7 December 2010, provide more detail on those costs for which a new build operator will be responsible. In summary, an operator's full share of waste management and disposal costs is considered to be: the cost of managing their waste pending disposal; the costs that are directly attributable to disposing of their waste in a geological disposal facility (GDF); a contribution towards the fixed costs of constructing a GDF; and an additional element or elements to reflect any financial risks being taken on by the Government in agreeing to title to and liability for the operator's waste.
Nuclear Power: SubsidiesPaul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change with reference to his Department's consultation documents on electricity market reform published on 16 December 2010, which types of financial support or incentivisation he regards as subsidies to the nuclear industry; and what criteria he uses to decide whether a financial incentive is a subsidy. 
Charles Hendry: The Secretary of State set out the Government's policy that there will be no subsidy for new nuclear power in a written statement on 18 October 2010, Official Report, column 44WS.
This statement makes clear that: