Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey]

I agree, but none of that has been forthcoming to the public, no matter how hard they have tried, and the public do not want the project. Right across the region, there have been demonstrations and councils have voted against it. At a recent public meeting in Byley, close to one of the proposed pipeline routes, the failings were laid bare. The local communities of Cheshire, Wirral and Derbyshire know this, and that is why they are calling for the project to be stopped. The project is completely unnecessary. It is a madness of a project—a net zero vanity project.

I stand here today on behalf of all those members of the public calling for the Peak Cluster project to be stopped. I call, too, for the Government to answer the most basic of questions about the project, and to stop treating the public like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and feeding them absolute rubbish. The Government cannot dodge responsibility and accountability for this project, as they seek to by ducking parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests.

Last week I raised a point of order on the Floor of the House about the woeful responses on this matter, only for the Minister to reply that the project is nothing to do with the Government. He said:

“It is a private project.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 175.]

Really, Minister? If one delves a little bit deeper into the Peak Cluster project, it is revealed that it has deep, direct, structural and financial links to Government, with the final sign-off being from none other than the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

If the Government are still trying to say that they have made no estimate of the overall costs, that they have not worked out how much of the bill will land on the taxpayer, that they have done no cost-benefit analysis of it, and that they have made no assessment of the environmental impact—in fact, that they have not even bothered to work out whether the project is necessary at all—then that is a disgrace. If the Government are really trying to say that they have done no homework whatsoever on the project, then they really do need to do some, because if they did, they would come to the same conclusion as the public: that it is not necessary.

Instead, the Government, in ignorance or in full-throttle support, are pushing ahead with the project. In fact, they have deemed it a nationally significant infrastructure project, which means that the local authorities cannot either approve or reject it, despite significant objections from local constituents; rather, it falls for sign-off to the Government. The storage of the carbon dioxide beneath the seabed will require approval from the North Sea Transition Authority, another Government quango—wholly owned by the UK Government—which has responsibility for offshore carbon dioxide storage.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

The North Sea Transition Authority deals with many private sector companies around oil and gas drilling. I agree that it is a public quango, but surely the right hon. Member agrees that it does not have responsibility for what Shell or BP do in the North sea any more than it has responsibility for what Peak Cluster may or may not do through Cheshire and underneath the Liverpool bay?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my neighbour for asking that question. If he listens to the rest of the debate, he will see that this is not a private project; it has deep structural and financial ties to, and sign-off by, the Government. It is not, as he wrongly refers to it, a Shell or a BP. That is not true. That is the myth that we have to dispel today. So far, £28 million of funding for the project—nearly half of the money to date—has come from the National Wealth Fund, which is wholly owned by the Government. When announcing the project, the National Wealth Fund said on its own website that it

“has an important role to play in helping to amplify government policy”,

and on the gov.uk website, the Energy Secretary classed it as a “landmark investment”.

The issues I am raising are not highly technical or obscure; they are straightforward, basic questions about safety, cost and the use of taxpayers’ money. The cost is billions of pounds, which rests on the shoulders of the taxpayer. The amount already spent is in the region of £60 million, and that was just to secure planning permission. The full construction costs are estimated at £5 billion, although the full cost is likely to exceed that. HyNet, a similar project, has cost £2.5 billion for just 31 km of new pipeline, in comparison with the 200 km planned for the Peak Cluster. As the Government have so far committed £28 million through the National Wealth Fund, will the Minister say what process was followed before the fund invested in the project? How was it approved, and what role did Ministers play in that?

There are huge concerns about the cost-effectiveness of the technology, too. Last year, the Public Accounts Committee warned of a “high degree of uncertainty” over whether carbon capture projects would deliver value for money, so I can see why the Government are ducking away and not doing anything. The chief executive of Octopus Energy also questioned whether carbon capture represents a worthwhile use of taxpayers’ money. Surely, the Department responsible for energy infrastructure did a value-for-money assessment before committing public money to the project. If so, what is that assessment?

Residents I have spoken to are rightly and understandably concerned about the health and safety hazards, too. What if a leak were to happen? What emergency procedures are in place? What assessments have been made of the risks to nearby communities and to the maritime environment? The project could cause untold damage to agricultural land, sites of scientific interest and some of our towns and villages. It is ironic that the Government consider this to be an environmental project when it could very well destroy—and is already destroying—the environment. This would be laughable if it were not so serious. Have I received any reassurances on those health and safety matters? No, I have not. Have the Government even taken this into account? They cannot wash their hands of this project. If something goes wrong, the public will want answers.

