» Thursday, January 10, 2008


Asked about the Government paying for the disposal of nuclear waste, the Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) replied that John Hutton had been quite clear on this during the course of the day. The Government had no intention of subsidising new nuclear facilities, but the White Paper made clear that in extreme situations, in an emergency for example, then obviously it was the Government’s responsibility to intervene and deal with that.

Asked if this was only in the case of a nuclear accident, the PMS replied that it was not specified exactly what those circumstances would be, but clearly in extreme circumstances it would fall to the Government to intervene. But John Hutton had been making very clear today that there was no intention of the tax payer subsidising new nuclear facilities.

Asked if it was the case that communities, subject to the White Paper being published, who put themselves forward to host disposal sites would be eligible for a package of benefits, the PMS replied that it was best to check the detail with the department, but it was his understanding that the Government took responsibility for legacy waste, and that BERR had been making clear at their press conference this afternoon that in the future there may be some shared facility for legacy waste and new waste. In that sense the Government would take responsibility of its share of the costs in relation to legacy waste.

original source.

Briefing took place at 16:45 | Search for related news

1 Comment »

  1. There are many powerful arguments against nuclear power and for much better energy options. For instance it is several times cheaper to save energy through efficiency and conservation than it is to generate it by any means. This is also the most rapid and effective way to cut carbon emissions, fight climate change, and reduce our dependence on imported fuels. Even though the Government claims to be green (who doesn’t make this claim these days!) they are still thinking in terms of generating more and more energy – yet a sustainable society requires the establishment of a low energy culture. Government needs to be determined to help shape this future but currently is still stuck in the past.

    There has always been a lot of talk from Gordon Brown about an enterprise economy, built by entrepreneurs. But is nuclear technology the kind that can be tinkered with, adapted and developed by small and medium-sized businesses and individuals? Self-evidently its not. Yet energy efficiency, energy conservation and renewable energy technologies are amenable and are rapidly developing – the future is clearly with these and we should be ensuring billions are invested in them.

    Nuclear power does not fit well with the basic engineering criterion of economy of means, that is doing tasks with the minimum of energy supplied in the most effective way. In short, why go to the trouble of splitting the atom to boil a kettle of water??

    Comment by Glenn Vowles — 13 Jan 2008 on 2:15 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


January 2008
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Dec   Feb »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh