Planning Bill
12:00 pm
Phil Jones: We have considered it from a point of view that is much more self-interested for the kind of business that we are, as I guess you would expect. I do not think that a policy statement would in any way amount to that for us. Leaving aside for a moment whether it is true that the power stations will go there, with regard to the infrastructure assets, which is what I am qualified to speak about, I do not think that it would amount to that.
If a policy statement said, “We are going to put a power station there,” we would look for some common sense that said, “By the way, all that goes with it, subject to it going through the proper process, also now needs to be tested.” Right now, I have schemes running in Yorkshire and the north-east for which permission has already been granted for the site-specific location, as you would describe it, but the debate about whether there can be a line to connect it is completely and utterly separate. That is the kind of scenario we face in reality and do not want, as schemes can be paused for 10 or 15 years—I have one that has been running longer than I have been in the industry—because we cannot get permission for a line to something that is already permitted as the development itself.
Imagine the situation where we can have all of those power stations ready to go now. That might be excellent, but it carries no weight whatsoever in whether the local infrastructure company can proceed, and from what I have gathered about the statements I have read in the papers this week, I do not think that they will be troubling us to put too many wires to those nuclear power stations. Imagine if whoever has to do the application can in absolutely no way whatsoever try to get some wires to the place. You will end up with some power stations, but they will be of absolutely no use to anyone.