Another claim by the Government, and by some of the people who might be getting tenders from them, paid for by the taxpayer, is that the project will support around 3,500 jobs. What will those jobs be? How many will be permanent rather than temporary construction roles? How many will go to local people, and how many will require specialist contractors to be brought in from overseas? Regarding the future of the project, how long is the infrastructure guaranteed for? I hear that the pipes are only guaranteed for 30 years. Can the Minister confirm or deny that?

The north-west should not be a dumping ground for carbon dioxide from not only elsewhere in the country, but elsewhere in the world. Although the project says it will initially be used to store carbon dioxide captured from Derbyshire and Staffordshire, it has been reported that the infrastructure will be designed to allow it to import and transport carbon dioxide from other countries in future. Can the Minister confirm whether those reports are correct? What additional approval would the Government require to grant those permissions?

All that the project will do is store up problems for future generations to tackle and pay for. The physicists and scientists who have contacted me mock the Government’s ignorance on this matter, saying that carbon dioxide is needed, and that if the Government really wanted to do something, they could just plant some trees. I am afraid that the Government have been suckered into a multibillion-pound waste of a project about which, as we know, they have no business acumen or know-how.

Before the Minister rises and dismisses my questions, as he did last week on the Floor of the House, saying that the Government have nothing to do with this project, I remind him—I ask him to reflect on this point—that the Peak Cluster project has deep, direct, structural and financial links to the Government, with the final sign-off coming via a development consent order by the Energy Secretary. The Government are a stakeholder in Peak Cluster Ltd, the private company the Minister referred to. Local authorities cannot object to the project, as the Government have deemed it a nationally significant infrastructure project. The money invested in it comes from the National Wealth Fund, wholly owned by the Government.

With that in mind, will the Government and the Minister kindly give some meaningful answers? If he cannot do so today and needs to go away to do some homework, I will happily accept a written response, but the Government cannot keep using obfuscation and excuses to try to hoodwink the public. The public demand answers today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that was the point I was going to come on to. Community engagement is absolutely critical. It is an absolutely firm expectation from Ministers that any of these large-scale infrastructure projects should have meaningful engagement with communities. However, it is also absolutely critical for any project that wants to succeed in the NSIP process to demonstrate not only that it has carried out consultation but that that consultation has had a meaningful impact on the shaping of the project. That is one of the key factors in decision making in NSIP applications.

I want to echo a point that was made in the Adjournment debate on this subject and that many Members have raised with me outside of debates in Parliament, which is about the need for extensive consultation on this particular project. Criticisms have been levelled at the Peak Cluster project that its consultation with communities has not yet been good enough. I understand that it is planning to do more, but it is not for me to direct it to do that. It must engage meaningfully with communities because, once a proposal has been submitted, if community engagement has not been meaningful, that will count against the project.

There is a wider argument here about principle. The Government have said from day one of coming into office that it is important that we build things as a country again and that we do not become a country that just spends decades talking about important infrastructure but never builds it. However, that building should never be done without proper engagement with communities, which means communities feeling that they have had their say and that their say has been listened to. This project is one example of where much more consultation has to happen.

[Andrew Cooper]

The important thing for my residents is this: does this project work and is it safe? Those are the two key points. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) is in his place today. He has been challenging these plans on behalf of his community, as have I and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell). This is not a done deal, and Peak Cluster needs to listen to the community’s concerns and act on them. Does the Minister agree with all those points?

[Michael Shanks]

First, on the point about this somehow being a Government project, it is absolutely not. That is why my answers to the right hon. Member for Tatton reflected the fact that, right now, private developers across the country in a whole range of sectors are developing private propositions for all sorts of things.

Until those proposals come to Government, either with a request for funding or as part of the NSIP regime, the Government do not have a view on whether they are Government projects or not. They are not delivered by Government; they are private investments and therefore it is for those companies to put forward their proposition. The Government will then take a view on it, as we do with all nationally significant infrastructure projects. That is the first point about this being a Government project, which it is absolutely not. Peak Cluster is also not one of the clusters that the Government have initially taken forward. We are taking forward two clusters initially to drive carbon capture and storage; the Peak Cluster is not one of them. I make that point again on the record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) made a second point about safety. It is really important to say that carbon capture and storage is not a new technology; it has been tried and tested, across industry and across power generation at scale, for a long time. Geological carbon dioxide storage has been in operation for decades. Norway has stored CO₂ since 1996—it has stored over 20 million tonnes of it so far—and a safe and robust regulatory regime exists precisely to ensure that safety standards are as high as they possibly can be.

Safety will be at the forefront of any decision about how we take this project forward. It is absolutely critical but, as I have said, CCS is not some novel technology whose safety considerations we do not understand. It is managed, understood and regulated effectively at the moment.