Westminster Hall
Thursday 25th June 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
13:29
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Order. 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. HC 41 for up to ten 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 foster to respond to these. In turn. Questions should be brief and members may only ask one question.
I remind members, if they wish to be called that, they should. Bob. I call Will Forster on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
I remind members, if they wish to be called that, they should. Bob. I call Will Forster on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
13:30
13:31
13:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
You. Pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I am grateful for the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement from the second report of the housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Committee today. The majority of British people still want to own their own home, but fewer of them can do so. Young adults is even worse for them. The rate of home ownership for 20 or know 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%. Young adults is even worse for them. The rate of home ownership for 27 year olds fell from 43% to 25%, not over 20 years, but over ten. It is deeply unfair that someone's chances 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 they have failed to measurably improve the situation. The current government must not fail as well. What then, is the government to do?First, as we know, more homes are needed.
The government is right to address the historical undersupply of homes, and we support its target to provide 1.5 million new homes by the end of the Parliament. At the same time, we are concerned that the government might not meet this target, and even if it does, 1.5 million new homes may not be enough. The last time that homes in this country were built at that pace, we to hit that government target was over 50 years ago, and 40% of council homes have 40% of homes were built by councils back then.
Those days are long gone. Now 75% of home building is done by private developers who are facing their own challenges cost to building are rising, and if private developers can't make a profit, they won't build the homes in the first place. We are seeing this happen across the country. Developers like the Berkley Group are scaling back operations because of the volatility caused by the conflict in the Middle East. In my own constituency of Woking, over 2000 homes have got permission for in and around the town centre alone, but none are even under construction.
The government is right to encourage councils to build again, including through its Social and Affordable Homes programme. But private developers are vital to build the homes we need. We have asked the ministry to write to us twice a year about its actions and progress to increase home building rates by developers, but there is also more the government could do, including using the hundreds of thousands of homes around the country that are lying empty. These homes are an unused stockpile, representing a significant chunk of the 1.5 million new homes the government wants to build.
Councils already have some powers to take control of vacant homes, but these powers carry risks and are rarely used. We concluded that the government needs to make existing powers easier to understand and use. And provide new powers where necessary. That brings me to mortgage financing. The evidence we saw during our inquiry shows that the high loan to value mortgage rates are so important for the first time buyers, and it is good news that such mortgages are becoming more available now than they have been before.
And that's because of the prudential and financial regulations affecting the property market. However, there is more to be done and we need to encourage lenders to change their affordable assessments so that they are fair and that mortgages are accessible to those who need them most. For example, it should never be the case that a renter can be turned down for a mortgage because they can't afford the repayments. When those repayments are less than what they are already paying in rent. Other financial products beside 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. But I won't go over all the problems with lifetime ISAs for now. As part of our inquiry, we jointly sat with the Treasury. Colleagues in their Select Committee and they have published a separate report for that. Suffice to say, the government has promised to. Place the lifetime Isa with a new product specifically for first time buyers, and we support them in doing so. This new first time buyer, Isa, will be introduced in 2028.
The government has 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 investments. However, we also recommended that the government avoid a static property price cap that could make the product useless in some parts of the country. The government has not yet set out the details of its property price cap for the the new Isa, so we are still waiting to see how the government will ensure 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 the 29th of April setting out our concerns relating to home buying and selling process.
We found it was a painful experience that reduces motivation to move and slows down the housing market. These barriers are necessary. Costs should be eliminated, eliminated to encourage more people to move, to increase 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 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 a stronger regulation of property agents.
The government has promised to address the first two of these in its reform roadmap, published last week. While the government has stopped short of regulating property agents. It has promised to publish a code of practice for them by the end of the year. I hope with the political instability that is not lost. Lastly, I turn to the subject of the of 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. It 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 like business rates and council tax in this country are a mess. Similarly to the this report. Um, we have recommended where we've asked for the government to make changes to council tax. We recommend that stamp duty should be overhauled and replaced. It's fundamentally unfair and it's damaging our economy.
These two taxes need to be. Changed and I hope the new government takes that opportunity. Stamp duty provides £14 billion of government revenue each year, so the government can't just get rid of it outright. But we've called on the government to consult by the end of the year on alternative forms to stamp duty, including replacing it with a revenue neutral alternative, such as such as an annual property tax, reducing rates to stimulate more transactions, tying tax bands more closely with 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. In conclusion, Sir Alec, it was this day three years ago that I moved in to the first home I owned by myself. But for so many people, homeownership is beyond reach. In my constituency of Woking, more people are having to leave their home town to buy their first home. Some are not able to buy a home at all.
That is not acceptable. To address housing affordability and to ensure our young constituents can get a foot on the housing letter, we need the government to go much further and much faster. We need the government to use a range of approaches to improve the supply of homes, and the effective demand for those homes. We welcome the steps the government is taking in some areas, but in others it must be bolder to enact policies that we have set out in our report that can lead to real and long lasting improvement in the affordability of home ownership for first time buyers in this country.
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%. Young adults is even worse for them. The rate of home ownership for 27 year olds fell from 43% to 25%, not over 20 years, but over ten. It is deeply unfair that someone's chances 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 they have failed to measurably improve the situation. The current government must not fail as well. What then, is the government to do?First, as we know, more homes are needed.
The government is right to address the historical undersupply of homes, and we support its target to provide 1.5 million new homes by the end of the Parliament. At the same time, we are concerned that the government might not meet this target, and even if it does, 1.5 million new homes may not be enough. The last time that homes in this country were built at that pace, we to hit that government target was over 50 years ago, and 40% of council homes have 40% of homes were built by councils back then.
Those days are long gone. Now 75% of home building is done by private developers who are facing their own challenges cost to building are rising, and if private developers can't make a profit, they won't build the homes in the first place. We are seeing this happen across the country. Developers like the Berkley Group are scaling back operations because of the volatility caused by the conflict in the Middle East. In my own constituency of Woking, over 2000 homes have got permission for in and around the town centre alone, but none are even under construction.
The government is right to encourage councils to build again, including through its Social and Affordable Homes programme. But private developers are vital to build the homes we need. We have asked the ministry to write to us twice a year about its actions and progress to increase home building rates by developers, but there is also more the government could do, including using the hundreds of thousands of homes around the country that are lying empty. These homes are an unused stockpile, representing a significant chunk of the 1.5 million new homes the government wants to build.
Councils already have some powers to take control of vacant homes, but these powers carry risks and are rarely used. We concluded that the government needs to make existing powers easier to understand and use. And provide new powers where necessary. That brings me to mortgage financing. The evidence we saw during our inquiry shows that the high loan to value mortgage rates are so important for the first time buyers, and it is good news that such mortgages are becoming more available now than they have been before.
And that's because of the prudential and financial regulations affecting the property market. However, there is more to be done and we need to encourage lenders to change their affordable assessments so that they are fair and that mortgages are accessible to those who need them most. For example, it should never be the case that a renter can be turned down for a mortgage because they can't afford the repayments. When those repayments are less than what they are already paying in rent. Other financial products beside 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. But I won't go over all the problems with lifetime ISAs for now. As part of our inquiry, we jointly sat with the Treasury. Colleagues in their Select Committee and they have published a separate report for that. Suffice to say, the government has promised to. Place the lifetime Isa with a new product specifically for first time buyers, and we support them in doing so. This new first time buyer, Isa, will be introduced in 2028.
The government has 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 investments. However, we also recommended that the government avoid a static property price cap that could make the product useless in some parts of the country. The government has not yet set out the details of its property price cap for the the new Isa, so we are still waiting to see how the government will ensure 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 the 29th of April setting out our concerns relating to home buying and selling process.
We found it was a painful experience that reduces motivation to move and slows down the housing market. These barriers are necessary. Costs should be eliminated, eliminated to encourage more people to move, to increase 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 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 a stronger regulation of property agents.
The government has promised to address the first two of these in its reform roadmap, published last week. While the government has stopped short of regulating property agents. It has promised to publish a code of practice for them by the end of the year. I hope with the political instability that is not lost. Lastly, I turn to the subject of the of 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. It 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 like business rates and council tax in this country are a mess. Similarly to the this report. Um, we have recommended where we've asked for the government to make changes to council tax. We recommend that stamp duty should be overhauled and replaced. It's fundamentally unfair and it's damaging our economy.
These two taxes need to be. Changed and I hope the new government takes that opportunity. Stamp duty provides £14 billion of government revenue each year, so the government can't just get rid of it outright. But we've called on the government to consult by the end of the year on alternative forms to stamp duty, including replacing it with a revenue neutral alternative, such as such as an annual property tax, reducing rates to stimulate more transactions, tying tax bands more closely with 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. In conclusion, Sir Alec, it was this day three years ago that I moved in to the first home I owned by myself. But for so many people, homeownership is beyond reach. In my constituency of Woking, more people are having to leave their home town to buy their first home. Some are not able to buy a home at all.
That is not acceptable. To address housing affordability and to ensure our young constituents can get a foot on the housing letter, we need the government to go much further and much faster. We need the government to use a range of approaches to improve the supply of homes, and the effective demand for those homes. We welcome the steps the government is taking in some areas, but in others it must be bolder to enact policies that we have set out in our report that can lead to real and long lasting improvement in the affordability of home ownership for first time buyers in this country.
13:40
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, Sir Alex, and it's a pleasure to follow my honourable friend for, for for Woking. Um, so my, my question before I ask my question, I should declare an interest as, as, as a former chief executive of a, of a registered provider and a community land trust and now and now a volunteer on, on its board, the Cornwall Community Land Trust and therefore worked in this sector for some, for some for some time. And my my question really is in relation to, first of all, congratulating him and his committee on an excellent report which I.
Which I hope that the government will take heed of, and also to take note of the fact that I was very fortunate, as you were uh. Mr. chair, um in coming high in the private member's bill, um stakes and have opted on the Friday the 13th of November to, uh, the, to, to, to advance an affordable housing bill at that, on that date. And there is an opportunity over the next five months to, to draw together a range of, of options and clauses, which I hope will, will help the government deliver its the laudable objectives which the government have established in terms of addressing, addressing housing need, but I think they need further tools to do so.
So in relation to that, there is a concern that the planning system still is is weak in the provision for affordable homes is often used as a Trojan horse by by wily private developers who actually whose intention is not to provide affordable but in fact unaffordable homes. And that Trojan horse is often exploited. The second is that there is a need for. For stronger ingredients to ensure that we can genuinely deliver affordable, affordable homes, particularly in perpetuity for the in perpetuity community benefit. Um, and, and there are a range of measures which could be taken to, to advance that.
And finally, just to, to repeat really that, that on the 13th of November will be the second reading of the bill. The draft bill is is in gestation at the moment. And I do hope that the committee and indeed the Minister would be prepared to to work with me constructively in the coming months to, to to look at ways in which we can strengthen and advance the cause, because it's quite clear at the moment that the government is going to struggle to deliver what we all agree, uh, needs to.
Be delivered in terms of addressing the desperate need for more affordable homes in this country. Thank you, Mr. Alex.
Which I hope that the government will take heed of, and also to take note of the fact that I was very fortunate, as you were uh. Mr. chair, um in coming high in the private member's bill, um stakes and have opted on the Friday the 13th of November to, uh, the, to, to, to advance an affordable housing bill at that, on that date. And there is an opportunity over the next five months to, to draw together a range of, of options and clauses, which I hope will, will help the government deliver its the laudable objectives which the government have established in terms of addressing, addressing housing need, but I think they need further tools to do so.
So in relation to that, there is a concern that the planning system still is is weak in the provision for affordable homes is often used as a Trojan horse by by wily private developers who actually whose intention is not to provide affordable but in fact unaffordable homes. And that Trojan horse is often exploited. The second is that there is a need for. For stronger ingredients to ensure that we can genuinely deliver affordable, affordable homes, particularly in perpetuity for the in perpetuity community benefit. Um, and, and there are a range of measures which could be taken to, to advance that.
And finally, just to, to repeat really that, that on the 13th of November will be the second reading of the bill. The draft bill is is in gestation at the moment. And I do hope that the committee and indeed the Minister would be prepared to to work with me constructively in the coming months to, to to look at ways in which we can strengthen and advance the cause, because it's quite clear at the moment that the government is going to struggle to deliver what we all agree, uh, needs to.
Be delivered in terms of addressing the desperate need for more affordable homes in this country. Thank you, Mr. Alex.
13:42
13:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I want to thank my hon. Friend for Saint Ives, whose contribution, obviously, and his thanks for my and the committee's work. I want to sort of, in return, say thank him for choosing housing as the topic of his private member's bill. Uh, I have I know this bill is going to really improve things in the housing front, and I'm and I'm thankful that he's putting this high on the agenda. The committee and I will look to support and speak as much as we can in favour of this Bill, and I hope the Minister works constructively with him on it.
What I would hope is passing, and even if it doesn't pass, the government may take its provisions into other legislation to answer his question about the viability of developments. That means affordable housing is reduced. I am very concerned that we are seeing that across the country. In my constituency of Woking, brownfield developments, um. Are don't have any affordable housing contributions at all because they're classed as unviable, yet they are still not being built. And we need to ensure that developers do make contributions on affordable housing.
But that undermines the social affordable housing programme by the government is so essential to cover up for that lack of availability. The committee has also raised concerns with the government that they should change the Public Works loan boards requirements to ensure that councils, via their HRA Housing Revenue Account powers, can invest in maintaining new properties, maintaining properties, but building new homes, which is exactly what we need.
What I would hope is passing, and even if it doesn't pass, the government may take its provisions into other legislation to answer his question about the viability of developments. That means affordable housing is reduced. I am very concerned that we are seeing that across the country. In my constituency of Woking, brownfield developments, um. Are don't have any affordable housing contributions at all because they're classed as unviable, yet they are still not being built. And we need to ensure that developers do make contributions on affordable housing.
But that undermines the social affordable housing programme by the government is so essential to cover up for that lack of availability. The committee has also raised concerns with the government that they should change the Public Works loan boards requirements to ensure that councils, via their HRA Housing Revenue Account powers, can invest in maintaining new properties, maintaining properties, but building new homes, which is exactly what we need.
13:44
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you. As the 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 really welcome many of the recommendations in this report around tackling empty homes, reforming stamp duty, and making sure that we're tying the definition of affordability to local incomes. I also want to take the opportunity to congratulate the minister on his role in securing the announcement that we've seen in the figures today of the highest number of social rent homes since 2010.
That is a major achievement. But in relation to this report, I feel there is a part of the affordability question that maybe couldn't come into the scope of your report. That still lies unanswered and unaddressed, which is that the number of homes per capita in this country actually rose over the very period since the 1970s, in which the price of houses massively outstripped ordinary people's incomes. And in large part, it seems to me that that is down to private banks being able to effectively print money, and that then flowing into house prices.
So I wonder whether the select committee in future work will consider the interaction between monetary policy in this country and house prices.
That is a major achievement. But in relation to this report, I feel there is a part of the affordability question that maybe couldn't come into the scope of your report. That still lies unanswered and unaddressed, which is that the number of homes per capita in this country actually rose over the very period since the 1970s, in which the price of houses massively outstripped ordinary people's incomes. And in large part, it seems to me that that is down to private banks being able to effectively print money, and that then flowing into house prices.
So I wonder whether the select committee in future work will consider the interaction between monetary policy in this country and house prices.
13:45
13:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, Sir Alec. I agree with my hon. Friend's concerns. I want to thank him for his work on the Appg. Um we have. Cited in the report that the government should review the definition of affordable housing, that it should update it. Uh, we are particularly concerned when we work with the Treasury on those cross-cutting issues. That isn't just an Mhclg issue, but a Treasury issue as well, which is in the report.
He did say nice words about the minister. I know the minister is going to be appearing before the select committee soon. The minister knows his subject, explains it in a plain spoken way, and I think it's important that we do not have another change of housing. Minister, we have that certainty, and I'm looking forward to holding the minister to account whilst he we deliver the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill and deliver the homes we need.
He did say nice words about the minister. I know the minister is going to be appearing before the select committee soon. The minister knows his subject, explains it in a plain spoken way, and I think it's important that we do not have another change of housing. Minister, we have that certainty, and I'm looking forward to holding the minister to account whilst he we deliver the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill and deliver the homes we need.
13:46
13:47
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Can I thank the Select Committee for their deliberations, for their their thoughts and their recommendations?As the honourable gentleman said before, I think one of the things that I'm particularly pleased to see is the the is trying to address the issue of stamp duty. Um, Mr. Chairman, I can remember buying my first house, 27 storey building, my first house on the farm at home, 1987 £27,000. My son built his house on the farm. Uh, some 25 years later, it cost him 120 000.
My youngest son wants to build a house in the farm. Same house as 19. Uh, as as, um, my son built now 275 000 same house, uh, 200 or £150,000 more than it was. So it's a big issue for my constituents, a big issue for my family personally, our, our hope, of course, Mr. Chairman, uh, to, to, to, um, help us on. We also have a college in the farm and we'll let him have that and they can renovate that. And that probably won't get a wee bit easier.
But not every person has that opportunity. So I want to ask us what consideration was given by the Select committee to co-ownership. In other words, uh, own half a house now and perhaps by the other party later on. Um, what the um the consideration was given to, to the smaller deposit because I think a smaller deposit might enable others to, to, to buy their house and a bank mortgage rate lower and perhaps maybe some assistance from government. Thank you very much.
My youngest son wants to build a house in the farm. Same house as 19. Uh, as as, um, my son built now 275 000 same house, uh, 200 or £150,000 more than it was. So it's a big issue for my constituents, a big issue for my family personally, our, our hope, of course, Mr. Chairman, uh, to, to, to, um, help us on. We also have a college in the farm and we'll let him have that and they can renovate that. And that probably won't get a wee bit easier.
But not every person has that opportunity. So I want to ask us what consideration was given by the Select committee to co-ownership. In other words, uh, own half a house now and perhaps by the other party later on. Um, what the um the consideration was given to, to the smaller deposit because I think a smaller deposit might enable others to, to, to buy their house and a bank mortgage rate lower and perhaps maybe some assistance from government. Thank you very much.
13:48
13:48
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My final answer is to thank the honourable member for Strangford for attending a Westminster Hall debate. It's lovely to see you here. Um it does I think it does highlight there's a slight age difference of. The honourable member for Strangford moved, built a home and moved in. 27 years ago. I moved into the first home that I've owned three years ago, 30 something 37 years ago, I sorry, I lost ten years. Um, for you. Um, our report did focus on the affordability of home ownership, where people genuinely own the full home.
We have previously done inquiries on shared ownership, which I'm happy to send to the honourable member. The key issue that we are after the government to do is look at how they can lower the cost of building a home. Inflation has had a noticeable impact in the cost of home ownership of building a new home is just too unreasonable, and I do hope the government looks at that and tackles that.
We have previously done inquiries on shared ownership, which I'm happy to send to the honourable member. The key issue that we are after the government to do is look at how they can lower the cost of building a home. Inflation has had a noticeable impact in the cost of home ownership of building a new home is just too unreasonable, and I do hope the government looks at that and tackles that.
13:49
13:50
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Chair, I beg to move that this House has considered a national. Lung screening programme, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I declare an interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire Hospital, and a family member holds shares in the medical company. Lung cancer is a rapidly fatal disease that kills nearly 33000 people in the UK every year. Fortunately, targeted lung cancer screening has become one of the NHS s real success stories, with Lord Darcy highlighting it as the only initiative that has improved rates of early stage diagnosis across all cancers 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%, among the lowest rates in Europe. The UK 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 for a full rollout of 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 early treatable stage. That compares 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 towards earlier diagnosis set out in the NHS ten 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 rollout of lung cancer screening anywhere in the world.
The benefits extend beyond lung cancer. Screening is also identifying conditions such as COPD and cardiovascular disease, potentially saving even more lives. Since applying for this debate, the department has committed in the National Cancer Plan to a timetable for the full rollout of the programme that is. A significant achievement and the inclusion of screening within the NHS app is another welcome step. However, we cannot be complacent simply because a rollout is promised in a plan. Will the government reaffirm its commitment to a national rollout timetable and ensure the programme continues at pace?National Cancer Plan commits to reaching 100% of the eligible population by 2030.
That timetable matters. Any slowdown risked 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 long term protected funding. We must also continue evaluating reporting systems, national databases, turnaround times, workforce capacity and how screening is tailored to local populations. Importantly, screening is helping reduce health inequalities by focusing on areas of deprivation that. Progress should continue, supported by investment in community engagement and communications to ensure hard to reach populations are not left behind.
Given the importance of reducing. The importance of reducing inequalities, will the Minister confirm whether lung cancer screening will move to section seven A arrangements with ring fenced 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 same commitment will continue. I'm sure the minister will want to 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 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?I now turn to several threats to the programme's future success.
First, there are growing concerns about Integrated care board interference and the lack of ring fenced funding, cost cutting pressures with ICB risks undermining progress. There are reports of high performing screening teams, some seeing 55 patients a day being disrupted and screening resources diverted elsewhere. The variation in delivery across the country is quite striking. Lung cancer screening funding should be used for lung cancer screening. Local structures should not be allowed to dilute a programme that is demonstrably working well. Ministers issue clear guidance to Icbs to prevent interference in delivery?Will ministers guarantee that screening funding is ring fenced and used solely for its intended purposes?And will ministers ensure that ongoing ICB restructuring does not weaken accountability or performance?Secondly, the abolition of NHS England raises legitimate concerns.
The programme's rollout, data systems and clinical governance arrangements all require continuity. 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 program oversight throughout the transition?Thirdly, workforce pressures remain one of the greatest risks to sustaining the programme. Screening increases demand across radiology, pathology, thoracic surgery and genomics. Yet workforce planning has not yet kept pace. The Royal College of Radiologists has warned that there will be will not be enough radiologists to support the programme by 2030.
Diagnostic and treatment services must be available in a timely fashion, 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. Open opportunities for for cure may be lost. Greater awareness among GPS remains important to around 1 in 5 lung cancers occurs in people who have never smoked. Indeed, never smoking lung can. Is now the eighth most common cancer in the UK and the seventh most common worldwide 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 quit smoking. Alongside this, the Institute of Clinical Research has highlighted workforce challenges surrounding biomarker testing and molecular diagnostics, both of which are increasingly important for personalised cancer treatment.
As I have repeatedly argued for in this House, the National Cancer Plan can only succeed if its ambitions are matched by investment in the workforce needed to deliver them. When will the government publish its delayed workforce plan, and how will it support the continued expansion of lung cancer screening?Will ministers commit to increasing 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 towards 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 has an opportunity to secure the future of a programme that is already transforming the outcomes for thousands of people. 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. Thank you.
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%, among the lowest rates in Europe. The UK 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 for a full rollout of 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 early treatable stage. That compares 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 towards earlier diagnosis set out in the NHS ten 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 rollout of lung cancer screening anywhere in the world.
The benefits extend beyond lung cancer. Screening is also identifying conditions such as COPD and cardiovascular disease, potentially saving even more lives. Since applying for this debate, the department has committed in the National Cancer Plan to a timetable for the full rollout of the programme that is. A significant achievement and the inclusion of screening within the NHS app is another welcome step. However, we cannot be complacent simply because a rollout is promised in a plan. Will the government reaffirm its commitment to a national rollout timetable and ensure the programme continues at pace?National Cancer Plan commits to reaching 100% of the eligible population by 2030.
That timetable matters. Any slowdown risked 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 long term protected funding. We must also continue evaluating reporting systems, national databases, turnaround times, workforce capacity and how screening is tailored to local populations. Importantly, screening is helping reduce health inequalities by focusing on areas of deprivation that. Progress should continue, supported by investment in community engagement and communications to ensure hard to reach populations are not left behind.
Given the importance of reducing. The importance of reducing inequalities, will the Minister confirm whether lung cancer screening will move to section seven A arrangements with ring fenced 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 same commitment will continue. I'm sure the minister will want to 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 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?I now turn to several threats to the programme's future success.
First, there are growing concerns about Integrated care board interference and the lack of ring fenced funding, cost cutting pressures with ICB risks undermining progress. There are reports of high performing screening teams, some seeing 55 patients a day being disrupted and screening resources diverted elsewhere. The variation in delivery across the country is quite striking. Lung cancer screening funding should be used for lung cancer screening. Local structures should not be allowed to dilute a programme that is demonstrably working well. Ministers issue clear guidance to Icbs to prevent interference in delivery?Will ministers guarantee that screening funding is ring fenced and used solely for its intended purposes?And will ministers ensure that ongoing ICB restructuring does not weaken accountability or performance?Secondly, the abolition of NHS England raises legitimate concerns.
The programme's rollout, data systems and clinical governance arrangements all require continuity. 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 program oversight throughout the transition?Thirdly, workforce pressures remain one of the greatest risks to sustaining the programme. Screening increases demand across radiology, pathology, thoracic surgery and genomics. Yet workforce planning has not yet kept pace. The Royal College of Radiologists has warned that there will be will not be enough radiologists to support the programme by 2030.
Diagnostic and treatment services must be available in a timely fashion, 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. Open opportunities for for cure may be lost. Greater awareness among GPS remains important to around 1 in 5 lung cancers occurs in people who have never smoked. Indeed, never smoking lung can. Is now the eighth most common cancer in the UK and the seventh most common worldwide 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 quit smoking. Alongside this, the Institute of Clinical Research has highlighted workforce challenges surrounding biomarker testing and molecular diagnostics, both of which are increasingly important for personalised cancer treatment.
As I have repeatedly argued for in this House, the National Cancer Plan can only succeed if its ambitions are matched by investment in the workforce needed to deliver them. When will the government publish its delayed workforce plan, and how will it support the continued expansion of lung cancer screening?Will ministers commit to increasing 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 towards 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 has an opportunity to secure the future of a programme that is already transforming the outcomes for thousands of people. 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. Thank you.
14:02
14:02
14:02
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
First of all, thank you very much for calling me and a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Uh, it looks like we'll be together all afternoon. If you're here for the next debate as well. Um, can I, um, welcome the debate on the National Lung Cancer Screening Programme?And a very big thanks to the honourable gentleman for Wokingham for securing this debate and also for his dedication to anything to do with cancer. The honourable gentleman has made a name for himself in this House for putting these things forward, and I thank him for his knowledge first of all, but also 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. The group at the highest risk. It is the UK's biggest ever early diagnosis initiative for lung cancer, delivered through the targeted lung health checks and as the honourable gentleman referred to, and I referred to it as well because I note that be the case. Uh, this um scheme that they have with the checks are delivered in local hospitals or in the community through vans and community settings such as supermarket car parks, means that nobody can say they haven't had the opportunity to have it done.
They're designed to target those age 55 to 74 who are current or former smokers based upon their GP records, of course, and are registered with a GP and who are living 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, uh, and that is to be welcomed. And 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 some more than 1.9 million people had been invited to have the programme, and the programme is operating across 25% of England at this moment, NHS England has stated the date that some 5037 lung cancers were detected early and since 2019, and 76 of those were found at stage 1 or 2.
So early stage diagnosis improves a five year survival nearly 20 fold compared with late stage diagnosis. Again, the success of the programme, the screening programme has been an absolutely outstanding success and I commend the Minister and all of those involved in the Department and NHS England for such an extraordinary achievement. I think we should pay credit to the Minister and to government and for their ten year health plan, and for all that they have done, uh, to try and improve the health. And there are many, many things that they can point to as being successful.
See the shadow minister in this place. Uh, it wouldn't be a health debate if he and I weren't here together. And we're back again. Um, the, the, um, screening programme has been, as I said, an outstanding success. And the minister and the department deserve every accolade for that. This fits perfectly with the ten year plan. And as the chair of the all party respiratory Health Appg, we have warmly welcomed the three shifts that arose from the plan and the screening programme, I believe, is an excellent example of how well this works in practice.
First of all, analog to digital. Most of the reminders for eligible patients are by text message. It's a new. It's a new way of doing it. I may not be entirely geared into it, but I understand the process. Secondly, hospital to community by running the tests and mobile units, they are less intimidating 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.
So if you want to address the issue, go exactly into the coal key. As a man would say, uh, and speak to the people and meet the people. And fourthly, treatment to prevention, early stage detection dramatically improves survival. The lung checks programme is crucially identified. Over 100,000 incidental findings of emphysema, one of the key conditions of COPD. However, these incidental findings are not generally followed up or lead to referrals for future investigation or treatment. So one of my asks if the minister would be, uh, could I ask the minister would ask his department to consider doing the follow up, especially if you find incidental findings and if you have a chance of curing or addressing the issue, that's 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.
It's identifying incidental findings, protocol and the relevant Nice guidance. So I wonder if the Minister could give us an update on how this is progressing within the men's health strategy as well. And we have discussed the outstanding Frontier Hull trial with professor Mike crooks from Hull, who is piloting an integrated pathway that links screenings findings to robbery, sorry to rabbit respiratory assessment and treatment and partnership with the NHS. And I commend the work that he is undertaking. So far, 383 of 819 people, some 47%, recalled in the clinic, received a new diagnosis of COPD and started treatment through a streamlined one stop clinic.
This meant that these patients could begin treatment immediately rather than wait while their symptoms progress and their condition deteriorates. So can I underline again, it is shown that a one stop diagnostic clinic is feasible, can be achieved and fits well with the three shifts in the. Approach can't be tailored to meet local needs. Helping integrated care systems to reduce hospital demand and to improve patient outcomes. There has been an. Estimated by GEC that integrating COPD case findings into lung cancer screening could save the NHS some 33,000,000/10 years, and again, that saving cannot be ignored, especially at a time when.
When every pound counts and whenever it's possible to save some 33 million, then it should be, uh, part of the screening programme that we that we are involved with. I conclude with this, Mr. Chairman. I'd urge the Minister to look closely at the outcomes of the trial. Um and yet this topic deserves a full debate. But more than that, it also deserves an outcome. Screening saves lives, ultimately saves money and importantly, saves needless heartbreak and pain. So let's invest in ourselves and invest in that process that we're discussing today.
Thank you so much.
The lung cancer screening programme was set up to find lung cancer early, before symptoms appear, especially in people with a history of smoking. The group at the highest risk. It is the UK's biggest ever early diagnosis initiative for lung cancer, delivered through the targeted lung health checks and as the honourable gentleman referred to, and I referred to it as well because I note that be the case. Uh, this um scheme that they have with the checks are delivered in local hospitals or in the community through vans and community settings such as supermarket car parks, means that nobody can say they haven't had the opportunity to have it done.
They're designed to target those age 55 to 74 who are current or former smokers based upon their GP records, of course, and are registered with a GP and who are living 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, uh, and that is to be welcomed. And 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 some more than 1.9 million people had been invited to have the programme, and the programme is operating across 25% of England at this moment, NHS England has stated the date that some 5037 lung cancers were detected early and since 2019, and 76 of those were found at stage 1 or 2.
So early stage diagnosis improves a five year survival nearly 20 fold compared with late stage diagnosis. Again, the success of the programme, the screening programme has been an absolutely outstanding success and I commend the Minister and all of those involved in the Department and NHS England for such an extraordinary achievement. I think we should pay credit to the Minister and to government and for their ten year health plan, and for all that they have done, uh, to try and improve the health. And there are many, many things that they can point to as being successful.
See the shadow minister in this place. Uh, it wouldn't be a health debate if he and I weren't here together. And we're back again. Um, the, the, um, screening programme has been, as I said, an outstanding success. And the minister and the department deserve every accolade for that. This fits perfectly with the ten year plan. And as the chair of the all party respiratory Health Appg, we have warmly welcomed the three shifts that arose from the plan and the screening programme, I believe, is an excellent example of how well this works in practice.
First of all, analog to digital. Most of the reminders for eligible patients are by text message. It's a new. It's a new way of doing it. I may not be entirely geared into it, but I understand the process. Secondly, hospital to community by running the tests and mobile units, they are less intimidating 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.
So if you want to address the issue, go exactly into the coal key. As a man would say, uh, and speak to the people and meet the people. And fourthly, treatment to prevention, early stage detection dramatically improves survival. The lung checks programme is crucially identified. Over 100,000 incidental findings of emphysema, one of the key conditions of COPD. However, these incidental findings are not generally followed up or lead to referrals for future investigation or treatment. So one of my asks if the minister would be, uh, could I ask the minister would ask his department to consider doing the follow up, especially if you find incidental findings and if you have a chance of curing or addressing the issue, that's 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.
It's identifying incidental findings, protocol and the relevant Nice guidance. So I wonder if the Minister could give us an update on how this is progressing within the men's health strategy as well. And we have discussed the outstanding Frontier Hull trial with professor Mike crooks from Hull, who is piloting an integrated pathway that links screenings findings to robbery, sorry to rabbit respiratory assessment and treatment and partnership with the NHS. And I commend the work that he is undertaking. So far, 383 of 819 people, some 47%, recalled in the clinic, received a new diagnosis of COPD and started treatment through a streamlined one stop clinic.
This meant that these patients could begin treatment immediately rather than wait while their symptoms progress and their condition deteriorates. So can I underline again, it is shown that a one stop diagnostic clinic is feasible, can be achieved and fits well with the three shifts in the. Approach can't be tailored to meet local needs. Helping integrated care systems to reduce hospital demand and to improve patient outcomes. There has been an. Estimated by GEC that integrating COPD case findings into lung cancer screening could save the NHS some 33,000,000/10 years, and again, that saving cannot be ignored, especially at a time when.
When every pound counts and whenever it's possible to save some 33 million, then it should be, uh, part of the screening programme that we that we are involved with. I conclude with this, Mr. Chairman. I'd urge the Minister to look closely at the outcomes of the trial. Um and yet this topic deserves a full debate. But more than that, it also deserves an outcome. Screening saves lives, ultimately saves money and importantly, saves needless heartbreak and pain. So let's invest in ourselves and invest in that process that we're discussing today.
Thank you so much.
14:09
14:09
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
You, sir Alex, a pleasure to serve under your chair. And can I commend my honourable friend, the member for Wokingham, for securing this debate and his tireless campaigning on this topic and wider cancer ones. I would also like to thank the honourable member for Strangford for his passionate contribution. Cancer is a devastating disease that has caused suffering in every single community in our country. The symptoms are horrific, aggressive and deadly. While treatments have improved, as has understanding about its causes.
Lung cancer accounts for more deaths in the UK than any other. It is the third most common type and kills 35,000 a year, catching it early through screening saves lives and the current targeted screening programme has been world leading. Screening is the single biggest intervention for improving lung cancer survival. So of course we were all delighted when the honourable member for Wokingham campaigning helped make sure that the National Cancer Plan came into being and that that that cancer plan included a commitment within it to complete the rollout of the lung cancer screening programme by 2030.
The screening programme is welcome and is already delivering results, but there's not enough clarity on how it will be funded going forward, and that will be central to whether or not it is successful on the ground. So that's perhaps something that the minister can address in his concluding remarks. Equally, we need to support devolved nations in implementing lung cancer screening to help them catch up with England's already world leading world leading programme. Devolved nations are lagging behind and this needs to be addressed as the rollout ramps up.
Charities have also raised concerns that the current reorganisation of the National Health Service and the abolition of NHS England may disrupt focus on the programme rollout and hinder progress. Shockingly, 79% of cases of lung cancer are preventable, with the vast majority of these are direct result of smoking. A decade of cuts to public health, hobbled smoking cessation services with massive implications for lung cancer rates. And despite the generational ban in the Tobacco and Vapes bill, there are still plenty of smokers and they will continue to be so for years to come.
That is why the Liberal Democrats have been advocating for a return to 2015 spending levels on public health, which would boost smoking cessation services and help all those who want to quit smoking. To do so, we must also put an end to the tragedy of people losing their lives because cancer treatment took too long to start. Nobody should be unable to receive treatment because there isn't enough equipment and no one should suffer because there isn't sufficient staff to properly support them. The government's target in the plan to meet all cancer wait time standards by 2029 is a good one.
But if the government would like to hit this target, they need to be far bolder. The plan includes a commitment for 28 new radiotherapy machines, but this is not enough, especially for such a cost effective and successful treatment, so the government should go further and provide at least 200 more machines needed to address the backlogs. Lib Dems are also proud that the plan incorporates our calls for every patient to have a designated specialist cancer nurse, but the government has yet to state how many more nurses they will provide in order to deliver this.
Cancer nurses are already overworked and overstretched, so if with government and all of us want to provide every patient with a designated cancer nurse, they need to be bolder in addressing the nursing workforce issues. Now, 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. Over 1.5 million people have attended a lung health check, and over 9000 people have been diagnosed with lung cancer, 76% at stage 1 or 2, compared to just 30% outside the programme, despite it being targeted, it has proven a powerful tool to reduce the overall gap in cancer.
Early diagnosis between the richest and poorest areas by a quarter, from 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 complete the rollout of the targeted National Lung Cancer Programme screening by 2030, and it is expected that this will offer screenings to more than 6 million people by 2035, with the potential to diagnose 23,000 lung cancers earlier. In addition to all of that, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a cancer policy to reflect the fact that speed and quality of treatment are central to increasing survival rates of lung cancer.
We would introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients will be able to start treatment within 60 days for urgent referral, we would replace ageing radiotherapy machines and increase their number, so no one has to travel too far for treatment. We would recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment, and we would halve the time for new treatments to reach patients by expanding the Medicines and Healthcare products regulatory agencies capability to. Make the UK a world leader in cancer research.
