Aphra Brandreth

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. As a fellow Cheshire MP, he will understand how important this is to all our constituents. Their views must be heard loud and clear. I am holding a public meeting with Peak Cluster this Friday, so that its representatives can hear directly my constituents’ concerns. I want to recognise the fact that Peak Cluster has engaged with me and local stakeholders. While people have strong views on this issue, I was disappointed to hear concerns shared by the company relating to some abrasive behaviour directed towards its staff. That is clearly unacceptable, and I urge people to engage in respectful debate. I believe that there is a strong case for greater public engagement before any final decisions are taken. Confidence in this project will come not from technical documents, but from meaningful dialogue with the residents, farmers and landowners who are most affected. Turning to the environmental and agricultural concerns, Peak Cluster has emphasised that the project aims to deliver biodiversity net gain. Representatives have explained that more trees would be planted than removed, and that habitats would be restored following construction. Those commitments are welcome. However, the reality is that the project will leave a negative footprint on Cheshire, no matter what efforts are made to mitigate it. Ancient and historic woodland cannot be recreated overnight. The hedgerows that have lined Cheshire’s fields for generations cannot be replaced overnight. Prime agricultural land used for grazing or arable farming will be affected. Many responses to my survey have questioned whether sufficient weight is being given to the environmental value of the countryside through which the proposed route may pass. It seems to me that tearing up the Cheshire countryside is not an environmentally sound response to an environmental problem. Alongside concerns about the natural environment, many constituents have also raised questions about safety. They have pointed to incidents involving carbon dioxide pipelines overseas, and asked what lessons have been learned from those experiences. I recognise that the United Kingdom operates under a robust regulatory framework, and that direct comparisons with incidents elsewhere are not always appropriate. Nevertheless, these concerns are understandable. In a letter to me, the Minister said that the Health and Safety Executive has carried out a public consultation on proposals to extend major hazard legislation to that sector, to strengthen further the regulatory framework. Can he provide more detail on that? I now wish to focus on farmers and landowners. Cheshire relies heavily on the agricultural sector for its economy, and if this project is to go ahead, it is essential that it listens to the voices of farmers. I have spoken to the National Farmers’ Union, and drawing on those conversations, and well as its consultation, it is clear that serious concerns remain unanswered. For example, consideration must be given to the lifespan of the project, and to whether its benefits truly justify the potential damage to productive agricultural land. Farmers have asked for firm assurances that the pipeline will carry only carbon dioxide, with no future shift to other gases such as hydrogen. They have asked how the agreed 1.2-metre pipe depth will be monitored over time to ensure that it does not rise and compromise farming operations or safety. They have asked for clarity on how biodiversity net gain will be delivered, including whether any additional land required will be secured voluntarily through fair negotiation with landowners. Can the Minister guarantee today that there will be no compulsory purchase of land to deliver this project? Ultimately, at a time when our farmers and rural businesses are under significant pressure, there must be measures to protect their livelihoods and not add further strain, safeguarding day-to-day operations and addressing practical realities such as the movement of cattle between grazing and milking. Those questions need to be answered, as do many more regarding environmental, ecological and agricultural concerns. It is not just farmers who will be affected, but angling clubs, fisheries and many others. If the Secretary of State is to have the final decision on this project, it is important that the Minister can assure my constituents that a fair hearing will be given to their concerns, because too often the rural voice is ignored. We can all agree across the House that reducing carbon emissions is a noble cause, but at what expense? A £5 billion price tag that will no doubt increase, huge disruption across Cheshire, economic cost with no benefit for our communities, and our landscape, beautiful countryside and prime agricultural land damaged and depleted from its original state. The arguments, in my opinion and that of my constituents, and people across Cheshire, speak clearly that this project is not suitable, practical, cost-effective or forward thinking, and I firmly oppose it. No one disputes the need to reduce emissions, or the importance of supporting British industry. No one disputes the need to find practical ways to decarbonise sectors such as cement and lime production. But surely we have a duty to ask whether a £5 billion project requiring hundreds of kilometres of pipeline across our countryside, backed by significant public support and carrying profound implications for farmers, landowners and local communities, is truly the most effective route available. My constituents are not asking for special treatment, and they are not rejecting innovation or opposing environmental progress; they are asking for evidence that the project represents the best option. They are asking for transparency about the costs and risks, and for honesty about the impact on our countryside and rural economy. They are asking whether sufficient consideration has been given to emerging alternatives that may reduce emissions at source, rather than requiring the construction of major carbon transport infrastructure. Above all, they are asking that decisions that could affect their communities for generations are not taken before those questions have been properly answered. I therefore urge the Minister to address the concerns I have raised, and to provide reassurances not only to my constituents, but to all communities across Cheshire who feel that their voices must be heard.