Peak Cluster Pipeline and Project

Debate between Michael Shanks and Esther McVey

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Michael Shanks]

That is not what I said at all, Sir Roger. The debate has been perfectly in order, but I do not think the public watching will have got much from it. That is my assessment and, I am sure, the assessment of many others watching. As I was saying, I encourage the right hon. Lady, if she did not see the recent debate on this topic, to look at the remarks by her hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, who rightly raised concerns about local communities, but in a way that was, I think, based slightly more in fact than in rhetoric. I will come to the right hon. Lady’s questions.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

No, I will not just now, because the right hon. Lady has just given a speech. I will respond to some of her points.

[Esther McVey]

Then don’t be so dismissive!

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Michael Shanks]

Let me respond to the right hon. Lady’s points. She has now accused me twice in this House of being “elusive” and of “obfuscation”. I have answered every single one of her written parliamentary questions. I am not responsible for the fact that she may or may not like the answers I give, but I have answered every single one of her questions, and I responded to her point of order in the main Chamber. I resent the implication that I have not done that, because I take my responsibilities to Parliament very seriously.

First, I will come back a little from the Peak Cluster itself to make some points about why carbon capture is important. I say that partly because carbon capture technology has been around a long time. The previous Government, in which the right hon. Lady served in various ministerial roles, drove forward investment in carbon capture, which we have continued. This is not something that just appeared in July last year; it is a technology that Governments have recognised will play an important part in decarbonising our energy system.

This technology is also important for particular parts of our industry, which are now competing against imports from other parts of Europe that utilise carbon capture, usage and storage. Cement is one example that the Peak Cluster project is looking at, but we are taking forward other important clusters, such as the Viking and Acorn clusters, that the previous Conservative Government supported.

Decarbonising cement might not seem like a particularly important topic to a lot of people, but it is actually critical. Around 40% of UK cement and lime production takes place in Derbyshire and Staffordshire. Cement is one of the foundational heavy industries, and one of our most important substances, to underpin growth in our economy. As a result, the industry was recognised in the industrial strategy as a foundational input for growth. It is also an economically important sector, contributing around £350 million in gross value added and supporting thousands of jobs.

The challenge we have is future-proofing the industry. A number of businesses now want to buy low-carbon cement to construct their projects, but low-carbon cement is produced elsewhere in the world, so it is important to find ways to be competitive in that market. As I said in the Adjournment debate, other technologies for creating low-carbon cement exist, but they are not yet at a stage where they can be deployed at scale. Carbon capture is important, and there is no route to net zero that does not involve this technology.

I want to remind the right hon. Member for Tatton why net zero is important, although I know that not everyone will agree. Given that we are living through climate change on such a scale, we as a country should be taking our responsibility seriously to do everything we can, and this is an important part of how we tackle it. This is also an economic opportunity that not only creates thousands of jobs in carbon capture but protects thousands of jobs in the heavy industry that we do not want to see leaving this country to go elsewhere. It plays a strategically important part, along with our economic growth and industrial strategy, in how we will broadly deliver net zero.

Before I address some of the right hon. Lady’s points on the Peak Cluster, I want to repeat a point I made in the Adjournment debate about the voice of local communities, which is one that she also rightly made. She made a point about the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, which I want to clarify. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I think she was trying to suggest that the Government have somehow contrived for the Secretary of State to make a decision on a particular project. The NSIP regime exists—indeed, it existed under the previous Conservative Government—to recognise that there are some projects of such a scale that local councils cannot individually decide on them, so they should be decided on at a national level.

That is a process that has been undertaken for many years. I want to be really clear, however, that that recognition does not suggest, in any way, that there will be a particular outcome from the process. Not only has there been no decision from Government on this project, but it has not even been submitted for a decision at this stage. It is a long way from that process.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I will give way in just a second. The right hon. Lady’s point about the NSIP regime was quite wrong. Decisions are made based on applications that are submitted, but no application has been submitted. They are based on all the facts, including the community engagement that takes place—I will come back to that after I have given way. Applications must demonstrate genuine community engagement and learning from the views of communities; it is not just a listening exercise but a shaping exercise, and that has not yet concluded.

[Esther McVey]

Can the Minister confirm that the final sign-off on this project, via a development consent order, will be done by the Secretary of State for Energy—by, in other words, the Government? Is that true or false?