We would also look to pass a Cancer Survival Research Act requiring the government to coordinate and ensure funding for research into cancers with the lowest survival rate, 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. On the whole, global talent visas for top researchers cost £6,000 for a five year visa per person, so £18,000 for a family of three. That's much more expensive than most of our competitor countries, where it's typically two, 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%. This would unlock hundreds of millions of pounds a year for cancer research and billions more for our life sciences sector. Generally, we would deliver this through a decade long programme of public investment in research and development and.
Moving towards my conclusions, Sir Alec, I'd like to tell the happy story of my constituent John, who has been a direct beneficiary of this 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 the 10th of 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, requiring 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 the 20th of March, results were shared with John following a multidisciplinary team discussion. A minimal solid component not suitable for biopsy had the appearance of adenocarcinoma. 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 the 17th of April, an operation to remove 30% of his left lung, which was a 5.5 hour operation, took place.
He was discharged home two days later with a multidisciplinary team discussion at the end of May.
Lung cancer accounts for more deaths in the UK than any other. It is the third most common type and kills 35,000 a year, catching it early through screening saves lives and the current targeted screening programme has been world leading. Screening is the single biggest intervention for improving lung cancer survival. So of course we were all delighted when the honourable member for Wokingham campaigning helped make sure that the National Cancer Plan came into being and that that that cancer plan included a commitment within it to complete the rollout of the lung cancer screening programme by 2030.
The screening programme is welcome and is already delivering results, but there's not enough clarity on how it will be funded going forward, and that will be central to whether or not it is successful on the ground. So that's perhaps something that the minister can address in his concluding remarks. Equally, we need to support devolved nations in implementing lung cancer screening to help them catch up with England's already world leading world leading programme. Devolved nations are lagging behind and this needs to be addressed as the rollout ramps up.
Charities have also raised concerns that the current reorganisation of the National Health Service and the abolition of NHS England may disrupt focus on the programme rollout and hinder progress. Shockingly, 79% of cases of lung cancer are preventable, with the vast majority of these are direct result of smoking. A decade of cuts to public health, hobbled smoking cessation services with massive implications for lung cancer rates. And despite the generational ban in the Tobacco and Vapes bill, there are still plenty of smokers and they will continue to be so for years to come.
That is why the Liberal Democrats have been advocating for a return to 2015 spending levels on public health, which would boost smoking cessation services and help all those who want to quit smoking. To do so, we must also put an end to the tragedy of people losing their lives because cancer treatment took too long to start. Nobody should be unable to receive treatment because there isn't enough equipment and no one should suffer because there isn't sufficient staff to properly support them. The government's target in the plan to meet all cancer wait time standards by 2029 is a good one.
But if the government would like to hit this target, they need to be far bolder. The plan includes a commitment for 28 new radiotherapy machines, but this is not enough, especially for such a cost effective and successful treatment, so the government should go further and provide at least 200 more machines needed to address the backlogs. Lib Dems are also proud that the plan incorporates our calls for every patient to have a designated specialist cancer nurse, but the government has yet to state how many more nurses they will provide in order to deliver this.
Cancer nurses are already overworked and overstretched, so if with government and all of us want to provide every patient with a designated cancer nurse, they need to be bolder in addressing the nursing workforce issues. Now, 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. Over 1.5 million people have attended a lung health check, and over 9000 people have been diagnosed with lung cancer, 76% at stage 1 or 2, compared to just 30% outside the programme, despite it being targeted, it has proven a powerful tool to reduce the overall gap in cancer.
Early diagnosis between the richest and poorest areas by a quarter, from 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 complete the rollout of the targeted National Lung Cancer Programme screening by 2030, and it is expected that this will offer screenings to more than 6 million people by 2035, with the potential to diagnose 23,000 lung cancers earlier. In addition to all of that, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a cancer policy to reflect the fact that speed and quality of treatment are central to increasing survival rates of lung cancer.
We would introduce a guarantee that 100% of patients will be able to start treatment within 60 days for urgent referral, we would replace ageing radiotherapy machines and increase their number, so no one has to travel too far for treatment. We would recruit more cancer nurses so that every patient has a dedicated specialist supporting them throughout their treatment, and we would halve the time for new treatments to reach patients by expanding the Medicines and Healthcare products regulatory agencies capability to. Make the UK a world leader in cancer research.
We would also look to pass a Cancer Survival Research Act requiring the government to coordinate and ensure funding for research into cancers with the lowest survival rate, 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. On the whole, global talent visas for top researchers cost £6,000 for a five year visa per person, so £18,000 for a family of three. That's much more expensive than most of our competitor countries, where it's typically two, 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%. This would unlock hundreds of millions of pounds a year for cancer research and billions more for our life sciences sector. Generally, we would deliver this through a decade long programme of public investment in research and development and.
Moving towards my conclusions, Sir Alec, I'd like to tell the happy story of my constituent John, who has been a direct beneficiary of this 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 the 10th of 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, requiring 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 the 20th of March, results were shared with John following a multidisciplinary team discussion. A minimal solid component not suitable for biopsy had the appearance of adenocarcinoma. 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 the 17th of April, an operation to remove 30% of his left lung, which was a 5.5 hour operation, took place.
He was discharged home two days later with a multidisciplinary team discussion at the end of May.
14:16
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Discussion at the end of May. On the 2nd of June, the outpatient appointment for John at the Churchill Hospital confirmed removal of a 24mm adenocarcinoma note with no tumour spread. It's therefore been a huge success for John, something that. He is enormously grateful for. To go from detection to full successful treatment in six months. He'll now be subject to a follow up 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, and of course, we all hope it will.
The further rollout of it will be a success.
The further rollout of it will be a success.
14:17
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you, sir, and it's a pleasure to be here in an air conditioned room while we continue this debate. And of course, it's poignant actually, when it's so hot, how that can impact on people who have respiratory illnesses. So the fact that we're talking about this is probably at a very useful time for from that side. And I too, would like to thank the member of Wokingham for securing this important debate because, as is mentioned, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in the UK.
Yet it's also one of the cancers when early detection um can make the biggest difference. And I've had this firsthand from my first year as a junior doctor working on a respiratory ward. And it is eye opening, harrowing, but also sometimes successful when you see that. And I urge anyone who gets the chance to go and visit respiratory Ward to see how important it is and how much that would make a difference to smoking rates. I believe if people experience that.
But actually, the member for Wokingham and the member for Strangford have brought forward this debate, and it's great to see because it's a good debate. It's a good day. It's a good debate to have because this is really a success story. And the Lib Dem spokesperson has rightly pointed out John's story. And because of the screening that's gone in place, there will be plenty more John's for the future, which is exactly what we want to hear. And often we're talking about the problems faced here.
But actually, this is a really good example of something positive that's come forward. And that all started under the previous conservative government. We've had the rollout of the community diagnostic centres, which have fundamentally changed how we diagnose disease. And there are now over 170 centres across England, expanding the capacity and bringing scans closer to where people live and nationally, they've delivered millions upon millions of additional tests and help ease pressure on acute services, with the clear aim of diagnosing conditions like cancer faster and improving patient outcomes.
It's only this month that I went to the first year anniversary of the opening of the CDC in Hinckley, where we had a £24 million investment that has seen 59,000 patients through its door and is growing and expanding. And that means they don't have to travel this far into Leicester or Nuneaton, and that means they get their diagnosis quicker. And in modern tech building, which is absolutely fantastic for my community. But I know that is timed out 170 times across the country, and 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 chance of survival. And 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 over a decade of UK research and pilot studies following successful trials in local pilots, NHS England launched the targeted Lung Health Check programme in 2019, focusing on high risk groups in areas with worst outcomes. This approach, using mobile scanners and proactive interventions, proved effective at detecting cancer earlier and reaching underserved communities.
On the back of that success, and with formal recommendation from the UK National Screening Committee in 2022, the government announced a national rollout in June 2023, committing to expand the screening across England and ultimately reach full coverage by 2030. Now, since then, the programme has transitioned from pilots into a full national screening service, now forming a central part of efforts to improve cancer survival. And I'm pleased to see the government continue in that trajectory as why does it matter, Sir Alec?Well, the NHS lung Cancer screening programme is now delivering its scale and showing clear results.
Around 2.8 million people have been invited, with 1.5 million checks completed and close to a million scans carried out. And from this, that's over six 6 to 7000 cancers that have been detected, with roughly three quarters of them identified at stage 1 or 2. They're the earliest stages, compared to fewer than 30 percent before the programme started, and around 1.4% of the scans lead to a diagnosis demonstrating a target and a targeted and efficient approach. While uptake stands at about 60%. So in short, this problem, this 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.
And as I've said, we welcome the proposed expansion of the lung cancer screening programme. But it's vital that steps are taken to improve uptake, screening and these lung health checks uptake currently stands at 60%. As I mentioned. That does mean 40% of those invited are not coming forward, and they are often the ones at highest risk. So the question is why?So can the minister set out what specific interventions the government will introduce to increase uptake, particularly amongst those most deprived and hardest to reach groups?And to that end, can the Minister confirm what the government's plan is to deliver targets set in the National Cancer Plan, including the allocation of resources and funding for lung cancer screening programme over the next few years?Now, if we turn to the UK, as we've heard, and for example, my new Scottish Conservative colleague in Aberdeen, he may well 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 national rollout likely years away, and Northern Ireland is still in the early planning phases without a programme in place. Given that variation, could the minister set out what discussions are taking place across all four nations and what, most importantly, what lessons are being learned from the English experience to being actively shared to support faster and more consistent delivery and rollout across the UK?More broadly?Sir Alec this speaks to the need for a coherent approach to respiratory disease.
