Westminster Hall

Thursday 25 June 2026

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke in the Chair]

HOUSING, COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Select Committee statement

We begin with the Select Committee statement. Will Forster will speak on the publication of the second report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, “Affordability of Home Ownership”, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Will Forster to respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief and Members may ask only one question. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I call Will Forster on behalf of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Sir Alec. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement on the second report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Committee in place of my colleague, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi).

Our report is on the affordability of home ownership in England, a topic that affects so many people across the country. Some have suggested that in the current market, affordability of home ownership is a contradiction in terms. Everyone who has tried to buy a home recently, or knows someone who has, knows how difficult and expensive it has become.

Housing affordability has been getting worse for decades. The majority of British people still want to own their own home, but fewer of them can do so. Over 20 years, the rate of home ownership has dropped from 71% to 63%. It is even worse for young adults: the rate of home ownership for 27-year olds fell from 43% to 25% over not 20 years, but 10. It is deeply unfair that someone’s chance of owning a home is more dependent on whether their parents own a home than their own earnings. That is unacceptable and needs to change.

Of course, affordability is exceptionally complicated. House prices have risen while incomes have stagnated. Mortgages have been hard to obtain and there are systemic barriers that slow down the whole home buying process. Successive Governments have tried to tackle the problem, but have failed to measurably improve the situation. The current Government must not fail as well.

What, then, are the Government to do? First, as we know, more homes are needed. The Government are right to address the historical undersupply of homes, and we support their target to provide 1.5 million new homes by the end of the Parliament. At the same time, we are concerned that they might not meet that target and, even if they do, that 1.5 million new homes may not be enough. The last time homes in this country were built at the pace required to hit that Government target was over 50 years ago.

Back then, 40% of homes were built by councils, but those days are long gone. Now, 75% of home building is done by private developers, which are facing their own challenges. The costs of building are rising, and if private developers cannot make a profit, they will not build the homes in the first place. We are seeing that happen across the country, with developers such as the Berkeley Group scaling back operations because of the volatility caused by the conflict in the middle east.

In my constituency of Woking, over 2,000 homes in and around the town centre alone have got permission, but none is even under construction. The Government are right to encourage councils to build again, including through their social and affordable homes programme, but private developers are vital to building the homes we need. We have asked the Ministry to write to us twice a year about its actions and progress on increasing home building rates by developers.

The Government could do more, however, including using the hundreds of thousands of homes around the country that are lying empty. Those homes are an unused stockpile, representing a significant chunk of the 1.5 million new homes the Government want to build. Councils already have some powers to take control of vacant homes, but those powers carry risks and are rarely used. We concluded that the Government need to make existing powers easier to understand and use, and to provide new powers where necessary.

The evidence we saw during our inquiry shows that high loan to value ratio mortgages are important for first time buyers, so it is good news that such mortgages are becoming more available because of the prudential and financial regulations affecting the property market. But there is more to be done, and we need to encourage lenders to change their affordability assessments so they are fair and mortgages are accessible to those who need them most. For example, it should never be the case that a renter is turned down for a mortgage because they cannot afford the repayments, when those repayments are less than what they are already paying in rent.

Other financial products besides mortgages can also be put towards the cost of a new home. Some products are even backed by the Government, such as the lifetime ISA. I will not go over all the problems with lifetime ISAs now; as part of our inquiry, we sat jointly with the Treasury Committee, which has published a separate report. Suffice it to say, the Government have promised to replace the lifetime ISA with a new product that is specifically designed for first time buyers, and we support them in doing so.

The new first time buyer ISA will be introduced in 2028. The Government launched a consultation on its design just two days ago. We are glad that, in line with our recommendations, the design is geared specifically towards first time buyers and does not have a withdrawal charge that could cost people their initial investment. However, we also recommended that the Government should avoid a static property price cap that could make the product useless in some parts of the country. The Government have not yet set out the details of their property price cap for the new ISA, so we are still waiting to see how they will ensure that the product remains useful over time and in every region of the country.

As well as publishing our inquiry report, we also wrote to the Minister on 29 April to set out our concerns relating to the home buying and selling process. We found that it is a painful experience that reduces people’s motivation to move and slows down the housing market. Barriers and unnecessary costs should be eliminated to encourage more people to move, to increase the day to day supply of homes on the market and to reduce the number of transactions that fall through.

In particular, we recommend that the Ministry should mandate that necessary property information is provided earlier in the process, that conditional contracts should be used to make transaction agreements binding at an earlier stage and that there should be stronger regulation of property agents. The Government promised to address the first two of these in their reform road map, which was published last week. Although the Government have stopped short of regulating property agents, they have promised to publish a code of practice for them by the end of the year. I hope that, with the political instability, that is not lost.

Lastly, I turn to the stamp duty land tax. Stamp duty directly reduces the affordability of home ownership by increasing how much people need to pay to buy a home. More than that, it slows the property market, stops people relocating for work or downsizing, and ultimately damages the economy. I wish I could say that stamp duty was an isolated problem, but all property taxes in this country, including business rates and council tax, are a mess. Similarly to a previous report, which recommended that the Government should make changes to council tax, we recommend that stamp duty should be overhauled and replaced. It is fundamentally unfair and damages our economy. Those two taxes need to be changed, and I hope the new Government take that opportunity.

Stamp duty provides £14 billion of Government revenue each year, so the Government cannot just get rid of it outright, but we have called on them to consult by the end of the year on alternative to the current form of stamp duty, including replacing it with a revenue neutral alternative, such as an annual property tax; reducing rates to stimulate more transactions; tying tax bands more closely to local house prices; and updating reliefs to better meet Government goals. I know the new Prime Minister is keen on a land value tax, and I hope this is a priority for his new Government.

It was on this day three years ago that I moved into the first home I have owned by myself, but for so many people, home ownership is beyond reach. In my constituency of Woking, more people are having to leave their home town to buy their first home, and some cannot buy a home at all. That is not acceptable.

To address housing affordability and to ensure that our young constituents can get a foot on the housing ladder, we need the Government to go much further and much faster. We need them to use a range of approaches to improve the supply of homes and the effective demand for those homes. We welcome the steps that they are taking in some areas, but in others they must be bolder to enact the policies that we have set out in our report, which can lead to real and long lasting improvement in the affordability of home ownership for first time buyers in this country.

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend. I declare an interest as the former chief executive of a registered provider, the Cornwall Community Land Trust. I am now a volunteer on its board. I have therefore worked in the sector for some time.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Committee on an excellent report, and I hope the Government will take heed of it. Secondly, I was very fortunate, as you were, Sir Alec, to come high in the private Members’ Bill stakes, and I have opted to advance an affordable housing Bill on Friday 13 November. There is an opportunity over the next five months to draw together a range of options and clauses, which I hope will help the Government to deliver the laudable objectives that they have established to address housing need. I think they need further tools to do so.

In relation to that, there is a concern that the planning system is still weak. The provision for affordable homes is often used as a Trojan horse by wily private developers, whose intention is to provide not affordable but unaffordable homes. That Trojan horse is often exploited. There is also a need for stronger ingredients to ensure that we can genuinely deliver affordable homes, particularly for the in perpetuity community benefit, and a range of measures could be taken to advance that aim.

I repeat that the Second Reading of the Bill will be on 13 November. It is in gestation at the moment. I hope that the Committee, and indeed the Minister, will be prepared to work constructively with me in the coming months to look at ways in which we can strengthen and advance the cause, because it is quite clear that the Government are going to struggle to deliver what we all agree needs to be delivered to address the desperate need for more affordable homes in this country.

My hon. Friend thanks me for the Committee’s work. In return, I thank him for choosing housing as the topic of his private Member’s Bill. It will really improve things on the housing front, and I am thankful that he is putting the topic high on the agenda. The Committee and I will look to speak as much as we can in favour of his Bill, and I hope that the Minister will work constructively with him on its passing. Even if it does not pass, the Government may take its provisions into other legislation.

In answer to my hon. Friend’s point about how the viability of developments can reduce the amount of affordable housing, I am concerned that we are seeing that across the country. In my Woking constituency, brownfield developments do not include any affordable housing contributions at all because they are classed as unviable—and they are still not being built. We need to ensure that developers make contributions on affordable housing, which is why the Government’s social and affordable homes programme is essential to cover that lack of viability.

The Committee has also raised concerns with the Government about changing the requirements of the Public Works Loan Board. That would ensure that councils, via their housing revenue accounts, could invest in not only maintaining properties, but building new homes, which is exactly what we need.

I declare an interest as chair of the all party parliamentary group on council and social housing. The affordability of home ownership is one of the biggest issues in our country. I welcome many of the recommendations in this report around tackling empty homes, reforming stamp duty and ensuring that we are tying the definition of affordability to local incomes.

I also want to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Housing and Planning on his role in securing the highest number of social rent homes since 2010, as announced today. That is a major achievement.

However, part of the affordability question, which perhaps could not come into the scope of the Committee’s report, still lies unanswered and unaddressed. Since the 1970s, the number of homes per capita in this country has risen, despite house prices massively outstripping ordinary people’s incomes in that very period. That seems in a large part down to private banks effectively being able to print money, which then flows into house prices. I wonder whether, in its future work, the Committee will consider the interaction between monetary policy and house prices in this country.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I want to thank him for his work on the APPG. In the report, we highlighted that the Government should review and update the definition of affordable housing. We are particularly concerned about those cross cutting issues, and we have worked with the Treasury Committee, as mentioned in the report. This is not just an MHCLG issue, but a Treasury issue.

The hon. Gentleman said nice words about the Minister, who I know will be appearing before the Committee soon. The Minister knows his subject and explains it in a plain spoken way. It is important that we do not have another change of Housing Minister; we need that certainty. I am looking forward to holding the Minister to account while he—we—delivers the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill and deliver the homes we need.

I thank the Committee for its deliberations, thoughts and recommendations. As the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) said, one thing that I am particularly pleased to see is that the Committee is trying to address the issue of stamp duty.

I can remember building my first house on the farm at home in 1987, and it cost £27,000. My son built his house on the farm some 25 years later, and it cost him £125,000. My youngest son now wants to build a house on the farm—the same house that my other son built—but it will cost £275,000. That is the same house, but it will cost £150,000 more than it did. This is a big issue for my constituents and for my family personally. We also have a cottage on the farm, so to help my son, we will let him have that and renovate it. That will probably make it a wee bit easier for him, but not everyone has that opportunity.

What consideration did the Committee give to co ownership—in other words, owning half a house now and perhaps buying the other part later? What consideration did it give to smaller deposits? Smaller deposits and a lower bank mortgage rate might enable more people to buy houses—perhaps with some assistance from Government.

My final answer is to thank the hon. Gentleman for attending a Westminster Hall debate; it is lovely to see him here. He highlighted that there is a slight age difference between us—the hon. Gentleman built a home and moved in 27 years ago; I moved into the first home that I have owned three years ago.

It was 37 years ago.

It was 37 years ago—sorry, I lost 10 years for the hon. Gentleman.

Our report focused on the affordability of home ownership where people genuinely own the full home. We have previously done inquiries on shared ownership, which I am happy to send to the hon. Gentleman. The key thing we want the Government to do is look at how they can lower the cost of building a home. Inflation has had a notable impact on the cost of home ownership. The costs of owning a home and building a new home are too unreasonable, and I hope that the Government look at this issue and tackles it.

Backbench Business

I beg to move, That this House has considered the national lung cancer screening programme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I declare an interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital. A family member also holds shares in a medical company.

Lung cancer is a rapidly fatal disease that kills nearly 33,000 people in the UK every year. Fortunately, targeted lung cancer screening has become one of the NHS’s real success stories, with Lord Darzi highlighting it as the only initiative across all cancers that has improved rates of early stage diagnosis in recent years. Screening is without doubt the single biggest intervention in improving lung cancer survival. When the UK Lung Cancer Coalition was launched in 2005, five year survival stood at around 8% which was among the lowest rates in Europe. The UKLCC has now set an ambition of 35% of patients surviving five years after diagnosis by 2035—a target once thought to be impossible, but now within reach thanks to screening.

The Government’s decision to roll out fully the targeted national lung cancer screening programme in England for people aged 55 to 74 with a smoking history was a major milestone. To date, that programme has identified more than 10,600 lung cancers, with over 75% diagnosed at an early, treatable stage, compared with just 28% before screening was introduced. Without doubt, lung cancer screening is saving lives. It is cancer prevention in action and exemplifies the shift toward earlier diagnosis set out in the NHS 10-year plan. I place on record my thanks to the NHS cancer programme team, lung cancer advisers and the lung cancer screening clinical expert group for delivering the fastest roll out of lung cancer screening anywhere in the world.

The benefits of screening extend beyond lung cancer. Screening is also identifying conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease, potentially saving even more lives. Since I applied for this debate, the Department has committed in the national cancer plan to a timetable for the full roll out of the programme. That is a significant achievement. The inclusion of screening in the NHS app is another welcome step, but we cannot be complacent simply because a roll out is promised in a plan. Will the Government reaffirm their commitment to a national roll out timetable and ensure that the programme continues at pace? The national cancer plan commits to reaching 100% of the eligible population by 2030. That timetable matters because any slowdown risks reversing progress on early diagnosis. Unlike other national screening programmes, lung cancer screening does not yet have guaranteed funding beyond 2030. If this programme is to remain stable and effective, it needs protected long term funding.

We must also continue to evaluate reporting systems, national databases, turnaround times, workforce capacity and how screening is tailored to local populations. Importantly, screening is helping to reduce health inequalities by focusing on areas of deprivation. That progress should continue, supported by investment in community engagement and communications to ensure that hard to reach populations are not left behind. Given the importance of reducing inequalities, will the Minister confirm whether lung cancer screening will move to section 7A arrangements with ringfenced funding beyond 2030? There is also concern about maintaining political momentum. With both drivers behind the national cancer plan no longer in post and Cabinet changes expected in the next few weeks, many in the cancer community are understandably concerned about whether the commitment will continue. I am sure the Minister will reaffirm his commitment.

England is leading the way, but early detection must not become a postcode lottery across the UK. Wales is preparing to launch a programme in 2027, but Scotland and Northern Ireland remain significantly behind. The UK Lung Cancer Coalition is supporting discussions in both nations later this year to understand the barriers and encourage implementation. Lung cancer is the UK’s biggest cancer killer. Every eligible person, regardless of where they live, should have access to the same opportunities for early diagnosis. I urge the devolved Governments to learn from England’s experiences and introduce screening as quickly as possible. Will the Minister engage with counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland to encourage progress towards UK wide implementation?

There are several threats to the programme’s success. First, there are growing concerns about integrated care board interference and the lack of ringfenced funding. Cost cutting pressures on ICBs threaten to undermine progress. There are reports that high performing screening teams—some seeing 55 patients a day—are being disrupted, and that screening resources are being diverted elsewhere. The variation in delivery across the country is striking. Lung cancer screening funding should be used for lung cancer screening, and local structures should not be allowed to dilute a programme that is demonstrably working well. Will Ministers issue clear guidance to ICBs to prevent interference in delivery? Will they guarantee that screening funding is to be ringfenced and used solely for its intended purposes? Will they ensure that ongoing ICB restructuring does not weaken accountability or performance?

Secondly, the abolition of NHS England raises legitimate concerns. The programme’s roll out, data systems and clinical governance arrangements require continuity, and many charities and organisations across the cancer sector are concerned about potential loss of expertise during organisational change. What safeguards are in place to ensure continuity of leadership, data management and programme oversight throughout the transition?

Thirdly, workforce pressures remain one of the greatest threats to the programme being sustained. Screening increases demand across radiology, pathology, thoracic surgery and genomics, yet workforce planning has not kept pace. The Royal College of Radiologists has warned that there will not be enough radiologists to support the programme by 2030. Timely diagnostic and treatment services must be available so that patients diagnosed with early stage disease can access potentially curative treatment. Demand for thoracic surgery is also rising, as early stage lung cancers are often best treated surgically. Without sufficient capacity, opportunities to cure may be lost. Greater awareness among GPs remains important too.

Around one in five lung cancers occur in people who have never smoked—indeed never smoked lung cancer is now the eighth most common cancer in the UK and the seventh most common worldwide—but smoking cessation remains a vital part of the screening programme. Smoking causes around 72% of lung cancer cases in the UK, making cessation support one of the most cost effective interventions available. The British Thoracic Society has called for at least one specialist tobacco adviser in every hospital. As the Government pursues its smoke free 2030 ambitions, the NHS has a critical role to play in helping people to quit smoking.

The Institute of Clinical Research has highlighted workforce challenges in biomarker testing and molecular diagnostics, both of which are increasingly important for personalised cancer treatment. As I have repeatedly argued in this House, the national cancer plan can succeed only if its ambitions are matched by investment in the workforce needed to deliver them. When will the Government publish their delayed workforce plan and how will they support the continued expansion of lung cancer screening? Will Ministers commit to increase training places in radiology, pathology and thoracic surgery?

Lung cancer screening is one of the most effective public health interventions introduced in recent years. It is saving lives, reducing inequalities and shifting diagnosis toward earlier, more treatable stages of the disease, but its future success depends on stability, protecting funds, a sustainable workforce, robust Government and UK wide implementation. The Government have an opportunity to secure the future of a programme that is already transforming outcomes for thousands of people. The UK Lung Cancer Coalition believes that doing so is essential if we are to achieve the ambition of a 35% five year survival rate by 2035.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. We will be together all afternoon if you are here for the next debate as well. I welcome this debate on the national lung cancer screening programme. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing it, and for his dedication to anything to do with cancer. The hon. Gentleman has made a name for himself in this House for putting forward these topics. I thank him for his knowledge and for his interest.

The lung cancer screening programme was set up to find lung cancer early, before symptoms appear, especially in people with a history of smoking, who are the group with the highest risk. The UK’s biggest ever early diagnosis initiative for lung cancer, the programme is delivered through targeted lung health checks. The hon. Gentleman referred to how the scheme delivers checks. They take place in local hospitals and in the community, and in vans in settings such as supermarket car parks, so nobody can say they have not had the opportunity to have the check done.

The checks are designed to target those aged 55 to 74 who are current or former smokers, as identified from their GP records, who are registered with a GP and who live in an area where the programme has been rolled out. I understand that the programme is expanding rapidly, region by region and is expected to be fully rolled out across England by 2030. That is welcome. Indeed it is, I would say, almost there.

We do not know how many people have attended the checks, but the United Kingdom National Screening Committee noted that more than 1.9 million have been invited to the programme, which is operating across 25% of England. NHS England has stated that, to date, some 5,037 lung cancers have been detected early since 2019; 76% of those were found at stage 1 or 2. Early stage diagnosis improves five year survival nearly twentyfold compared with late stage diagnosis, so again that is a success of the programme.

The screening programme has been an outstanding success, and I commend the Minister and all those involved in the Department and NHS England on such an extraordinary achievement—they deserve every accolade for it. It has fitted perfectly with the 10-year health plan. We should give credit to the Minister and the Government for the plan and for all they have done to improve health; there are many things they can point to as being successful. It is also nice to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), in his place; it would not be a health debate if he and I were not here together—and here we are again.

As chair of the all party parliamentary group for respiratory health, I warmly welcome the three shifts arising from the 10-year health plan. The screening programme is an excellent example of how well they have worked in practice. The first shift was from analogue to digital: most of the reminders for eligible patients are by text message—that is the new way of doing it; I may not be entirely geared into it, but I understand the process. The second shift was from hospital to community: running the tests in mobile units means they are less intimidating and closer to home. In fact, around 70% of initial screening was delivered via mobile units, improving access in deprived areas where smoking rates are highest. If we want to address the issue, we must go to the coal quay, as we would say, and meet and speak to the people.

The third shift was from treatment to prevention. Early stage detection dramatically improves survival. The lung checks programme has crucially identified over 100,000 incidental findings of emphysema, one of the key conditions of COPD. However, those incidental findings are not generally followed up, nor do they lead to referrals for further investigation or treatment. Will the Minister ask his Department to consider a follow up? If incidental findings are identified and there is a chance of curing or addressing the issue, that is the time to strike. The men’s health strategy called for better incidental outcomes, and it contains the ambition of “ensuring incidental findings from the NHS Lung Cancer Screening programme, including respiratory illnesses such as COPD, are followed up according to the NHS Lung Cancer Screening programme incidental findings protocol and relevant NICE guidance”.

Can the Minister update us on how that is progressing within the men’s health strategy?

We have discussed the outstanding FRONTIER Hull trial with Professor Mike Crooks from Hull, who is piloting an integrated pathway that links screening findings to respiratory assessment and treatment in partnership with the NHS. I commend the work he is undertaking. So far, 383 of the 819 people—47%—recalled to the clinic have received a new diagnosis of COPD and started treatment through a streamlined one stop clinic, meaning that those patients could begin treatment immediately rather than waiting while their symptoms progressed and their condition deteriorated.

I underline again that it has been shown that a one stop diagnostic clinic is feasible, can be achieved and fits well with the three shifts. The approach can be tailored to meet local needs, helping integrated care systems to reduce hospital demand and improve patient outcomes. It has been estimated by Chiesi that integrating COPD case finding into lung cancer screening could save the NHS some £33 million over 10 years. That saving cannot be ignored, especially at a time when every pound counts. If it is possible to save some £33 million, it should be in part because of the screening programme.

I urge the Minister to look closely at the outcomes of the trial. This topic deserves a full debate; but more than that, it deserves an outcome. Screening saves lives, ultimately saves money and, importantly, saves needless heartbreak and pain. Let us invest in ourselves and in the process that we are discussing today.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this debate, and on his tireless campaigning both on lung cancer and on cancer more widely. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his passionate contribution to the debate.

Lung cancer is a devastating disease that has caused suffering in every single community in our country. The symptoms are horrific, aggressive and deadly. Although treatments for lung cancer and understanding of its causes have improved, lung cancer still accounts for more deaths in the UK than any other type of cancer. It is the third most common type of cancer and kills 35,000 people a year in Britain.

Identifying lung cancer early through screening saves lives, and the current targeted screening programme in the UK has been world leading. Screening is the single biggest intervention we can make to improve lung cancer survival rates. Of course we were all delighted when my hon. Friend’s campaigning helped to ensure that the national cancer plan came into being, including a commitment to complete the roll out of the lung cancer screening programme by 2030.

The screening programme is welcome and it is already delivering results. However, there is not enough clarity about how it will be funded going forward. Funding will be central to any success on the ground, so perhaps the Minister can address that issue when he responds to the debate.

Equally, we need to support the devolved nations in implementing lung cancer screening to help them to catch up with England’s programme, which is already world leading. The devolved nations are lagging behind, and that must be addressed as the roll out of the screening programme ramps up. Charities have also raised concerns that the current reorganisation of the national health service and the abolition of NHS England could disrupt the focus on the roll out and even hinder its progress.