[Michael Shanks]

I think I just said that the nationally significant infrastructure project regime exists so that decisions can be made at a national level by different Secretaries of State. In this case, it is an energy project, so yes, the decision will be made by the Secretary of State for Energy. The right hon. Lady seems to be implying that there is somehow a predetermined outcome, but the application has not even been submitted for consideration, so I do not think that is a sensible position to take.

The right hon. Lady also cast aspersions on the North Sea Transition Authority, which is an independent regulator. It was the Oil and Gas Authority for many years; it is now the North Sea Transition Authority. It has operated under Governments of all political persuasions to make decisions about how we steward the North sea licensing regime not only for oil and gas but, increasingly, for carbon capture. It makes those decisions independently of Government; Ministers do not interfere in the decision making of the NSTA. Again, she seems to be drawing conclusions about an independent regulator that are neither fair on the regulator nor accurate in fact.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way on another inaccurate piece of information?

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Esther McVey]

I see the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) in the seat behind the Minister, although I appreciate that, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, he is not able to speak. The Minister might not know this. but I confirm that Wirral council in its entirety, across all parties, objected to the Peak Cluster project. Do the Minister and the PPS sitting behind him know that?

[Michael Shanks]

I am aware of that. Councils can take a view on a whole range of things; I do not think there is anything controversial about a council making its views known on a particular project. It is very welcome to do that, and that is why we have democratically elected councillors in this country.

On a final point by the right hon. Lady and others about Government funding for this project, she draws a connection between the investment of the National Wealth Fund and the fact that it is wholly owned by the Government. I understand the connection, but equally, it is not correct to say that that represents financial support from my Department or the Government for a project.

The National Wealth Fund was set up to provide investment for important infrastructure projects, and it makes its decisions independently from Government. I have not seen or signed off any funding applications for the Peak Cluster pipeline and nor have any Ministers. The NWF makes those decisions on its own framework, as set out by the Treasury and Parliament. It should not be taken as any indication of my Department’s support or otherwise for a particular project.

[Michael Shanks]

I can write to my hon. Friend with the specifics of the investment committee, but the National Wealth Fund is set up independently from Government to take stakes in projects on behalf of the British public, so that we would own a stake in some of these projects—instead of just handing out grants for things, we would actually own part of them. There is an investment committee that sets up these decisions, and the Treasury is the body responsible for the National Wealth Fund. I can write to her with specifics.

[Esther McVey]

Did the Minister just say, “so that the Government can part-own some of this”? Were those the words he used?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

The principle of the National Wealth Fund is that we can make financial investments in projects. In some of those cases, that means taking an equity stake. Sometimes it does not, but sometimes it does. The National Wealth Fund has been around for long enough now; I am sure Members are aware of it.

I will close with something that, in part, reflects what Members said in the Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury. Any large-scale infrastructure project comes with concerns from local communities, and it is right and proper that such communities voice those concerns in any way they can. That has to be a respectful exchange of views, which has not always been the case thus far, but I understand the strength of feeling on this—it is absolutely understandable.

The exchange of views is important, and everyone, whether or not they are listening to this debate, should know that the Government take community engagement very seriously. We expect to see meaningful engagement with communities, but at the same time the Government have set out an ambitious plan to decarbonise our economy. That is important for a whole range of reasons, but it is also a hugely important economic opportunity for us as a country.

Decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors such as cement and lime, which are critical to our economy, is difficult. CCUS is a route to doing that. It is essential not only for meeting our climate commitments, but for the economic opportunities that it offers. Future project proposals are subject to scrutiny, high standards and a tough regulatory regime. The Government will look at all of this in the round in terms of individual projects.

I repeat the point that I made at the beginning: this is not a project that the Government are driving forward, and it is not a project that we are saying we do or do not support, because at this point in time no proposal has come before us to do that. In due course, we will do that. In the meantime, I encourage everyone in the local community, Members of Parliament, the Peak Cluster itself and others to engage with the process.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way in the final 30 seconds?

[Michael Shanks]

I am just rounding up. In the end, I hope that we will come to a view where communities feel they have been heard and where projects can move forward on their individual merits. That will be part of the process when we come to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Shanks and Esther McVey

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

It does not surprise me that those on the Labour Benches attack private schools, which lots of parents want to send their children to. For them, that is common sense. For them, that is freedom of choice, which I stand by. Of course, should they close private schools down, the public sector would have to find billions more to fund it: again, not value for money—something that I am here to deliver—from Labour.

[Michael Shanks (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of compliance with the ministerial code.