Under the last conservative government, there was a clear attempt to make a more joined up approach to the country's biggest killers through a major conditions strategy, which was announced in 2023. It explicitly placed chronic respiratory diseases alongside cancer and cardiovascular disease as one of six national priorities priorities, recognising both the scale of affecting millions and its contribution to avoidable ill health. Now, a detailed framework was published later that year, setting out a shift towards prevention, early diagnosis and management of these conditions. However, although the direction of travel was established and widely consulted on the strategy never reached full publication or implementation.
Of course, because there was a general election. Now this government has taken a different route with modern service frameworks. The government is committed to develop modern service frameworks for frailty, dementia, mental health and cardiovascular disease. Just a few. So I ask the minister directly, will the government develop a modern service framework for respiratory disease?And if not, how does it intend to drive the same level of improvement for a condition that affects millions and underpins outcomes in lung cancer?I think we are all serious about improving cancer survival.
We all across this House have that ambition, but we must match our ambition with delivery. And just like the ten year plan, the delivery chapter is missing and I worry the same thing could be argued for respiratory conditions. I just hope I am proved wrong.
Yet it's also one of the cancers when early detection um can make the biggest difference. And I've had this firsthand from my first year as a junior doctor working on a respiratory ward. And it is eye opening, harrowing, but also sometimes successful when you see that. And I urge anyone who gets the chance to go and visit respiratory Ward to see how important it is and how much that would make a difference to smoking rates. I believe if people experience that.
But actually, the member for Wokingham and the member for Strangford have brought forward this debate, and it's great to see because it's a good debate. It's a good day. It's a good debate to have because this is really a success story. And the Lib Dem spokesperson has rightly pointed out John's story. And because of the screening that's gone in place, there will be plenty more John's for the future, which is exactly what we want to hear. And often we're talking about the problems faced here.
But actually, this is a really good example of something positive that's come forward. And that all started under the previous conservative government. We've had the rollout of the community diagnostic centres, which have fundamentally changed how we diagnose disease. And there are now over 170 centres across England, expanding the capacity and bringing scans closer to where people live and nationally, they've delivered millions upon millions of additional tests and help ease pressure on acute services, with the clear aim of diagnosing conditions like cancer faster and improving patient outcomes.
It's only this month that I went to the first year anniversary of the opening of the CDC in Hinckley, where we had a £24 million investment that has seen 59,000 patients through its door and is growing and expanding. And that means they don't have to travel this far into Leicester or Nuneaton, and that means they get their diagnosis quicker. And in modern tech building, which is absolutely fantastic for my community. But I know that is timed out 170 times across the country, and 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 chance of survival. And 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 over a decade of UK research and pilot studies following successful trials in local pilots, NHS England launched the targeted Lung Health Check programme in 2019, focusing on high risk groups in areas with worst outcomes. This approach, using mobile scanners and proactive interventions, proved effective at detecting cancer earlier and reaching underserved communities.
On the back of that success, and with formal recommendation from the UK National Screening Committee in 2022, the government announced a national rollout in June 2023, committing to expand the screening across England and ultimately reach full coverage by 2030. Now, since then, the programme has transitioned from pilots into a full national screening service, now forming a central part of efforts to improve cancer survival. And I'm pleased to see the government continue in that trajectory as why does it matter, Sir Alec?Well, the NHS lung Cancer screening programme is now delivering its scale and showing clear results.
Around 2.8 million people have been invited, with 1.5 million checks completed and close to a million scans carried out. And from this, that's over six 6 to 7000 cancers that have been detected, with roughly three quarters of them identified at stage 1 or 2. They're the earliest stages, compared to fewer than 30 percent before the programme started, and around 1.4% of the scans lead to a diagnosis demonstrating a target and a targeted and efficient approach. While uptake stands at about 60%. So in short, this problem, this 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.
And as I've said, we welcome the proposed expansion of the lung cancer screening programme. But it's vital that steps are taken to improve uptake, screening and these lung health checks uptake currently stands at 60%. As I mentioned. That does mean 40% of those invited are not coming forward, and they are often the ones at highest risk. So the question is why?So can the minister set out what specific interventions the government will introduce to increase uptake, particularly amongst those most deprived and hardest to reach groups?And to that end, can the Minister confirm what the government's plan is to deliver targets set in the National Cancer Plan, including the allocation of resources and funding for lung cancer screening programme over the next few years?Now, if we turn to the UK, as we've heard, and for example, my new Scottish Conservative colleague in Aberdeen, he may well 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 national rollout likely years away, and Northern Ireland is still in the early planning phases without a programme in place. Given that variation, could the minister set out what discussions are taking place across all four nations and what, most importantly, what lessons are being learned from the English experience to being actively shared to support faster and more consistent delivery and rollout across the UK?More broadly?Sir Alec this speaks to the need for a coherent approach to respiratory disease.
Under the last conservative government, there was a clear attempt to make a more joined up approach to the country's biggest killers through a major conditions strategy, which was announced in 2023. It explicitly placed chronic respiratory diseases alongside cancer and cardiovascular disease as one of six national priorities priorities, recognising both the scale of affecting millions and its contribution to avoidable ill health. Now, a detailed framework was published later that year, setting out a shift towards prevention, early diagnosis and management of these conditions. However, although the direction of travel was established and widely consulted on the strategy never reached full publication or implementation.
Of course, because there was a general election. Now this government has taken a different route with modern service frameworks. The government is committed to develop modern service frameworks for frailty, dementia, mental health and cardiovascular disease. Just a few. So I ask the minister directly, will the government develop a modern service framework for respiratory disease?And if not, how does it intend to drive the same level of improvement for a condition that affects millions and underpins outcomes in lung cancer?I think we are all serious about improving cancer survival.
We all across this House have that ambition, but we must match our ambition with delivery. And just like the ten year plan, the delivery chapter is missing and I worry the same thing could be argued for respiratory conditions. I just hope I am proved wrong.
14:25
14:25
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
You very much indeed, sir. It's a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Um, I'd like to congratulate the member for Wokingham on securing this important debate and on his continued and relentless advocacy for people affected by lung cancer. I'm also grateful to the honourable member for Strangford and to the Liberal Democrat spokesman and the shadow Minister for their comprehensive and constructive contributions. And I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the member for Washington and Gateshead South, who is the lead Minister on this policy area.
Now, there's 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 around 35,000 people lose their lives to the disease across the United Kingdom each year. It is also one of the cancers most strongly associated with deprivation.
People living in the most deprived communities experience higher rates of smoking, higher incidence of lung cancer, and poorer health outcomes. That is why tackling lung cancer is not only about improving cancer survival, but also about 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 this 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 one, five year survival is over 60%. By stage four, 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. Now, the government fully recognises 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 they deserve.
Now, there's 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 around 35,000 people lose their lives to the disease across the United Kingdom each year. It is also one of the cancers most strongly associated with deprivation.
People living in the most deprived communities experience higher rates of smoking, higher incidence of lung cancer, and poorer health outcomes. That is why tackling lung cancer is not only about improving cancer survival, but also about 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 this 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 one, five year survival is over 60%. By stage four, 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. Now, the government fully recognises 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 they deserve.
14:27
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I noticed that the list of. Lung cancer. But the story in the in the paper was about breast cancer. There was an increase between 5 and 10% of those who have been. Are now have it. It probably underlines. And does the Minister agree?It underlines the issue that while there are many advances in cancer and we welcome all of them, there's still a long way to go.
14:28
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I thank him for that intervention, and he's 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 terms of the ten year plan and the priorities. We see it as an area where both, as the honourable gentleman said in his excellent speech, you look at the shift from analogue to digital, from hospital to community and from sickness to prevention. We need to mobilise every one of those shifts in the battle against cancer because it is a formidable enemy and we need every single weapon that we can deploy in order to defeat it.
So we are determined to break the historic 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 around 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 over 11,000 people have been diagnosed with lung cancer. Most importantly, 77% of cancers detected through the programme have been diagnosed at stage one or stage two. Outside the programme, the equivalent figure is around 30%. That means thousands of people are receiving diagnoses 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. This means more people are being diagnosed when treatment is most effective, and when there is the greatest opportunity for curative intervention. The honourable member for Wokingham and others have spoken today 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 is committing more than £650 million to complete the rollout 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 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 receive potentially life saving treatment. This represents one of the most ambitious cancer screening programmes anywhere in the world.
I will.
So we are determined to break the historic 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 around 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 over 11,000 people have been diagnosed with lung cancer. Most importantly, 77% of cancers detected through the programme have been diagnosed at stage one or stage two. Outside the programme, the equivalent figure is around 30%. That means thousands of people are receiving diagnoses 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. This means more people are being diagnosed when treatment is most effective, and when there is the greatest opportunity for curative intervention. The honourable member for Wokingham and others have spoken today 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 is committing more than £650 million to complete the rollout 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 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 receive potentially life saving treatment. This represents one of the most ambitious cancer screening programmes anywhere in the world.
I will.
14:31
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
It's fantastic. Roll out that speed. It's going at. There is that concern, though, that if 60% of people have taken it up, 40% haven't. Despite having that offer, that offer could have been given to someone else who may want to go. I'd be grateful if that could be taken away by the department to work out what is being done to close that one third, because clearly there's greater opportunity to get more people in and detected sooner.