Shockingly, 79% of cases of lung cancer are preventable, with the vast majority of all cases being the direct result of smoking. However, a decade of cuts to public health hobbled smoking cessation services, with massive implications for lung cancer rates. Despite the generational ban in the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, there are still plenty of smokers around and there will continue to be for years to come. That is why the Liberal Democrats have been advocating a return to 2015 spending levels on public health, which would boost smoking cessation services and help all those people who want to quit smoking to do so.

We must also put an end to the tragedy of people losing their lives because their cancer treatment took too long to start. Nobody should be unable to receive treatment because there is not enough equipment, and no one should suffer because there are not enough staff to support them properly.

The Government’s target in the national cancer plan to meet all cancer wait time standards by 2029 is a good one. However, if they really want to hit that target, they must be far bolder. The national cancer plan includes a commitment for 28 new radiotherapy machines. However, that is not enough, especially for such a cost effective and successful treatment. The Government should go further and provide funding for at least 200 more radiotherapy machines, which are needed to address the backlogs that exist.

We Lib Dems are also proud that the national cancer plan incorporates our calls for every patient to have a designated specialist cancer nurse. However, the Government have yet to state how many more nurses they will provide to deliver that specialised care. Cancer nurses are already overworked and overstretched; if the Government aim to provide every patient with a designated cancer nurse, as we all want, they must be bolder in addressing the issues in the nursing workforce.

In 2023, a national targeted screening programme for lung cancer in England was announced for people aged between 55 and 74 with a history of smoking. More than 1.5 million people have attended a lung health check and more than 9,000 people have been diagnosed with lung cancer; 76% of those were diagnosed at stage 1 or 2, compared with just 30% of lung cancer sufferers outside the programme. Although the programme is targeted, it has proved to be a powerful tool, reducing by a quarter the overall gap in early cancer diagnosis between the richest and poorest areas, or from a gap of 8.2 percentage points in 2019 to 6.2 percentage points in the year to September 2025.

In the national cancer plan, the Government committed to completing the roll out of the targeted national lung cancer screening programme by 2030, and it is expected that this roll out will offer screenings to more than 6 million people by 2035. It has the potential to diagnose 23,000 lung cancers earlier than otherwise would be the case.

In addition to all that, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a cancer policy to reflect the fact that speed and quality of treatment are central to improvement of lung cancer survival rates. We would introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients will be able to start treatment within 60 days of urgent referral. We would replace ageing radiotherapy machines and increase the total number of such machines, so that no one has to travel too far for treatment. We would also recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment, and halve the time for new treatments to reach patients by expanding the capability of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

To make the UK a world leader in cancer research, we would also look to pass a cancer survival research Act, which would require the Government to co ordinate and ensure funding for research into those cancers with the lowest survival rates, including brain cancer.

We would also start a fellowship programme for US cancer scientists who have seen their funding gutted by the Trump Government, waiving burdensome fees and bureaucracy for international researchers as a whole. Global talent visas for top researchers cost £6,000 per person for a five year visa—that is £18,000 for a family of three. That is much more expensive that most of our competitor countries, where it is typically £200 or £300 per person. The cost of visas for Cancer Research UK alone is £900,000 a year, the equivalent of setting up two new cancer research labs every year. The fellowship scheme would also deliver more funding for salary and research costs for researchers by expanding the share of GDP going on research and development to 3.5%. That would unlock hundreds of millions of pounds a year for cancer research and billions more for our life sciences sector generally. We would deliver that through a decade long programme of public investment in research and development.

I am moving towards my conclusion, Sir Alec, so I would like to tell the happy story of my constituent John, who has been the direct beneficiary of the early lung cancer screening programme. Without any obvious symptoms, in late January John received an invitation to participate in the Oxford University hospital early lung cancer detection screening programme, with an initial telephone appointment already planned for 10 February. Having established a sufficient risk score, a very low dose CT scan of the lungs was offered as part of the evaluation process just a week later. The scan revealed a nodule on John’s lung that required further tests.

In March, referral was made to the respiratory early diagnosis service, with further tests and a PET CT scan following shortly thereafter. On 20 March, the results were shared with John, following a multidisciplinary team discussion. A minimal solid component not suitable for biopsy had the appearance of adenocarcinoma and surgical referral was recommended. By the end of March, he had his pre assessment appointment at John Radcliffe following an appointment with a thoracic surgeon at the Churchill hospital.

On 17 April, an operation to remove 30% of his left lung—a 5.5-hour operation—took place. He was discharged home two days later, with a multidisciplinary team discussion at the end of May. On 2 June, the out patient appointment for John at the Churchill hospital confirmed the removal of a 22-millimetre adenocarcinoma, with no tumour spread. It was therefore a huge success for John, for which he is enormously grateful, going from detection to successful treatment in six months. He will now be subject to a scan in six months and follow up for five years. John’s story is a great example of the potential of this early cancer screening programme. We all hope that a further roll out will be a success.

It is a pleasure to be here in an air conditioned room while we continue this debate. It is poignant that it is so hot today, because we know how that can impact people with respiratory illnesses; we are probably talking about this issue at a very useful time.

I too thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this important debate. As has been said, lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer death in the UK, but it is also one of the cancers where early detection can make the biggest difference. I know that at first hand from my first year as a junior doctor working on a respiratory ward. It was eye opening and harrowing, but also sometimes successful. I urge anyone who has the chance to visit a respiratory ward to see how important it is—and I believe that would make a difference to smoking rates.

It is great that the hon. Member for Wokingham secured the debate, and great to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) secured the debate, because it is a good debate—it is a good day. This is really a success story. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), rightly told us John’s story; because of the screening that has been put in place, there will be plenty more Johns in the future, which is exactly what we want to hear. Often we talk about the problems, but this is a really good example of something positive that has come forward, and it all started under the previous Conservative Government.

The roll out of community diagnostic centres has fundamentally changed how we diagnose disease. There are now more than 170 centres across England, expanding capacity and bringing scans closer to where people live. Nationally, they have delivered millions upon millions of additional tests and have helped to ease pressure on acute services, with the clear aim of diagnosing conditions such as cancer faster and improving patient outcomes.

Only this month I went to the first year anniversary of the opening of the CDC in Hinckley, a £24 million investment that has seen 59,000 patients through its door and is expanding. That means patients do not have to travel as far into Leicester or Nuneaton, and that they get their diagnoses more quickly and in a modern tech building. That is absolutely fantastic for my community, but I know that is replicated 170 times across the country. That matters because, when it comes to diseases like lung cancer, early diagnosis is everything. The sooner we can identify a problem, the sooner we can act, and crucially, the better the chances of survival.

There is a real success story to talk about. The NHS lung cancer screening programme has its roots in work started by the Conservative Government, building on more than a decade of UK research and pilot studies. Following successful trials and local pilots, NHS England launched the targeted lung health check programme in 2019, focusing on high risk groups in areas with the worst outcomes. That approach, using mobile scanners and proactive interventions, proved effective in detecting cancer earlier and reaching underserved communities.

On the back of that success, and with a formal recommendation from the UK National Screening Committee in 2022, the Government announced a national roll out in June 2023, committing to expand the screening across England and ultimately to reach full coverage by 2030. Since then, the programme has transitioned from pilots to a full national screening service and now forms a central part of efforts to improve cancer survival. I am pleased to see that the Government are continuing on that trajectory.

Why does this matter? The NHS lung cancer screening programme is now delivering at scale and showing clear results. About 2.8 million people have been invited, with 1.5 million checks completed and close to 1 million scans carried out. Some 6,000 to 7,000 cancers have been detected, roughly three quarters of which have been identified at stage 1 or 2, the earlier stages, in comparison with fewer than 30% before the programme started. About 1.4% of the scans lead to a diagnosis, demonstrating a targeted and efficient approach, and uptake stands at about 60%. In short, the programme is not only reaching those most at risk, but consistently shifting diagnosis to an earlier, more treatable stage and saving lives at a national level.

As I say, we welcome the proposed expansion of the lung cancer screening programme, but it is vital that steps be taken to improve the uptake of screening and lung health checks. The fact that uptake stands at 60% means that 40% of those invited are not coming forward, and they are often the ones at highest risk. The question is why. Can the Minister set out what specific interventions the Government will introduce to increase uptake, particularly among the most deprived and hard to reach groups? To that end, can he confirm how the Government plan to deliver targets set in the national cancer plan, including the allocation of resources and funding for the lung cancer screening programme, over the next few years?

As my new Scottish Conservative colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden), may rightly point out, progress on lung cancer screening is uneven. England is now rolling out a full national programme; Wales has committed to an implementation, with the first invitations expected from 2027; Scotland remains at a pilot stage, with a national roll out likely to be years away; and Northern Ireland is still in the early planning phases, without a programme in place. Given that variation, will the Minister set out what discussions are taking place across all four nations? Most importantly, what lessons are been learned from the English experience that can be actively shared to support a faster and more consistent delivery and roll out across the UK?

More broadly, this issue speaks to the need for a coherent approach to respiratory disease. Under the last Conservative Government, there was a clear attempt to take a more joined up approach to the country’s biggest killers through a major condition strategy, which was announced in 2023. It explicitly placed chronic respiratory diseases, alongside cancer and cardiovascular disease, as one of six national priorities, recognising both its scale—it affects millions—and its contribution to avoidable ill health. A detailed framework, setting out a shift towards prevention, early diagnosis and management of those conditions, was published later that year. However, although the direction of travel was established and widely consulted on, the strategy never reached full publication or implementation, because there was a general election.

This Government have taken a different route, with modern service frameworks. They have committed to developing modern service frameworks for frailty, dementia, mental health and cardiovascular disease—just a few areas—so I ask the Minister directly: will the Government develop a modern service framework for respiratory disease? If not, how do they intend to drive the same level of improvement for a condition that affects millions and underpins outcomes in lung cancer?

We are all serious about improving cancer survival. Across this House, we all have that ambition, but we must match our ambition with delivery. Just like the 10-year plan, the delivery chapter is missing. I worry that the same could be argued for respiratory conditions. I just hope that I am proved wrong.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this important debate and on his continued and relentless advocacy for people affected by lung cancer. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover); and to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), for their comprehensive and constructive contributions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), the lead Minister on this policy area.

There is a great deal of consensus across the House on this issue. We all want to see more lung cancers diagnosed earlier, more lives saved and fewer families affected by the devastating consequences of a late diagnosis. Lung cancer remains one of the greatest cancer challenges that we face. More than 42,000 people were diagnosed with lung cancer in England in 2023, and about 35,000 people lose their life to the disease across the United Kingdom each year.

Lung cancer is also one of the cancers most strongly associated with deprivation. People living in the most deprived communities experience higher rates of smoking, a higher incidence of lung cancer and poorer health outcomes. That is why tackling lung cancer is about not only improving cancer survival, but reducing some of the most persistent health inequalities in our society. For too long, outcomes for lung cancer have lagged behind those for many other cancers. The reason for that is well understood: too many people are diagnosed when their cancer is already at an advanced stage, limiting treatment options and reducing the likelihood of successful outcomes.

That is why early diagnosis is absolutely critical. When lung cancer is diagnosed at stage 1, five year survival is over 60%. By stage 4, it falls to just over 4%. Those figures alone demonstrate why finding lung cancer earlier remains one of the most effective ways of improving survival. The Government fully recognise the importance of this challenge. Improving outcomes for lung cancer and other less survivable cancers will be critical to achieving the Government’s ambitious objective that 75% of people diagnosed with cancer should survive for at least five years. That is why the national cancer plan places a strong focus on earlier diagnosis, reducing inequalities and ensuring that people with less survivable cancers receive the attention and support that they deserve.

