[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.