Aphra Brandreth MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Jun 2026 · Carbon Capture Pipeline Projects: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I will continue because of time. For those who doubt this, let me set out the cost of the Secretary of State’s policies, with statistics sourced from his own Department. The UK now faces the world’s second-highest domestic electricity prices: four times higher than those in the US, with 12.1 million households struggling to pay bills and 43% spending over 10% of their income on energy. At a time when energy security is crucial, the Government are closing our North sea oil and gas sector—an illogical move that in reality will cost us jobs and billions in lost economic value, all while not actually delivering the environmental benefit that many people understandably want to see. Shutting down domestic production does not reduce demand. It just means importing more from abroad, often with a far higher carbon footprint. Why do this Government persist with an ideologically driven approach when even the chair of Great British Energy and the Scottish renewables sector have both called for continued drilling in the North sea? The Conservatives have set out a clear and credible plan for cheaper energy. Of course I want a clean and healthy environment for this generation and future generations, but we also need to recognise the wider context. If we make wise and prudent decisions today to support our economy, and if we utilise the resources we have and encourage investment and growth, we will have a springboard to pursue a greener future. My concern is that we are making decisions influenced by the Climate Change Act. By only counting domestic emissions, one could, for example, close industries in the UK and shift production overseas, resulting in lost jobs, revenue and growth. Yes, it would meet the requirements of the Act, but all the while resulting in increasing global emissions. Good intentions are not matching the reality for families or for the environment. I support our plan to cancel the carbon tax on electricity generation, saving every household £75 a year, and to end outdated renewable subsidies, saving families a further £90 annually. Labour promised a £300 reduction in bills, but bills have risen by £200. That is the price of putting ideology over delivery and pragmatism. I urge Members to back the Opposition motion and back our cheap power plan.

• 15 Jul 2025 · West Coast Main Line · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for securing the debate. Many people in Chester South and Eddisbury rely on the west coast main line, but unless they have a car it is a real challenge for them to reach a station easily and join the line, because there is a lack of public transport options. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need not only to promote the west coast main line and improve capacity, but to recognise that plenty needs to be done locally to support transport and connectivity within Cheshire, so that our constituents can benefit from the national links that the west coast main line offers?