This debate is about lung cancer, but I noticed a story in the paper today about an increase of between 5% and 10% in the number of people who now have breast cancer. Does the Minister agree that that underlines the issue that while there are many advances in cancer, and we welcome all of them, there is still a long way to go?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is a lot more work to be done, and it is a priority for the Government: it is right up there in the 10-year plan and the priorities. As he said in his excellent speech, we need to mobilise every one of the shifts—from analogue to digital, from hospital to community and from sickness to prevention—in the battle against cancer, because it is a formidable enemy and we need every single weapon we can deploy to defeat it.

We are determined to break the historical pattern of slow progress and finally give people with less survivable cancers the focus, urgency and outcomes that they deserve. That commitment is already being translated into action through the NHS lung cancer screening programme. The programme is designed to identify cancers at an earlier stage among those at highest risk, particularly people aged 55 to 74 with a history of smoking. Smoking remains responsible for about 72% of lung cancers, which is why a targeted approach is both clinically effective and evidence based.

The results so far have been extremely encouraging: more than 1.8 million people have attended a lung health check through the programme, and more than 11,000 people have been diagnosed with lung cancer. Most importantly, 77% of cancers detected through the programme have been diagnosed at stage 1 or stage 2; outside the programme, the equivalent figure is about 30%. That means that thousands of people are receiving a diagnosis earlier, accessing treatment sooner and benefiting from significantly improved prospects for survival.

The programme is already demonstrating how earlier diagnosis can transform outcomes. Recent NHS England data shows a significant improvement in early stage diagnosis in areas participating in the programme. That means more people are being diagnosed when treatment is most effective and when there is the greatest opportunity for curative intervention.

The hon. Member for Wokingham and others have spoken about the importance of a truly national programme. I agree that every eligible person should have the opportunity to benefit from lung cancer screening. That is why the Government are committing more than £650 million to complete the roll out of lung cancer screening across England by 2030. Through the national cancer plan, we have committed to ensuring that every eligible person in England receives their first invitation for a check by 2030, helping thousands more people to benefit from earlier diagnosis and improved outcomes.

This investment reflects the Government’s confidence in the programme and the evidence supporting it. By 2035, lung cancer screening is expected to diagnose up to 50,000 cancers and identify at least 23,000 cancers at an earlier stage, helping thousands more people to receive potentially lifesaving treatment. This represents one of the most ambitious cancer screening programmes anywhere in the world.

I appreciate that this is not part of the Minister’s brief. The speed of the programme’s roll out is fantastic, but there remains a concern that if 60% of people have taken it up, 40% have not done so, despite having had an offer that could have been given to someone else who wanted to go. Can the Department take that point away and work out what is being done to close that gap of more than a third? There is clearly a greater opportunity to get more people in and get them detected sooner.

The shadow Minister is right that promoting and maximising uptake is a crucial indicator of success for the programme. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to take that point away; I will discuss it with my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South, and we will get back to him in writing as soon as possible.

Hon. Members have rightly raised the issue of inequalities. We know that lung cancer does not affect all communities equally: it remains one of the cancers most strongly associated with deprivation. People living in the most deprived communities experience significantly higher rates of smoking, a higher incidence of lung cancer and poorer health outcomes, which is why the lung cancer screening programme has prioritised roll out in areas of greatest need.

By targeting communities at highest risk first, the programme is helping to reduce long standing inequalities in cancer outcomes and ensuring that those who are most likely to benefit from earlier diagnosis are reached as a priority. Reducing inequalities is therefore central to our approach. The national cancer plan includes a strong focus on reducing variation in cancer outcomes and ensuring that patients benefit from earlier diagnosis, regardless of where they live, their background or their circumstances.

We are also conscious of the concerns that have been raised about access to services in rural and coastal communities. Through the continued expansion of diagnostic services, including community diagnostic centres, to which the shadow Minister rightly referred in his speech, we are bringing tests and scans closer to where people live and helping to improve access across the country.

Alongside screening, we continue to invest in diagnostic capacity, treatment services, research and innovation. We are exploring pilots for self referral chest X rays, which could help to streamline diagnostic pathways and make it easier for people with concerning symptoms to access investigations more quickly. We are also supporting the adoption of innovative technologies that can improve diagnosis, reduce waiting times and help clinicians to identify cancers earlier.

Alongside all our efforts to catch and treat cancer earlier, through our 10-year plan for England we have also committed to shift from sickness to prevention. We know that smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the UK. It claims around 80,000 lives a year, puts huge pressure on our NHS and costs taxpayers billions. It causes one in four of all cancer deaths in England, including from lung cancer, and kills up to two thirds of long term smokers. It costs health and care services £3 billion a year—resources that could be freed up to deliver millions more appointments, scans and operations. The cost of smoking to our economy is even greater, with £18.6 billion lost in productivity every year and with smokers a third more likely to be off work sick.

That is why the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 is the biggest public health intervention in a generation, breaking the cycle of addiction and disadvantage and putting us on track towards a smoke free generation. Over the next 50 years, that smoke free generation will save tens of thousands of lives and avoid up to 13,000 cases of lung cancer, stroke and heart disease.

Although survival rates for lung cancer have improved significantly over recent years, we recognise that there is still much more to do. The Government are determined to ensure that England becomes a world leader in cancer survival, and that patients benefit from earlier diagnosis and better outcomes, regardless of where they live.

I again thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for securing this vital debate, and I thank all the Members who have contributed. Through the continued roll out of lung cancer screening, investment in diagnostic and treatment capacity, support for research and innovation, and the commitment set out in the national cancer plan, we are taking decisive action to diagnose more cancers earlier, improve survival and reduce the number of lives lost to lung cancer. Once again, I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position today.

I would just like to mention a few of the things that hon. Members have spoken about. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was absolutely right to pay tribute to the Government for their work on lung cancer screening. That is an outstanding success, but screening still needs more support from the Government because, as he says, screening saves lives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) talked about lung cancer being horrific and deadly, and he spoke about his constituent John, who probably thought, when he got his diagnosis, “This is going to be horrific and deadly for me.” Because of the lung cancer screening programme, it looks like he might have a few good years ahead of him, so that is really good. My hon. Friend also talked about the speed and quality of treatment, and how important it is that we are quick with our diagnoses, that we are quick with our treatment and that our cancer patients have the support of specialist nurses.

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is absolutely right that early detection is crucial in lung cancer treatment, as he knows from being a junior doctor once upon a time. He is also right to say that the origin of the screening programme was under the Conservatives in 2023, and he is right to join other Members in asking for lung screening to be spread out to all parts of the United Kingdom.

I thank the Minister for coming to the debate today and for answering an awful lot of the questions that we asked him. I know that he is here on behalf of the Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who is, I know, a real champion for improving cancer care in this country. I think it is great that the Government are committing £650 million for lung cancer screening in England to be spent by 2030, but what about Scotland and Northern Ireland? Is the Minister able to make a commitment that the Department will speak to the devolved Governments of Scotland and Northern Ireland to try to get them to implement what has been done so well in England, or does he need to speak to the Under Secretary of State? We did not get a guarantee that lung cancer—

I just want to briefly put on the record that I will discuss that with my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State and we will write to the hon. Gentleman with an update on the work we are doing across the regional Governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Thank you for your intervention, Minister, and your clarification. But you did not need to intervene because I am sure—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here for quite a while now and knows that I am not responsible for anything. Please address the Minister through the Chair.

I apologise, Sir Alec. The Minister did not need to intervene. I am sure he will take that message back to his colleague.

What we would like to see, which was not mentioned in the Minister’s speech, is a guarantee that lung cancer screening funding will be ringfenced and used only for lung cancer screening. There was no comment on the changes in the integrated care boards and NHS England or on what safeguards are in place to ensure continuity of leadership, data management and programme oversight during the organisational changes. I am sure the Minister and other Ministers know that is a big concern for a lot of charities. There was no mention of expanding radiology. A lot of people who talk about cancer, including Members of Parliament and cancer charities, know that there has to be a big expansion of radiography sooner rather than later.

Finally, I would like to thank you for chairing the meeting, Sir Alec, and for pulling me up on my mistake. I shall endeavour to do better next time.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the national lung cancer screening programme.

Sitting suspended.

[Christine Jardine in the Chair]

I beg to move, That this House has considered ports and port connectivity.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. As an island nation, our prosperity has always been closely linked to the strength of our ports. Towns have flourished where ports have thrived, and declined where harbours have silted up and trade has moved on. That is true of Falmouth, the port town that I represent.

Falmouth has a very distinctive story. It is a vibrant place that has always turned its face outwards to the sea. The packet ships carried trade and parcels all around the world from the late 1600s, but by the mid-19th century, the packet trade had collapsed, outpaced by steam ships. Yet Falmouth adapted, partly thanks to our geography, which has always been our strength. Positioned at the western end of the channel, Falmouth is home to the third deepest natural harbour in the world, and the deepest in western Europe. That strategic advantage has given our town enduring significance, not just commercially but militarily.

In 1942, HMS Campbeltown set sail from Falmouth to Saint Nazaire, in an operation that destroyed the only dry dock on the Atlantic coast capable of servicing the German battleship Tirpitz. Today, Falmouth continues to play an important role in supporting our national defence, as do many ports, and it has the potential to do even more in future, including through supporting work at Devonport in Plymouth.

Naval and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels are regularly serviced in Falmouth docks. As I have said in the House before, Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, which are so vital to our defence capability, frequently call at and live in Falmouth. I still recall watching RFA Argus depart in 2014 to deploy off Africa as a hospital ship during the Ebola epidemic. At the same time, the port has diversified. It now welcomes cruise liners, contributing to the local economy and tourism while maintaining its long standing expertise in ship repair and refit for commercial vessels and defence. We also have an active harbour trust port and world class firms that build super yachts.

Crucially, Falmouth is also looking ahead. With its deep water harbour and marine capabilities, it is extremely well placed to support the emerging floating offshore wind sector in the Celtic sea. A&P, now Balaena, is redeveloping the docks to service floating offshore wind turbines. We have a cluster of innovative marine engineering businesses in the surrounding areas, which are designing anchors, floating platforms and many other things to do with floating offshore wind that grew out of the mining industry.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I wonder whether, like me, she would like to hear from the Minister today how the vision for ports that she outlined, which is so clearly tapping into opportunities in Cornwall across the critical minerals, renewable energy and many other industries, could link into our broader view for industrial strategy zones.

Obviously, I agree. Places such as Cornwall will be fundamental to growth in renewable energy, particularly with the critical minerals strategy. The industrial strategy zones will be so important to unlock that potential.

I am grateful to the many hon. Members from across the House who supported my application for this debate—representing ports from Newport to Immingham, Liverpool to Southampton and Port Talbot. It reflects a shared understanding across all our constituencies that supporting our ports and ensuring that they are well connected is vital to our national prosperity.

Last year, ports employment in Great Britain stood at over 31,000 people, while the wider shipping industry contributed an estimated £16 billion to the economy in 2023. However, the true importance of our ports goes far beyond those headline figures. They are critical assets supporting key national infrastructure, including energy security, defence and lifeline ferries. Ports handle 95% of the physical goods entering and leaving our country, underpinning our trade and resilience. Almost all the UK’s automotive trade passes through them, along with half our food and feed. Even smaller ports play a key part in the supply chain, exporting recycled material to keep lorries off roads, and importing and exporting materials for construction.

Additionally, the impact of ports extends far beyond the quayside, reaching into the surrounding hinterlands, and acting as anchors for communities, businesses and industries across entire regions. That is crucial in coastal areas, which often suffer from high levels of deprivation. For every job directly created in a port, seven more are supported through the supply chain. The coastal inland divide is a persistent challenge that port investment can help to address.

