Context
The MP raised concerns about the cumulative impact of up to 3,000 acres of energy projects proposed for his constituency. He referenced a previous Adjournment debate where these issues were discussed.
Question
In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) earlier, the Secretary of State completely dismissed the legitimate concerns of rural communities and farmers who are being asked to take on energy projects. Yet last night in the Adjournment debate, the Under-Secretary found a more reasonable tone, accepting the point on cumulative impact in constituencies such as mine that are being asked to take up to 3,000 acres of projects. Will the Under-Secretary go into more detail about how the Government will put in mitigations on cumulative impact to protect communities such as mine?
Answer from The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I would be testing the patience of the Deputy Speaker if I were to go into more detail than I could in an Adjournment debate. The point I made clearly to the hon. Gentleman was that it is not a credible position for him to take that there should be absolutely no infrastructure built anywhere in his constituency. The reality is we need to build new infrastructure, not just energy infrastructure but right across the public sector. I have said clearly that the work we are taking forward on the strategic spatial energy plan and on the land use framework by colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is about trying to ensure that we manage the best use of land, but we will have to build new infrastructure, and communities will have to host it.
Not addressed: The specific measures to mitigate cumulative impact were not detailed. The response focused on the necessity of building infrastructure rather than addressing how cumulative impacts would be mitigated.
How: Testing The Patience Of The Deputy Speaker If I Were To Go Into More Detail
Was this summary accurate? Tell us
How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)