Q714 Mr. Dave Anderson: Can I ask who you think should have the final say? If, for example, a local authority agrees to a power station of whatever kind and with that work come transmission cables or, in the case of CCS, pipelines to wherever it is going to be transported, and the neighbouring local authority does not want either transmission lines or the pipe work, who should be the arbitrator?

Mr Kemp: The first thing is for local government to get its act together. We usually do; we do not always. If there is something that is clearly in a regional or national interest then the decision must be made above the level of an individual local authority. Again, we know what our role is; our role is to work for our local community within a national system and a national structure.

Q715 Mr. Dave Anderson: Do you think the IPC [Infrastructure Planning Commission] should have that power?

Mr Kemp: Probably, because they are, in a way, more democratic. I would rather the IPC were doing it than the pre-existing inquiry system because again we have strategic inputs into the IPC at a number of stages so I think we, as a local council, would have had more impact in that system than in the former system.

+++

Q720 Mr. Dave Anderson: If there were two potential sites in two different authorities, do you think the IPC should look at the socio-economic impacts and compare them?

Mr Kemp: First of all you have to assume that there are equal merits for both. Everything else being equal I hope they would put it in the area that would get the biggest from.

Q721 Mr. Dave Anderson: Should it be the IPC's responsibility to do that?

Mr Kemp: It should be someone's and it is above level, so it should be the IPC

Mr Mind: Under the current arrangements the decision on bringing forward a proposal in an area rests with the promoter, rests with the developer. It is then for the IPC to make a decision about that individual development. So actually my understanding of the process is that they would not weigh up two competing proposals and make that strategic decision which is actually where you could say that the National Policy Statements are wanting because there is no direction in terms of what places are strategically most suitable for different types of energy infrastructure.

Q722 Mr. Dave Anderson: They might do it if there was, for the sake of argument, a proposal for a plant on Teesside and another one on Tyneside but there was not the need for both.

Mr Kemp: If there were two that would be right. We cannot direct, we can only respond.

Q723 Mr. Dave Anderson: You think they are the public body to take that decision.

Mr Kemp: Yes, and good luck to them.

This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee. Neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

The full transcript may be read here.

Promoted by Paul Foy on behalf of Dave Anderson, both of St Cuthbert's Church Hall, Shibdon Road, Blaydon, NE21 5PT