Recent research by More in Common, supported by the British Ports Association, has shown that coastal communities and especially the young people in them see that potential. There is a genuine strand of pride among residents in such communities, with four in 10 saying that their area has economic opportunities that are not being made the most of. Young people—over half of them—were likeliest to see that untapped potential. Sixty per cent of people say that their area could become an economic hub for manufacturing, shipping and clean energy. In that, they are even more positive than the nation as a whole, where 55% of people find that prospect realistic.

Ports cannot reach their potential if they are not well connected, yet at present, the responsibility for funding road and rail links often falls to port developers. That can act as a significant disincentive to investment and puts British gateways at a competitive disadvantage internationally.

Many of our busiest ports, including Dover and Harwich, rely heavily on road transport to move freight. That brings with it challenges in terms of congestion, bottlenecks and pressure on local infrastructure. Historically, three quarters of port freight has travelled by road, with only a small proportion of it moving by rail. That is why I really welcome the Railways Bill, which introduces a duty on the Secretary of State to promote rail freight and set a statutory growth target. That is crucial not only for decarbonising transport but for supporting sustainable economic growth. A single freight train can remove up to 129 lorries from our roads, with clear benefits for the environment and local communities.

However, we are not yet making full use of that potential. As of February 2022, around 58 ports in Great Britain had a rail connection, but 20 of those connections were inactive. In Falmouth, there is a short stretch of track linking the docks station directly to the port, but it has not been used for 20 years. With the rebirth of the critical minerals industry in Cornwall—mainly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and around—backed by a £50 million Government strategy, there will be big demand for freight transport, which could be met by rail.

That is why I have been campaigning to reopen that line and working with local partners to make that real. Restoring that rail connection would strengthen Cornwall’s economy and benefit local people. We have funding for an initial feasibility study. However, a business case for a rail link would cost about £150,000, which is a massive outlay, especially when there are no obvious funding streams to provide support for that interim stage.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again and I wholeheartedly support the work taking place at the port of Falmouth to get the rail connection back for freight. I really hope that we can draw support from the Department for Transport in accelerating that to the next stage. However, does she agree that we also need to take a broader look at the vision for freight rail in Cornwall and wholeheartedly develop a strategy for it?

Yes, of course. There is so much more to do and so much that can be done, and we should have a co ordinated strategy. That is so important for growth.

I want to say a bit about the Transport Committee. Although this is fairly old, its 2013 report described ports as “national assets” that were essential to economic wellbeing, and called for three things: priority to be given to removing infrastructure constraints on port development; road and rail improvements to ports to be publicly funded; and Government assistance for ports navigating complex local transport improvement arrangements. Those recommendations have not been implemented.

Port connectivity does not just refer to transport. Connectivity to the grid is an equally pressing challenge for ports across the UK. As the sector moves towards decarbonisation, there is a growing need to electrify operations. However, the UK’s connections queue has grown tenfold in five years, leaving more than 700 GW of projects waiting for grid access. The National Energy System Operator says that it has a plan for connections reform that is designed to clear the backlog, and it has reprioritised projects, which is very welcome. However, NESO has also alerted Ofgem that it cannot meet connection deadlines for all the projects.

Many ports lack the grid capacity to support shore power, electric vehicle charging for ports and haulage fleets, as well as many other things. The BPA has warned that around 70% of UK ports are already at or near their capacity. Those national grid upgrades are critical to ensuring that ports can continue to decarbonise. Falmouth, for example, has plug in power for ships, but the power supply is limited to smaller ships by grid capacity.

The Government’s modern industrial strategy recognises ports as a “foundational” industry that underpins growth across key sectors. That is important for the clean energy sector, which depends heavily on port capacity infrastructure and capability to deliver offshore wind, for example. That needs to translate into tangible policy and investment. In our 2024 manifesto, my party committed £1.8 billion to invest in port infrastructure. Targeted funding has been allocated to individual ports. For example, Port Talbot secured Government investment through the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme. Up to £64 million went to Port Talbot in March this year, but delivery is not progressing at the pace or scale that we desperately need.

A recent report from the Great South West and Celtic Sea Power showed that while ports have ambitious project plans, too many schemes are struggling to get investment. In many cases, projects do not align with the requirements of private investors or public funding bodies such as the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy. That is not because of a lack of policy ambition or capital, but because of a market failure arising from the mismatch between immediate capital investment decisions and uncertain long term revenue streams.

I am intervening because the hon. Lady mentioned Port Talbot. Last year, I met the Associated British Ports in Port Talbot. It raised concerns that the current rail link into the docks may not have the gauge needed for the large structures that will be brought in for assembly or to get freight out from the new freeport that will be created. Does she agree that the Minister should assess whether upgrades, or even a new rail link into the docks, will be needed so that rail infrastructure—or the lack of it—does not hold back this major opportunity for south Wales?

There is a real issue of clunkiness in the co ordination between different Departments to speed up the progress of getting these ports into use. That is one example of how we could work together so much better to ensure that Port Talbot is up to full speed as quickly as possible, which it really needs to be.

The grant funding that is being deployed to support the offshore wind sector, such as the Crown Estate and the GBE supply chain accelerator funding, is focused on future users of infrastructure such as manufacturers and supply chains rather than ports. At present, the main dedicated support available to ports comes from the offshore wind growth fund, which is privately operated. That leaves a gap in public funding for the critical infrastructure needed to unlock projects. My port of Falmouth has very ambitious development plans to service—and potentially assemble—floating offshore wind, as well as on defence, commercial ship repair and cruises. It is a truly mixed port and a “no regrets” investment, but at a cost of about £120 million. It will be a struggle to fund that huge investment from shareholders alone.

There is also the issue of how ports are owned. Some, like Falmouth, are privately owned, while some, like Falmouth harbour commissioners, are trustee owned. Others, like Gorran Haven in my constituency, are charitable trusts, which often fall through the cracks of available funding. There is an argument—I am a Co operative MP—that, as vital community assets, ports should be publicly or co operatively owned, which I would like the Minister to consider.

How do we get money into ports? What should we do? First, a joined up approach across Government Departments is necessary. The Minister here today is from the Department for Transport, but ports sit between multiple Departments, including the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Business and Trade, the Ministry of Defence and, of course, the Treasury, where the money will come from. It sometimes feels difficult to know who to go to, and ports fall through the cracks.

Secondly, targeted funding for port infrastructure to support clean energy industries is essential. That would help to reduce up front risk, improve return on investment and leverage private capital. For example, in the Celtic sea, Port Talbot has benefited from funding, and a new wind port will unlock an initial 4.5 GW of floating offshore wind.

The Government’s investment in Port Talbot is also bolstered by Celtic freeport’s newly released five year plan, which sets out how Milford Haven and Port Talbot will be used to attract major investment to the region. The freeport will deploy its money and work with all those public financial institutions to bridge the capital gap, but investment in other ports in the region is needed to make the deployment of FLOW feasible.

A multi port strategy in the Celtic sea would allow activity to be distributed across several specialised ports, minimising bottlenecks and providing flexibility. Different ports bring very different strengths—Falmouth and Plymouth are very different from Appledore and its shipbuilding—so a single port approach for FLOW in the Celtic sea just would not work. There is also regional disparity. Projects in the North sea have seen significantly more investment than those in the Celtic sea with investment from GB Energy, for example, and the North sea already has established supply chain and port capabilities.

Thirdly, we must address the question of revenue certainty. Ports require firm commitments from developers before they can justify and secure the capital for the infrastructure upgrades that, for example, floating offshore wind demands, yet developers cannot make those commitments without the revenue certainty that a contract for difference provides. It feels like the two sides are both waiting to see who moves first, like a game of chicken.

Compounding that is a fundamental timeline mismatch. Port upgrades take a long time—five years or more—whereas the lead time for a CfD process is much shorter. That results in a structural gap that leaves ports unable to be ready when projects need them, even when the commercial will exists on both sides.

Breaking that deadlock requires direct Government intervention in the form of revenue support or underwriting to de risk that early investment. Without that action, we risk ceding our emerging floating offshore wind industry to competitors such as France, which has invested £900 million in its port of Brest.

By mobilising the National Wealth Fund, for example, to support strategic port infrastructure, the Government could absorb a meaningful share of the risk and give ports the confidence to proceed ahead of CfD awards, rather than waiting until it is too late. Some examples of that support could include forward contracts, capacity leasing arrangements and state underwritten procurement mechanisms to address strategic infrastructure bottlenecks, either as an anchor tenant—where the state acts as an anchor tenant through defence or strategic demand—or as an enabler, using that procurement and underwriting to support the development of infrastructure.

Finally, we must prioritise connectivity in the round, which means investing in the road and rail links that serve our ports, recognising them as national assets deserving of strategic infrastructure funding. We should also recognise ports as critical national infrastructure and use special development orders to streamline planning and consenting for significant port infrastructure. There is an ongoing pilot project for the Falmouth docks expansion. There is a co ordinated approach under the Marine Management Organisation, which is acting as a lead regulator in a fast track licensing process, and that is working well. Prioritising connectivity also means accelerating grid connections, so that energy capacity keeps pace with the demands of decarbonisation, future fuels and the development of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea.

Ports new, old and rediscovered are the gateway to the rest of the world and gateway to the economic future of our country, as well as our coastal towns. They can be unlocked, but it will take focus and co ordination. I, for one, really want to untap the potential that those young people living in our coastal towns see so clearly—and that they need to grab hold of for their future.

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak, even in this heat, although jackets can be removed.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I want to say a special thank you to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for highlighting this important topic.

The title of this debate is “Ports and Port Connectivity”, but from Northern Ireland’s point of view, perhaps it should be “Ports and Port Non connectivity”, and I will explain why. There is no port as such in my constituency, but we are on the outskirts of Belfast and the thriving agrifood sector in my constituency uses its port to ship all over the world. The Belfast port is incredibly important for my constituency and our agrifoods sector. We also have our harbours that bring in the fishing catches in Portavogie, although that is a different type of port.

As a representative of Northern Ireland, I am particularly concerned by the problems that the Windsor framework has created for those trading across our borders and between ports. I will explain what the difficulties are, and then perhaps the Minister can give us some answers. I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him well in this debate and in his job. I look forward to his answers to all my, hopefully, searching questions—well, even better answers would be better. I will also talk about Belfast port and some of the things that it is doing, because we should be greatly encouraged by some of the things that are happening there.

The Windsor framework continues to create friction at ports used for trading between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Businesses report increased costs, administrative burdens or blunders, disruption to supply chains, delays and expanded inspections. Just last year, Logistics UK’s head of trade and devolved policy, Nichola Mallon, who is a former MLA at the Assembly and a lady of great knowledge, outlined that there is “a lack of awareness over the practicalities of the Framework, and also a reluctance among some GB businesses”

to trade goods in Northern Ireland due to the extra requirements. We have almost unique difficulties. There was a statement about steel tariffs in the Chamber earlier, and I asked the Minister for Trade a question on a similar issue. He said that he had umpteen pages on the Windsor framework and was well aware of the issue—perhaps the Minister who is here can get us some of the way through the process.

Brexit created the challenge of how to maintain the integrity of both the UK internal market and the EU single market, given the unique position of the Northern Ireland borders. The aim of the Windsor framework was to ensure smooth trade between ports. There was much expectation, but we certainly did not get the Brexit that the rest of the United Kingdom got; we got one that is tied up in bureaucracy.