14:32
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I thank him for that intervention, and he's absolutely right. Promoting and maximising uptake is an absolutely crucial indicator of success for this programme. So and I thank him also for giving me the opportunity to take that away. I will discuss that with my hon. Friend the member for Washington and Gateshead South, and we'll get back to him in writing as soon as possible. Now, members have also 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, higher incidence of lung cancer and poorer health outcomes, which is why the lung cancer screening programme has prioritised rollout in areas of greatest need. By targeting communities at highest risk. First, the programme is helping to reduce longstanding inequalities in cancer outcomes and ensuring that those 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 raised about the access to services in rural and coastal communities through the continued expansion of diagnostic services, including community diagnostic centres, which the opposition spokesman referred to in his speech. Absolutely rightly, we are bringing tests and scans closer to where people live and helping 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 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 identify cancers earlier. Alongside all our efforts to catch and treat cancer earlier through our ten year plan for England, we have also committed to shift from sickness to prevention, and we know that smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the UK, it claims around 80,000 lives a year puts huge pressure on our NHS and costs taxpayers billions.
It causes 1 in 4 of all cancer deaths in England, including 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. £18.6 billion lost in productivity every year, with smokers a third more likely to be off work sick. That is why the Tobacco and Vapes Act 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. A smoke free generation will save tens of thousands of lives, avoid up to 13,000 cases of lung cancer, stroke and heart disease. While survival rates for lung cancer have improved significantly over recent years, we recognise that there is still much more to do. The government is 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.
So I thank again the honourable member for securing this vitally important debate, and I also would like to thank all the members who've contributed through the continued rollout 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. So I am once again grateful for the opportunity to set out the government's position today, and I thank you very much, sir Alec.
It remains one of the cancers most strongly associated with deprivation. People living in the most deprived communities experience significantly higher rates of smoking, higher incidence of lung cancer and poorer health outcomes, which is why the lung cancer screening programme has prioritised rollout in areas of greatest need. By targeting communities at highest risk. First, the programme is helping to reduce longstanding inequalities in cancer outcomes and ensuring that those 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 raised about the access to services in rural and coastal communities through the continued expansion of diagnostic services, including community diagnostic centres, which the opposition spokesman referred to in his speech. Absolutely rightly, we are bringing tests and scans closer to where people live and helping 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 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 identify cancers earlier. Alongside all our efforts to catch and treat cancer earlier through our ten year plan for England, we have also committed to shift from sickness to prevention, and we know that smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the UK, it claims around 80,000 lives a year puts huge pressure on our NHS and costs taxpayers billions.
It causes 1 in 4 of all cancer deaths in England, including 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. £18.6 billion lost in productivity every year, with smokers a third more likely to be off work sick. That is why the Tobacco and Vapes Act 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. A smoke free generation will save tens of thousands of lives, avoid up to 13,000 cases of lung cancer, stroke and heart disease. While survival rates for lung cancer have improved significantly over recent years, we recognise that there is still much more to do. The government is 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.
So I thank again the honourable member for securing this vitally important debate, and I also would like to thank all the members who've contributed through the continued rollout 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. So I am once again grateful for the opportunity to set out the government's position today, and I thank you very much, sir Alec.
14:36
14:36
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you very much, sir. I'd just like to mention a few of the things that honourable members have spoken about. The honourable member for Strangford absolutely right to pay tribute to the government for its work in lung cancer screening. It is, as he says, an outstanding success, but it still needs to have more support from the government because screening, as he says, does save lives. And my hon. Friend the member for Didcot and Wantage talked about lung cancer being horrific and deadly, and he spoke about his constituent, John, who probably when he got his diagnosis, thought that this is going to be horrific and deadly for me.
But because of the lung cancer screening programme, it looks like he might have a few good years ahead of him. So that is that is really, really good. He also talked about speed and quality of treatment. And it being so important that we. We are. Thick with our diagnosis, but we are quick with our treatment and. That our cancer patients have the support of specialist nurses and the. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth is.
Right. Early detection is so crucial in lung cancer treatment. As he tells us, he knows from being a. Time, a junior doctor. He's also right to say that the origin of the screening programme happened in 2023 under the conservatives, and he's right to join other members in asking for lung screening to be spread out to all parts of the United Kingdom. I do thank the Minister for coming to the debate today and for answering an awful lot of the questions that we have given to him.
I know that he's here on behalf of the member for Washington and Gateshead South, and I know that she is a real champion for wanting to improve cancer care in this country. I think it's great that the government is committing £650 million. For cancer, for lung cancer screening in England to be spent by 2020, 30, 20, 30. What about Scotland and Northern Ireland?Is he able to make a commitment or does he need to speak to the member for Washington and Gateshead South that.
The Department of Health will speak to the. The devolved governments. Scotland and Northern Ireland to try to get them to implement what has been done so well in England. We didn't get a guarantee that lung cancer. Yep.
But because of the lung cancer screening programme, it looks like he might have a few good years ahead of him. So that is that is really, really good. He also talked about speed and quality of treatment. And it being so important that we. We are. Thick with our diagnosis, but we are quick with our treatment and. That our cancer patients have the support of specialist nurses and the. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth is.
Right. Early detection is so crucial in lung cancer treatment. As he tells us, he knows from being a. Time, a junior doctor. He's also right to say that the origin of the screening programme happened in 2023 under the conservatives, and he's right to join other members in asking for lung screening to be spread out to all parts of the United Kingdom. I do thank the Minister for coming to the debate today and for answering an awful lot of the questions that we have given to him.
I know that he's here on behalf of the member for Washington and Gateshead South, and I know that she is a real champion for wanting to improve cancer care in this country. I think it's great that the government is committing £650 million. For cancer, for lung cancer screening in England to be spent by 2020, 30, 20, 30. What about Scotland and Northern Ireland?Is he able to make a commitment or does he need to speak to the member for Washington and Gateshead South that.
The Department of Health will speak to the. The devolved governments. Scotland and Northern Ireland to try to get them to implement what has been done so well in England. We didn't get a guarantee that lung cancer. Yep.
14:40
14:40
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Very briefly to say, to have it on the record, I will absolutely discuss that with my hon. Friend the member for Washington and Gateshead South, and we will write to the honourable gentleman with an update on the work we're doing across the regional government and the other with Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland. Yes.
14:40
14:40
14:41
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I, I do apologise, Sir Alex. The minister did not need to do the intervention. I'm sure that the Minister would be carrying would be taking that message back to his. Colleague. Would like to see which wasn't mentioned was a guarantee that lung cancer screening funding is to be ring fenced and is only to be used for the intended purposes of lung cancer. Screening. Wasn't any comment about the changes in the integrated care boards NHS England and what safeguards are in place to ensure continuity of leadership, data management and program oversight during the organisational changes that I'm sure that he and other ministers will know is a big concern to an awful lot.
Of the charities. And finally, there was no mention of expanding radiology, which I think an awful lot of people who talk about cancer. Members of Parliament, uh, cancer charities. Know there has to be a big expansion of radiography. And sooner rather than later. But finally, I would like to thank you for chairing the meeting. Sir Alex, and for pulling me up. I shall endeavour to do better next time. Well done, well done.
Of the charities. And finally, there was no mention of expanding radiology, which I think an awful lot of people who talk about cancer. Members of Parliament, uh, cancer charities. Know there has to be a big expansion of radiography. And sooner rather than later. But finally, I would like to thank you for chairing the meeting. Sir Alex, and for pulling me up. I shall endeavour to do better next time. Well done, well done.
14:42
15:09
15:09
15:10
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you. Miss Jardine, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship 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. And this is true of Falmouth, the port town that I represent. Falmouth has a very distinct story. It's a vibrant place that's always turns 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 steamships. Yet Falmouth adapted partly thanks to our geography, which has 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 as well. In 1942, HMS Campbeltown set sail from Falmouth to Saint-Nazaire, an operation that destroyed the only dry dock on the Atlantic coast capable of servicing the German battleship Tirpitz.
Today, Falmouth continues to play a really 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 served in Falmouth Docks. As I've said in this House before, ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, which are so vital to our defence capability, frequently call and live at 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 superyachts. Crucially, Falmouth's 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 and P, now Ballina is redeveloping the docks to service floating offshore wind turbines, and we have a cluster of innovative marine engineering businesses in the surrounding areas, designing anchors, floating platforms, many other things that grew out of the mining industry to do with floating offshore winds.
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 steamships. Yet Falmouth adapted partly thanks to our geography, which has 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 as well. In 1942, HMS Campbeltown set sail from Falmouth to Saint-Nazaire, an operation that destroyed the only dry dock on the Atlantic coast capable of servicing the German battleship Tirpitz.
Today, Falmouth continues to play a really 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 served in Falmouth Docks. As I've said in this House before, ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, which are so vital to our defence capability, frequently call and live at 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 superyachts. Crucially, Falmouth's 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 and P, now Ballina is redeveloping the docks to service floating offshore wind turbines, and we have a cluster of innovative marine engineering businesses in the surrounding areas, designing anchors, floating platforms, many other things that grew out of the mining industry to do with floating offshore winds.
15:12
15:12
15:12
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank honourable friend for giving way and I'm very grateful for for this for securing this debate. I wonder if, like me, she would like to hear from the minister today how that vision for ports that she outlined that is so clear. Clearly, tapping into our opportunities in Cornwall across critical minerals and renewable energy and many other industries, just how that that vision for our ports could link into our broader view for for industrial strategy zones. You.
