---

Energy Bill

One of my colleagues sent me a note, which is perhaps unkind to the Minister, stating: ““What he said was as clear as mud””. The Minister has done his best, but I shall two make points before I withdraw the amendment. First, he said that we will not know what is meant by the ““full share”” until it is finally clarified by the department. I will study his speech with great care between now and Report, but one would have to be a bit of an optimist to believe that he has answered that question effectively. We will wait till a later stage, perhaps well after the Bill has become law, to know precisely what is meant by that. My second point has been followed up by a number of noble Lords. It is the question whether any of the excess or surplus—I quote the Minister’s words—““would be returned to the operators””. Paragraph 2.10 of the document that I quoted in my opening speech, Consultation on Funded Decommissioning Programme Guidance for New Nuclear Power Stations, made it quite clear that, "““these lower costs will not be passed on to nuclear operators””." We got confused at one point because, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, rightly said, this is a dynamic process, there will be successive nuclear power stations and the unit costs will not be the same for all. I am asking about the initial tranche—I do not know how many there will be—one, two, three or whatever. They will have a unit cost set and, over the life of the station, that may well turn out to be more than is necessary to deal with decommissioning and waste. Will they get any of that back, or will only future nuclear power stations will benefit from a lower unit cost? There must be an answer to that question. I will carry on for as long as is necessary for the Minister to consult his oracles.