To some extent, the aim of smooth trade was oversold and created a misperception that the challenges faced by Northern Ireland over the Northern Ireland protocol could be removed—but that has not been the case. There continue to be significant new processes, and business owners continue to report frustration with the significant restrictions placed on them that drain their time, effort and money. When it comes to the ports and connectivity, we are not having the same connectivity as everybody else.

There is a significant basis for concern that Northern Ireland businesses may be placed at a competitive disadvantage with GB based retailers in their own market. There is substantial evidence to prove that there is an issue, and I know that the Minister will be aware of some of that. I appreciate him acknowledging some of the problems.

Northern Ireland firms report higher costs on imports from GB, and there is frustration about the difficulties that third country firms have faced when trying to sell to Northern Ireland. Those issues with smooth trading are disproportionately affecting small businesses in Northern Ireland, with many companies criticising the assistance available to them from Government. Again, if it is easy to make it simpler to trade, we should try very hard to do that.

More must be done to support vulnerable enterprises, 58% of which state that, almost 10 years on from Brexit, they are facing moderate to significant challenges in trading—10 years later and things have not improved. My goodness, that is quite unbelievable. Of businesses surveyed, 34% say they have simply ceased trading to Northern Ireland, rather than meet the demands of the framework. The paperwork is so laborious, complex and repetitive that it puts people off.

That clearly demonstrates that market access from Northern Ireland is compromised. Small business owners within Northern Ireland have been forced to adapt, and those retailing shorter shelf life products are now largely limited to trading within Northern Ireland, simply because it is not possible to do otherwise with short life products. Other small businesses face increased export charges, which is another issue that they need to address. Some even report having to travel to England themselves as hauliers—as some of my constituents in Newtownards do every fortnight or every month—because hauliers are now reluctant to deliver due to the paperwork required.

There remains a need to restore Northern Ireland’s full place within the UK’s internal market, as it continues to be subject to certain EU rules while GB is not. It is essential that Northern Irish stakeholders play a meaningful role in improving trading problems to ensure trading operates effectively. The first issue that I have laid out is the protocol; it might have been a bit laborious, but it is complicated and I want to have it on the record.

There is still hope, however, as I, along with my right hon. Friends the Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), found in the recent announcement outlining Belfast harbour's ambitious 25-year masterplan. It includes a £1.3 billion investment to expand port capacity, support the green energy transition and regenerate the waterfront. The port handles roughly 70% of Northern Ireland seaborne trade and is scaling up to meet the rising demand and the capacity restraints elsewhere.

Northern Ireland is fortunate to have a large number of cruise ships; I have been informed that the figure is between 140 and 150. Cruise ships must be bigger than I thought they were, but if these figures are correct, some 350,000 people come off those cruise ships—I suppose they are absolutely massive. They bring tourism and spending to my Strangford constituency, which is not too far from Belfast. Tourists go to the National Trust run Mount Stewart, the Greyabbey Cistercian monastery and Harrisons, my neighbourhood café-restaurant, which is just between Greyabbey and Kircubbin. That is a spin off of being near Belfast.

I am coming to an end; I get the indication that might be a good idea. There is a real drive to enable Northern Ireland to be the hub it is designed to be. I welcome Belfast harbour’s ambition and belief. It is the turn of this House to have some ambition as well—to believe in the people of Northern Ireland and renegotiate with the EU to remove the needless restrictions and allow us all to prosper. Now is the time to make that difference.

I respectfully and honestly ask the Minister—because that is my way of doing things—to step in. We are going to have a change of Prime Minister, but we do not know whether there will be a change of Minister. I wish the Minister well and ask that he endeavours to help us in Northern Ireland to overcome some of our issues.

Although only a few hon. Members want to speak, I wonder if we could limit speeches to around five minutes to get everybody in.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. As many people will have already heard, East Thanet is surrounded on three sides by sea. From Ramsgate, we can see France on a clear day, but our port stands idle and neglected, despite its noble history as the home of the Navy during the Napoleonic wars. More recently, people will remember the hovercraft and the Sally Line ferries taking them to France for day trips. That is emblematic of some of the problems that we have with our ports in our island nation.

Ports connect us and defend us; they are places where we trade, where we welcome visitors and where we choose who stays. Our nation’s wealth has been built on ports as gateways to the world. We are the country that we are as a result of our ports and the people who built and worked in them. Yet for too long, we have overlooked them and the communities that sustained them, even as they remain vital to our economy. Many regional ports, including Ramsgate, operate well below capacity. If we are serious about levelling up and ensuring that the whole nation benefits from growth, we must look to how we bring trade and investment to ports that have been left behind.

In Ramsgate, Vattenfall employs 300 people to operate and maintain the wind farm, and there are plans for a green skills hub. Opportunities are there to be developed, yet the port is effectively shut, even though Ostend wants it to open for trade; Dover is already at capacity and would benefit from the growth of Ramsgate; and the lower Thames crossing, which the Government are fully committed to, will enable traffic and freight to move from my part of south east England to the rest of the country.

We need to restore our connection to Europe for both trade and passengers, creating jobs and increasing our connections to the world. Overall, we need to be honest about what kind of impact Brexit has had on the ports in our country. In 2023, UK port traffic had decreased by nearly 13% compared with 2019. However, the EU still remains a significant partner, accounting for 48% of our goods exports and 54% of our imports in 2024. There are opportunities there to strengthen our relationship with Europe through investment in our ports. Ports are not only about freight; they connect us to our neighbours and support a thriving visitor economy. Some 18.1 million international passengers pass through UK ports every year—around 5,000 people daily. Cruise tourism alone injects £170 million directly into coastal communities, with Southampton’s cruise economy supporting £1 billion in wider economic impact.

I want to recognise three things that this Government have done to support our ports. First, they have brought forward a consultation on a revised national policy statement for ports, recognising that the planning framework needs to support future port development better. Secondly, they have used the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy to back industrial and energy investment that depends on port infrastructure. Thirdly, they have begun to recognise more clearly that ports will be central to cleaner shipping and freight and the energy transition. Part of that is to do with the excellent work of this Minister and the Minister for Industry.

However, there are limits to the effectiveness of those measures. Investment is still at risk of being concentrated in the largest schemes and strongest ports, leaving many coastal communities without access to green economy benefits. The National Wealth Fund is capped, and the scale of need across our port infrastructure is much greater. Ramsgate needs only £20 million to be able to reopen with the support of private investors, yet the National Wealth Fund will not look at a project with a value of less than £50 million.

The Government still need to do more to link their port strategy to the overall coastal economic regeneration strategy so that the benefits are felt not only in national growth figures, but in the communities that keep our ports going. I have suggestions for three further steps that the Government could take without additional spending.

First, part of that coastal economic strategy should require a coastal economic area to be established within 5 km of the coast everywhere across the country. That way we could strategically invest in those coastal communities according to the industrial strategy. Regardless of everything else that they have, they have one thing in common: they are near the sea. Therefore we can see exactly how helpful and useful those ports are in terms of international and national infrastructure.

Secondly, we should mandate a capacity audit of all UK ports. We need to have transparent, published data about which ports are operating at full capacity and which are underused. Only then can we start to allocate resources and planning permissions strategically.

Finally, we need to review the allocation of the National Wealth Fund and require the industrial strategy to include a ports chapter. Critical minerals, green energy and defence supply chains all depend on ports. The Government need to be explicit about how ports fit into each sectoral strategy, ensuring that investment decisions are properly joined up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) pointed out, we need to streamline planning and regulatory processes for port development. Delays and inconsistency in the planning system hold back investment. A dedicated fast track for port infrastructure within existing frameworks would accelerate delivery.

Ramsgate is actually owned by Thanet district council. It is publicly owned and there is a strong case for the public ownership of nationally significant infrastructure, such as ports, especially for an island nation. Yet, because of the way that we invest in our ports, it is struggling to make the most of its growth potential.

Ports are not relics of our past; they are a foundation for our future. For too long, we have taken them for granted. I urge the Government to give ports the strategic attention that they deserve—not just with warm words, but with action that reaches every port community in this country, including and especially Ramsgate.

I am sorry, but to get everyone in I will have to move on to the Front Benchers at 4 pm. Could you please stick to a formal time limit of four minutes each?

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on securing this important debate. As the Member representing Immingham, the UK’s largest port by tonnage, and whose constituency includes part of Grimsby—although not the dock estate—I know at first hand that ports are the lifeblood of our coastal communities and the driving force of our national economy.

Immingham and the Humber ports are owned by Associated British Ports and have freeport status. On his visit a few weeks ago, I know the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), was impressed by its size and the part it plays in the local economy.

Around 85% by weight of international freight traded with the UK moves by sea. Nowhere is that reality more evident than in the Humber, the UK’s No. 1 gateway for trade by volume, handling around 17% of all UK port traffic, facilitating over £60 billion of trade and supporting 90,000 regional jobs. However, the national figures show a worrying trend: between January and March 2026, total freight tonnage through major ports decreased by 3%. If we want to justify and unlock further investment in port connectivity, we must see stronger economic growth.

The constraint on our growth is not a lack of private capital or market demand. ABP has invested £1 billion across the UK over the last five years, and has billions more ready to deploy. Significant private investment is happening at scale right now in my constituency: in Immingham, the new £200 million Immingham eastern ro ro terminal is under construction and, at nearby Stallingborough, the 227-acre Helm development is being built out.

The pace and scale of those developments depend entirely on connectivity. While road links are vital—Stallingborough is a brilliant case study of how early local authority road investment successfully unlocked private capital—our future system wide growth relies on energy and rail infrastructure. First, energy connectivity is critical. Delays in grid capacity and connection timings are harming investment across the UK. Green energy, hydrogen and carbon capture projects cannot proceed without timely access to power. I hope the Minister can outline what steps are being taken to accelerate progress on that.

Secondly, we must address transport links—particularly since, with the new rail Bill, the Government make much of the fact that they will be taking direct control. Rail freight handles about 10% of port throughput nationally. While Immingham connects directly into national supply chains, rail constraints are limiting our ultimate geographic advantage. We must improve capacity, gauge clearance and network resilience across the northern networks if we are to increase economic growth in our port areas. It is critical to increase rail freight capacity serving ports alongside improving road links. Turning to the highway network, the M180 becomes the A180 at Barnetby, and the last few miles into Immingham are overcrowded and rely on an ancient concrete road, which causes great problems for both traffic and the local community.

I will have to move on quickly, Ms Jardine, and skip a couple of pages of my speech, but I note that hon. Members are passionate about their coastal communities. We must do all we can to ensure that the economic growth that they can deliver is indeed delivered. Only with investment from both the private and public sectors can that be achieved.

It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on bringing this debate to this Chamber.

I will talk about the port of Liverpool, which is actually mostly in my constituency of Bootle, and set out its importance. I am not able to see Northern Ireland from Liverpool, but I am able to see Wales every day, so there is some Celtic connection there. The total annual tonnage from Liverpool port is 31 million, about 10% of annual shipping freight in England. Liverpool city region’s maritime sector directly employs about 10,900 people. The port of Liverpool itself employs about 1,400, and its wider supply chain employs 48,000, so it is an important economic asset to our community. It is also a strategic and national asset. Improving its rail links and connectivity is important, and it has an impact on regional growth.

Grid capacity and decarbonisation have to be developed in the context of an appropriate planning framework. Liverpool port deals with bulk timber, bulk liquids, bulk cargo and general cargo and with 720,000 passengers a year. It is a huge economic asset to our area and has encouraged growth in our economy for many years.

