Speeches by Reader.

“The taskforce said, “Interpretation currently fosters a culture of risk aversion and reluctance to challenge and debate, impacting costs and time.” Do you recognise that?”

“I have been looking through the interim report from the taskforce at the part on re-evaluation of the ALARP process. Do you agree with the general view that it needs re-evaluation, and that the term “reasonably practicable” is a particular challenge in planning?”

“Are the requirements to consider alternative sites in EN-7 proportionate?”

“We have had evidence that engaging with the regulators to find solutions is very difficult. Do you think there should be more engagement from regulators to be problem solving as opposed to just assessing and checking?”

“Is that the role of your organisation—to be engaged in planning when you are going to have a role later to assess it anyway at site licensing?”

“I will stick with this topic, because this is a really interesting area; thank you to the Clerks for picking it up. I want to get this clear in my head. Currently, it is not a planning requirement to do a seismic assessment, but under EN-7, if it is in there, your organisation, Mike, could object to the planning on the…”

“On the subject of habitats, with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill still slowly going through the Lords, should the Government wait to publish EN-7 until that is finalised? Part 3, the habitat regulations, is obviously a big part of that Bill and it will impact nuclear quite significantly.”

“As we have you here, Rebecca, I will ask you this broader question. Should the Government not do more to encourage representative engagement in consultation, as opposed to favouring the loudest voices?”

“The intention of consultation is to represent the views of the whole community, not just a vocal minority, so what more could EN-7 do, and what more could we do generally, to ensure that consultation is representative, using representative surveys or structured engagement panels, as opposed to the process that there is…”

“But nuclear schemes benefit the nation, so why can my constituents not have a say about reducing their energy bills by delivering nuclear schemes? Do we not have a flawed process at the moment, not representative of the benefit of the schemes we could be delivering?”

“I have a broader question beyond EN-7, since I have two fantastic planning experts here: are we not getting that balance wrong? National energy security is critical—it is critical for my constituents in Northampton and reducing their energy bills. Why is their voice not as important as the voice of people who might liv…”

“Rebecca, when considering nuclear infrastructure, what does it mean that the critical national priority for low-carbon power will in general “outweigh” residual impacts not addressed by the mitigation hierarchy?”

“Would decoupling help to deliver the schemes that EN-7 is designed to bring forward more quickly?”

“Mike, for nuclear and other complex infrastructure projects, the combined planning and regulatory approvals process is very costly, burdensome and risky. Would there be merit in decoupling the planning consent process from the later regulatory approvals within the context of EN-7, so that promoters can progress sites w…”

“Catherine, this week I met with a chief exec of a major infrastructure programme—not a nuclear scheme—who is fully preparing for a judicial review, because there are a few rich landowners somewhere in the scheme and they know they will do it, so they are planning to have to go straight to review. Surely that is not rig…”

“I would like to explore the balance between national energy security and local consent under EN-7’s critical national priority presumption. Considering the famous political phrase “For the many, not the few”, how do we ensure that Government represent and recognise nationally important projects over the local concerns …”

“My final question is: does EN-7 go far enough to incentivise the Planning Inspectorate to really prioritise a fleet-based approach? There will be an open market with different people applying for SMRs. Should we see a preference in planning for the encouragement of the fleet-based approach to deployment of SMRs in the …”

“In the Nuclear Industry Association’s response to the taskforce, it highlighted concerns over detailed and outline emergency planning zones. Does EN-7 go far enough on that? Could it have done more to deal with some of the challenges that you raised in your report?”

“Coming back to the DCO process, does EN-7 go far enough to reduce the time it takes to get to DCO? Could more have been in there to speed up both the pre-application and the DCO process itself?”

“Does that not fly in the face a bit of the Government’s place-based approach? If you are going to stick an SMR in the east of England, Bedfordshire, you are competing for resources with a theme park, a railway, and airport expansion. Shouldn’t this be part of the consideration on the DCO—can you build the thing with th…”