The impact on local communities is, of course, crucial, and when we expand or develop ports, we must take that into account. In my local community there is a road that goes from the M57-M58 down to the docks. Thankfully, the Government decided not to put through the Rimrose Valley road, which was going to cost £350 million. I have fought for years for rail investment, because that is the key. I am really pleased that the Railways Bill has a target of 75% rail freight growth by 2050. That will enable us to unlock other markets, and of course it will provide public and private investment in connectivity; it is important that the two work closely together.

Local communities have to be part of the development of the programme. The A5036 has a junction that has the best part of 2,300 heavy good vehicles going past in both directions—something like five HGVs a minute. The Government are trying to mitigate the impact of road traffic on communities—it is a heavily populated community—so I call on them to ensure that National Highways provides the money to build a new bridge across that road, since the previous one is broken. I will persist in asking for that. We want port development, with thousands of jobs linked to it and a massive amount of development, but we must also look after our communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for securing a debate on this important issue. Ports handle 95% of Britain’s physical trade; sea freight accounts for the majority of the UK’s international freight but, as we have heard, the grid and road and rail infrastructure outside the port gates are too often treated as an afterthought. If the Government are serious about economic growth, decarbonisation and national resilience—as I believe they are—we need to see changes in how we approach this.

The port of Southampton, in my constituency, demonstrates why. It is Europe’s leading cruise turnaround port and the UK’s second largest container terminal. Three million passengers come through each year, and it is an important gateway for vehicles, manufactured goods and international trade, dealing with more than £71 billion of value every year. It supports 45,000 jobs nationwide, and anchors a wider Solent maritime cluster, worth £10.6 billion. I know this debate is not a competition for the best port in the country, but Southampton would make a very strong case.

In spite of all the strengths and benefits I have just listed, Southampton is not just a stereotypical rich south eastern seat. Too many communities around the port experience severe deprivation and limited opportunity. Some recent More in Common research found that 58% of 18 to 34-year olds coming into the workforce in coastal communities are considering moving away, most of them citing a lack of jobs. The investment we are asking for is not just about expanding ports for the sake of it; it is about redistributing that value back into the communities that generate it. That investment locally can be a catalyst for national growth. Southampton has been leading on this: we delivered the UK’s first commercial scale cruise ship to shore power facility. That cut 5,000 tonnes of carbon and has generated £150 million in gross value added benefits in 2024 alone.

Private investment in and around the port is moving ahead, but the constraint is often the public infrastructure outside its gates. I struggle with the fact that we have two ship to shore plug in points, but we can use only one of them. If we plug the second one in, the lights in Southampton go out. If the one UK port that is already leading on shore power cannot fully utilise that potential for another decade—we have been told that the grid expansion will not come until 2036—how much later will the rest of Britain be? In the meantime, our European competitors will spend years investing in their infrastructure, getting greener shipping services and stealing a march on their competitors. There is an urgency to this.

The case for road and rail investment is just as strong. DP World’s modal shift programme has increased proportion of containers leaving Southampton by rail from 21% to more than 30% in just three years. That is 200,000 lorry journeys off the roads, saving 45,000 tonnes of carbon. Again, we just need the scale to continue.

I will close with three specific asks for the Minister. I am grateful for his engagement with me and the sector recently. First, can we bring forward the grid supply point upgrade at Southampton? A 2036 timeline is not compatible with our 2030 shore power obligations or our sector’s decarbonisation ambitions. Secondly, can we commit to ringfencing the maritime emissions trading scheme revenues for port and maritime decarbonisation infrastructure? Finally, can we get Great British Railways and National Highways to treat freight pass and port connectivity as first order planning priorities? Let us match our ambition with urgency and a plan.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. No doubt, given what I am about to say, everybody will wish I was confined to four or five minutes rather than 10, but there we go.

I commend the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for securing a debate on this vital topic. We have seen so many parts of the country represented in the debate, demonstrating that the UK is a proud maritime country with a strong history in global trade, and that maritime is critical to our future. She talked about that maritime history and the key role of ports and our coast for defence, offshore wind and the wider economic impact.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the benefits of the cruise ship sector to his constituency and the impact of the Windsor framework and Brexit on trade. The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) talked about the sad demise of Ramsgate as a port, and the importance of coastal regeneration and a wider coastal economic strategy. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) rightly talked about the critical role that Immingham port plays in so many freight imports, particularly bulk cargo, and how we need to invest in gauge clearance and rail freight. I will be saying a lot more on that.

The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) talked about the critical importance of engaging local communities and doing what we can to reduce the impact of the vast number of lorries that serve our ports on local roads. Finally, the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) belatedly started a contest for best port in the country, but alas, we would have to rerun the debate to find out which would win.

Our ports are central to economic growth. They are our domestic industry’s gateway to the global trade network. Ports contribute billions annually to our economy and support thousands of jobs across coastal communities both directly and indirectly. Our ports should be viewed as hubs: the entry point into an effective, joined up transport system spanning out across the country. They should be supporting British business, not hindering it.

The United Kingdom has 51 major ports. Our port ecosystem handled 423 million tonnes in 2024. Around 86% of our international freight by weight is transported by sea, but still, 70% of freight to and from our ports moves by road, compared with around 10% by rail and 20% by coastal shipping. Roads carry over 300 million tonnes of port freight nationally.

The national policy statement for ports provides the planning framework for major infrastructure projects, and the revised 2025 NPS set out aims to support expansion of port capacity, streamline planning decisions, align with decarbonisation and energy goals and integrate with national transport planning. The Transport Committee’s scrutiny of the NPS found aspects of it unclear or incomplete, particularly its intention to streamline planning decisions for major port developments. The Committee recommended that ports be designed as critical national priority infrastructure, which would help to speed up planning decisions. It also found the NPS to be weak on port connectivity, with insufficient emphasis on rail freight and integration with wider transport networks—a key theme of this debate.

Too often, the onward connectivity from ports around our country is not up to scratch, as the rail line or, more often than not, the road directly linking ports is the weak link in the system. A key barrier to getting more freight on rail is the ongoing lack of electrification. That is not particularly for decarbonisation reasons but simply because freight hauled by an electric locomotive accelerates much faster, which can help to accommodate freight trains amid passenger trains far more easily.

There are many examples of short bits of railway that could be electrified to realise some of those benefits. The three miles of the London Gateway branch that are not electrified are one of the best examples. Many freight operators run freight trains using diesel locomotives for hundreds of miles underneath electrified lines simply because those three miles are not electrified. DP World has offered to pay half of the estimated £20 million cost of electrifying those three miles.

There has been a scepticism in this Government and previous Governments about railway electrification because previous schemes have gone over budget. But Sir Andrew Haines, former chief executive of Network Rail and current chairman of DFT Operator, gave testimony to the Transport Committee that the best way to bring electrification costs down is by committing to a rolling programme so that the supply chain gains maturity. What better way to kick off that rolling programme than with a commitment to doing the three miles of London Gateway? The three miles have relatively little in the way of bridges and tunnels; it is a great opportunity for the supply chain to get started. Who knows? Perhaps the Minister, in his speech, will give that commitment to spend £10 million, matching DP World’s £10 million, make a great name for himself and start a railway electrification revolution in this country that would also benefit Felixstowe, Immingham, Southampton, Middlesbrough, Seaforth container terminal and many other ports. I look forward to hearing that in his speech.

If we want to support business and boost the stagnant economic growth that plagues the country, we must invest not only in our ports but in the roads, railways and networks that connect them to the rest of the country. The private sector is willing to do that: I have outlined DP World’s offer but another good example is GB Railfreight, which has invested £150 million in bi mode—meaning they can run on diesel or electric—Class 99 locomotives. GB Railfreight has said to me that it would like to run those locomotives on electric power far more than it will be able to when they enter service this summer because of the lack of electrification of our network.

Our approach to this issue contrasts very unfavourably with that of other countries. The Netherlands built the Betuweroute—a dedicated freight only railway serving the port of Rotterdam—both to boost rail freight capacity and to take freight trains off the existing network, enabling the Netherlands to run its very high frequency passenger services.

Another big benefit of moving freight off the roads is that it reduces the need to invest in some very expensive and disruptive road schemes. The A34 through my constituency, in Oxfordshire, is becoming more and more congested. There are lots of reasons for that but high lorry volumes are a significant factor, notwithstanding the good progress—highlighted by the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen—that DP World has made in getting more traffic from Southampton off the road and on to rail.

Of course, transport is not the only thing holding back our ports. We all saw images of miles of lorries queuing outside Dover. Earlier this year, transport businesses were still describing the ongoing “pure hell” of Brexit paperwork in evidence to the Business and Trade Committee. We need to cut the Brexit bureaucracy and red tape to enable our port sector to really thrive. The Public Accounts Committee found a “Clear increase in costs, paperwork and border delays”

for UK businesses after Brexit. The National Audit Office similarly concluded that businesses face “additional costs and administrative burdens”

due to new border processes. At least £4.7 billion has been spent implementing border arrangements, and around 39 million customs declarations have been required annually, adding significant friction. UK ports handled around 10% less cargo in 2024 compared with 2019, the last full year before Brexit. That decline has been attributed to Brexit and wider economic factors.

We need to make importing and exporting more efficient, cutting the time and money wasted at ports on unnecessary forms, checks and mountains of paperwork. To do that, we need closer ties with Europe. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a bold new partnership with the European Union, including joining the single market and customs union. That would tear down barriers for businesses and boost trade with Britain’s biggest market.

Labour may have hemmed itself in with its current red lines on Europe, and who knows what the new Prime Minister—whoever that may be—will do, but we believe we have a significant part of the answer to resolving the country’s stagnant growth. Our ports would be free again to fulfil their potential, removing the bureaucracy and getting Britain trading again. It would also reverse the disastrous series of policy blunders that have put a boot on the necks of businesses, including the rise in employer national insurance contributions.

Our ports should be not the Brexit bottlenecks they are today, but the engines at the heart of economic growth, as so many hon. Members have eloquently articulated. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Jardine, and I thank you for allowing male Members to remove their jackets—although that was before you saw the shirt the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) is wearing. I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for proposing the debate, which is particularly relevant for those of us who represent coastal communities across the country or are near coastal communities. Tilbury and London Gateway are both within very short driving distance for many of my constituents in Basildon and Billericay, and both employ hundreds of them.

Across the country, we all rely on ports such as Immingham, which I visited recently with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), and Felixstowe, which I have also visited in recent months. It was great to hear the hon. Members for East Thanet (Ms Billington) and for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) refer to the port of Southampton, one of our larger ports, which supports tens of thousands of jobs, provides around £2.5 billion a year to the national economy and is a major hub for British cruise ships.

Ports can be important economic indicators, as we saw in the recent Office for National Statistics statistical bulletin, which showed a concerning decrease in ships visiting major UK ports. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham mentioned, total freight tonnage was down 3% in the three months at the start of the year compared with the year before. It is concerning, and rather illustrative of the Government’s struggles to grow the economy, to see tonnage falling in that fashion. It is not tonnage alone; last October, the Port of Aberdeen chief executive officer said that oil and gas activity at the port was down 10% at that point in 2025, and a staggering 25% on the previous summer, despite offshore activity typically peaking due to projects and maintenance work.

Sadly, the economic vandalism of the Energy Secretary is destroying our oil industry and has had a knock on effect. That demonstrates why we need to think about this issue more broadly than just in relation to ports. Ports do not merely play a critical role in their local economies, although they do that; they are indicators of our broader economy. They are of national and indeed international importance. This debate illuminates how ports are connected to other parts of the economy. What we can do to help them prosper, for both freight and passengers, is of utmost importance.

As an island nation with 95% of our physical imports and exports passing through them, our ports have always been fundamental to our everyday lives and to our global success. As the 2018 review of port connectivity noted, port connectivity at its most basic level is about the equality of access to and from ports via predominantly land based transport networks. Yet in everyday terms, that could encompass a range of issues that have significant consequences, as hon. Members in all parts of the Chamber have mentioned, including issues around specific road and rail schemes, with impacts extending from electricity generation all the way to the food on our shelves.

That very interconnectedness with our economy and the everyday lives of our people shows why, in Britain’s past, present and future, ports have and will play such a key role in improving the flow of goods and people through our country. Our national history highlights a country that has always understood the need to improve its infrastructure and make it easier to connect our ports with the rest of the country. Much more remains to be done.

In considering what that means, the first port of call must be ensuring the effective use of our roads. As the UK Major Ports group has said, our major ports see more than 60% of the freight they handle moved in and out via road haulage. Similarly, the BPA noted that in 2019, road haulage was around 70% of the major throughput of ports. These substantial figures demonstrate the need to reduce bottlenecks and to maintain road quality around our ports. That is why the conversation about ports and port communities is inextricably tied to our national resilience.

Where the Government are making improvements, such as those at the lower Thames crossing, or the A666 and M27 upgrades started under the last Government, they should obviously be welcomed. They will directly enhance the ability of passengers and hauliers to access our port network. However, I also issue a challenge to the Government to do more to improve the experience and reduce the costs, wherever possible, for those who seek to connect to our ports, as hon. Members have already mentioned today.

We must also ensure that we work closely with our international partners. There are real concerns about the upcoming school holidays. Clearly there is a need for discussions with the French about the entry and exit system. We are in the preposterous position where a facility in Dover has been built, but it cannot be activated until the technology is working for the kiosks there—which are specifically the responsibility, as the Minister knows, of the French police. I hope that the Government will be clear that more accountability is needed. The president of Airports Council International Europe has said that politicians should “stop pretending...that EES is working just fine. It is not.”

That is true at both our airports and our ports.

Furthermore, the Government can improve the connectedness of ports as much as they like—but when they introduce policies such as the emissions trading scheme, which saddles people in areas like the Isle of Wight with greater costs, it is inevitable that connectivity will be hurt as well. That is why we will always judge the Government by what they are doing to help or hinder our ports and port connectivity, not merely by their rhetoric.

However, as Members across the Chamber have already noted, roads and the impact of the costs imposed are not the only factors affecting the connectivity of our ports. Several, including the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), were right to note the significance of rail. Take Felixstowe, near my constituency, where 58 trains arrive or depart each day across three dedicated rail terminals, serving 15 international destinations and moving more containers by rail than at any other port in Britain. That enormous logistical exercise demonstrates the importance of supporting our rail freight sector.

I will not relitigate the substantial debate in Committee on the Railways Bill, given that there were 509 separate mentions of rail freight in Committee alone. Nevertheless, it is worth acknowledging that many Conservative Members, and indeed many Members from parties across the House, are concerned about the protections in that legislation.

My colleagues and I are concerned that Great British Railways retains too much power to run roughshod over private business, particularly given the concerns about rail freight, which rightly has a target to grow. To see improved connectivity at ports, we need the Government to support those private companies in growing their services. In addition, the Government must be open to projects that increase rail freight capacity, such as those at Ely and Horley junctions. I also agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage about London Gateway.

Ultimately, it is crucial to remember that our ports have repeatedly been hubs of innovation. The containerisation of the 20th century transformed our ability to transfer goods across the world, and ports have often been a driving force behind increased road and rail capacity in other parts of the country as well.

However, improving port connectivity can only be achieved with an absolute focus on increasing economic growth—a phrase the current Government often use, but do not as often practise. We are seeing changes in the Government; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned a possible move for the Minister here today, although I hope that that is not the case, particularly for the Minister himself. Regardless, I hope that the Government will consider how they can achieve growth in our ports and support them in helping to grow the UK economy.

It is a pleasure, Mrs Jardine, to serve under your chairship. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on securing this incredibly important and prescient debate. As an island nation, our prosperity has always depended on our ability to trade, connect and compete with the rest of the world, and that is as true today as it has ever been. True also is the importance of the ports sector across the length and breadth of our United Kingdom, and the contributions by MPs from across the Chamber today have reflected that.

I turn briefly to some of the comments that have been made today. My hon. Friend pointed to the importance of the symbiotic relationship between the grey hulls of the Royal Navy and civil maritime in this country. She said that we need to raise all boats in developing our maritime policy, and that I need to work hard with my MOD colleagues to do so. She also spoke of the proud history of Falmouth port and the exciting future in floating offshore wind, which I know she is challenging for, and also the next generation, who share the deep sense of civic pride in our port communities and are among the most ambitious about enhancing that status and projecting it into the future.

My hon. Friend also spoke of the importance of industrial strategy zones that provide a catalyst for economic growth, a point also reflected by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law). I also note the point my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth made about funding for the business case for the rail improvement project she speaks about. I would be grateful if she wrote to me to set out the detail of that again, and we will pick it up and see what more we can do to support her in her work.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the importance of port connectivity, not just to Northern Ireland, Belfast and his constituency, but to the entire Union of the United Kingdom and the economic bonds that exist within it. I am very pleased to say that I have accepted an invitation to visit Belfast port for myself to see those operations at first hand, and I am encouraged to hear that it is engaging in the master planning process and has such an exciting programme of expansion. On the Windsor framework, the UK Government are working hard to reset the relationship with our European partners. That will bring simplified trade procedures and reduced friction at ports, but he is right to hold us to account on that important issue for businesses in his constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) showed how planning reform, decarb initiatives and national growth do not need to happen to the exclusion of one another; they must go hand in hand to deliver for communities like those she represents. She is right to be ambitious about reviving the prospect for the port of Ramsgate. I just visited Portsmouth, another municipal port that shows how that system can work incredibly well to drive growth. I thank her for having similar ambitions for her constituency.

I am excited to visit the port of Immingham very soon to see the investment it is bringing forward. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) will know that, as I am a Hull lad, his seat is very familiar to me. He and other hon. Members raised the important plan for the grid connection process. I can confirm that I am working closely with colleagues in DESNZ, and also within Ofgem and NESO, to make sure that we clear out projects from the pipeline that are not shovel ready and cannot be scaled at pace, so that our ports get the grid connections they deserve. That will also be a major focus of the forthcoming maritime growth strategy that we hope to bring out later this year.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham also raised the importance of rail connectivity, a point echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). I am glad that they have focused on the fact that we can unlock efficiency and air quality improvements for local communities, as well as enhancing our port infrastructure; that is an incredibly powerful point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) also raised a point that we do not reflect on enough: beyond the quayside, even in some of the most successful ports in the United Kingdom, stark inequalities can exist in coastal communities. There are inequalities in access to opportunity and to the fantastic roles we have in the maritime sector, but there are also major issues to do with economic inequality. It is this Government’s driving mission to address that. We want to make sure that ports such as Southampton continue to grow and offer fantastic services through the cruise sector. Part of that is about making sure that we get the grid connections right, but it is also about making sure that people who live in coastal communities benefit from the enormous opportunities that improved port connections can bring.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), encourages me to make spending commitments from this Dispatch Box. I am afraid that I will have to disappoint him today, but I am very interested in his point about rail freight connectivity from London Gateway and those three miles. That is more clearly within the remit of Lord Hendy in the other place—but, if the hon. Member wrote to me about it, I would be very interested to engage with him further from a maritime perspective.

The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), was characteristically strong in his advocacy for the port of Tilbury, which I had the real pleasure of visiting recently. I take his points about the implementation of EES very seriously. We continue to work with our EU partners and EU member states to encourage pragmatism whenever queues build, to reduce the impact for UK travellers and operators. I assure him that I am working very closely with my counterparts in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office to ensure that we deal with those problems as they arise.

The impact of our ports should not be underestimated. Around 85% of the goods that cross UK borders pass through them. The fundamentals of everyday life—the food we eat, the clothes we wear and the energy we rely on—all arrive by sea. Ports are also major employers for our coastal communities, supporting around 30,000 direct jobs. With the latest figures showing an annual contribution of over £2 billion, they are also catalysts for local, regional and national growth, although a key theme that has arisen from this debate is our obligation to ensure that the proceeds of that growth are spread more equitably among the coastal communities that Members represent.

Last year, ports were recognised as a foundational industry in the Government’s industrial strategy. That was in no small part down to the swathes of investment that UK ports are already making, with £6 billion committed across the country since 2020. The Government are working hard to match that appetite for growth. I have heard some of the limitations of the National Wealth Fund in terms of the investability of propositions before the organisation. However, £5.8 billion is being directed towards five priority sectors, backing projects that face the greatest barriers to finance. Earlier this month, the fund announced £200 million for ports, the largest single investment it has made in the sector to date. Last year, the Government announced a further £448 million for the UK SHORE—Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions—programme, helping innovators across maritime to develop sustainable technology, including improving grid connections at UK ports.

We know that investment alone is not enough; a modern and effective planning system will also be essential to the future success of our ports. That is why we will soon publish the revised national policy statement for ports, providing greater certainty to those proposing new developments. I put on the record my thanks to the Transport Committee for its robust scrutiny of the statement, which we have done our level best to include in our additions and updates. We are also working closely with regulators to streamline the planning and consenting process, including tackling the backlog of harbour order applications. A new prioritisation framework will ensure that time critical applications can be identified and processed more quickly, preventing any unnecessary delays.

For ports to reach their full potential, they must work seamlessly with our road and rail networks. Congestion and capacity issues, whether at the port gate or miles away, can have a huge impact on supply chains. From the lower Thames crossing in the south to the trans Pennine route upgrade in the north, the Government are pouring billions into improving port connectivity. In March, we announced over £27 billion through the third road investment strategy, including a new performance metric to reduce delays on gateway routes. At the same time, GBR will work to improve rail access, supporting our ambition for a 75% increase in rail freight by 2050 alongside the duty in the Railways Bill to promote rail freight.

As we invest in growth and connectivity, we must also ensure that the sector is ready to meet its climate commitments. The maritime decarbonisation strategy doubles down on our mission to build a greener future, setting clear targets and guiding principles to help us to get there. Last year, we ran a call for evidence to understand ports’ current and future energy needs; over the coming months, we will publish a summary of those responses and set out our next steps.

For centuries, ports have supported the movement of people, goods and ideas. They have helped to build the foundations of our national prosperity. Today, they continue to drive growth, support jobs and create opportunities in all four corners of the United Kingdom. Supporting the continued success of our ports is one of the Government’s top priorities, and we will keep working with and listening to industry as we shape the right policy environment for them to thrive. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth for securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members who made such considered contributions.

I thank you, Ms Jardine, for chairing today, and I thank the Members who have come from all edges of the country and spoken so beautifully about their ports.

Some themes have come out, and I thank the Minister for addressing pretty much all of them. The first is rail. The rail freight growth target is welcome, and we need to make sure it happens. It is also important to speed up those grid connections. We are all looking at about 10 years for connecting our ports to the grid, which is simply not good enough. Then there is planning, with ports being national infrastructure. I see planning moves even in my own port in Falmouth, and those are good innovations.

My main plea is to look at how we unlock investment in our ports. We need to talk about the flexibility of public investment from the National Wealth Fund, how we build confidence in our ports, and the revenue that may be incoming from new green energy businesses and industries to unlock private investment and allow it to flood in. It is there—it wants to do it; it just needs the confidence.

I thank all hon. Members for coming today. I hope that by the next election, our ports will all be up to speed, with things flowing in and out.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered ports and port connectivity.

Sitting adjourned.