15:13
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Obviously agree in places like Cornwall will be fundamental to the growth in things like renewable energy, particularly with the Critical minerals strategy. And those industrial strategy zones will be so important to unlock that potential. I'm very grateful to the many honourable members from across the House who supported my application for this debate. From Newham, Newport to Immingham, Liverpool to Southampton and Port Talbot, it reflects a shared understanding across all of our constituencies that supporting our ports and ensuring they are well connected is so vital to our national prosperity.
Ports employment last year in Great Britain stood at over 31000 people, while the wider shipping industry contributed an estimated £16 billion to the economy in 2023. But 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. Ports handle 95% of the physical goods entering and leaving our country, underpinning our trade and our 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, 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 address.
Very recent research by more in common, supported by the Association of British Ports, showed that coastal communities, especially young people within them, see that potential. There is a genuine strand of pride across residents, with 4 in 10 saying their area has economic opportunities that are not being made. The most of. And young people were likeliest to see that untapped potential. Over half of them, 60%, say their area could become an economic hub for manufacturing, shipping and clean energy. In this, they are even more positive than the nation as a whole, where 55% find that prospect realistic.
However, ports can't 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 themselves, which can act as a significant disincentive to investment and places 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 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 moving by rail.
That's 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's 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 those local communities. However, we're 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 were inactive.
In Falmouth, there is a short stretch of track linking the docks station directly to the port, which hasn't been used for 20 years. With the rebirth of the critical minerals industry in mainly in my hon. Friend's constituency and a roundabout backed by a £50 million government strategy, there will be big demand for freight transport, which could be met by rail. That's why I've been campaigning to reopen that line and working with local partners to make it real, restoring that connection with 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 where there are no obvious funding streams to go to for support for that interim stage.
Ports employment last year in Great Britain stood at over 31000 people, while the wider shipping industry contributed an estimated £16 billion to the economy in 2023. But 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. Ports handle 95% of the physical goods entering and leaving our country, underpinning our trade and our 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, 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 address.
Very recent research by more in common, supported by the Association of British Ports, showed that coastal communities, especially young people within them, see that potential. There is a genuine strand of pride across residents, with 4 in 10 saying their area has economic opportunities that are not being made. The most of. And young people were likeliest to see that untapped potential. Over half of them, 60%, say their area could become an economic hub for manufacturing, shipping and clean energy. In this, they are even more positive than the nation as a whole, where 55% find that prospect realistic.
However, ports can't 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 themselves, which can act as a significant disincentive to investment and places 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 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 moving by rail.
That's 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's 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 those local communities. However, we're 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 were inactive.
In Falmouth, there is a short stretch of track linking the docks station directly to the port, which hasn't been used for 20 years. With the rebirth of the critical minerals industry in mainly in my hon. Friend's constituency and a roundabout backed by a £50 million government strategy, there will be big demand for freight transport, which could be met by rail. That's why I've been campaigning to reopen that line and working with local partners to make it real, restoring that connection with 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 where there are no obvious funding streams to go to for support for that interim stage.
15:17
15:17
15:18
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank her for giving way again and I wholeheartedly support the work that's taking place at the Port of Falmouth to get that rail connection back in for freight. I really hope we can draw support from the DFT in accelerating that to the next stage. Um, but does she agree with me that we also need to take a broader look at the vision for freight rail in Cornwall and come up with a whole hearted strategy for it. Thank you.
15:18
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you. And of course, yes, there is so much more to do and so much that can be done. And we should have a coordinated strategy that is so important for growth. I wanted to say a little bit about the House of Commons Transport Committee. This is a fairly old report, but it described ports in 2013 as national assets 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 are not implemented at the moment. Activity, though, doesn't just refer to transport. The grid is an equally pressing challenge for ports across the UK as the sector moves towards decarbonisation, there's a growing need to electrify operations. However, the UK's connections queue has grown tenfold in five years, leaving more than 700GW of projects waiting for grid access.
Those recommendations are not implemented at the moment. Activity, though, doesn't just refer to transport. The grid is an equally pressing challenge for ports across the UK as the sector moves towards decarbonisation, there's a growing need to electrify operations. However, the UK's connections queue has grown tenfold in five years, leaving more than 700GW of projects waiting for grid access.
15:19
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Is designed to clear this backlog, and they have reprioritized projects, which is very welcome. But they also have alerted Ofgem they can't meet connection deadlines for all the projects. Many ports lack that grid capacity to support shore power, electric vehicle charging for ports and haulage and many other things. And the BPA has award that warned that around 70% of UK ports are at or near their capacity already. So those national grid upgrades are really critical to ensure 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, one that underpins growth across key sectors. This is really important for the clean energy sector, which depends heavily on port capacity, infrastructure and capability to deliver offshore wind, for example. This 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 Phlomis and up to 64 million went to Port Talbot in March of this year. But delivery is not progressing at the pace or the 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. Um and in many cases, projects aren't aligning with the requirements of those private investors or public funding bodies like the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy.
This isn't because of a lack of policy, ambition or capital, but it's more of a market failure arising from the mismatch between immediate capital investment decisions and those uncertain long term revenue streams. I will.
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, one that underpins growth across key sectors. This is really important for the clean energy sector, which depends heavily on port capacity, infrastructure and capability to deliver offshore wind, for example. This 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 Phlomis and up to 64 million went to Port Talbot in March of this year. But delivery is not progressing at the pace or the 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. Um and in many cases, projects aren't aligning with the requirements of those private investors or public funding bodies like the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy.
This isn't because of a lack of policy, ambition or capital, but it's more of a market failure arising from the mismatch between immediate capital investment decisions and those uncertain long term revenue streams. I will.
15:21
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank her for giving way, and I'm intervening because she mentioned Port Talbot. Last year, I met the association Associated British Ports last year in Port Talbot, who 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, but also to get the. The freight from the new um free port that is going to be created to get that out. So does the honourable member agree that the Minister should assess whether upgrades or even a new rail link into the docks will be needed so that this rail infrastructure, or the lack of does not hold back this major opportunity from South Wales.
15:22
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank the honourable member and there is a real issue, isn't there, of Clunkiness, with co-ordination between different departments to actually speed up the progress of getting these ports into use. So that's one example of how we could be working together. So much better to ensure that that port is up to full speed as quickly as possible, which it really needs to be. In Port Talbot. The grant funding that's being deployed to support the offshore wind sector, for example, the Crown Estate and GBE Supply Chain Accelerator funds are focused on future users of infrastructure like manufacturers and supply chains, rather than ports.
And at present, the main dedicated support available to ports comes through the Offshore Wind Growth Fund, which is privately operated, and that leaves a gap in public funding for that critical infrastructure needed to unlock the projects. My own port in Falmouth has very ambitious development plans to service and potentially assemble floating offshore wind, as well as defence, commercial ship repair and cruise. It's a truly mixed port and a no regrets investment, but at a cost of about £120 million, a huge investment and one that they will struggle to fund from shareholders alone.
There's also the issue of how ports are owned. Some, like Falmouth, are privately owned, some, like Falmouth Harbour Commissioners, are trustee owned and some, like Gorran Haven in my constituency are charitable trusts, and they often fall through the cracks of the funding that's available. There is an argument I am a co-operative MP that ports as those kind of vital community assets should be publicly owned or cooperatively owned, and that's something that I just want to put in the air there for the minister to consider. How do we get our money into ports?What should we do?Firstly, a joined up approach across government departments is so necessary.
The minister is here from the Department for transport today, but ports sit between multiple departments. Des années de t Ministry of Defence. The Treasury, of course, where the money will come from. Um. So sometimes it does feel like it's hard to know who to go to. And the ports fall through the cracks. And secondly, targeted funding for port infrastructure to support the clean energy industries is essential. That would help reduce the upfront risk, improve return on investment and leverage private capital.
For example, in the Celtic Sea, Port Talbot has benefited from funding. The new port will unlock an initial 4.5GW of floating offshore wind, and the government's investment in Port Talbot is bolstered by their newly released Celtic Freeport 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 of those puffins, those financial organisations from the government, to bridge that 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 specialized ports, minimising those bottlenecks and providing flexibility. Different ports bring very different strengths. Falmouth, Plymouth and Shipbuilding in Appledore all very different. A single port approach for flow in the Celtic Sea just wouldn't work. There's 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. However, the North Sea already has an established supply chain and port capabilities.
And 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 floating offshore wind, for example, demands. Yet developers can't make those commitments without the revenue certainty that a contract for difference provides. So it feels like the two are waiting on each other to see who it's like. Game of chicken who moves first. And compounding this 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.
So that ends up in a structural gap that leaves ports unable to be ready when the projects need them, even when the commercial will exists on both sides. And breaking that deadlock really requires direct government intervention in the form of revenue support or a form of underwriting to de-risk that early investment. Without this action, we risk ceding our emerging floating offshore wind industry to competitors like France, who have invested £900 million in their port of Brest by mobilising the National Wealth Fund, for example, to support strategic port infrastructure, the government could absorb a meaningful share of that risk and give the ports the confidence to proceed ahead of those contract for difference awards, rather than waiting until it's too late.
So some examples of that support forward contracts, capacity leasing arrangements, state underwritten procurement mechanisms to address strategic infrastructure bottlenecks, either as an anchor tenant, the state could act as an anchor tenant through defence or strategic demand or as an enabler. Using that procurement and underwriting to support the development of that infrastructure. Finally, we must prioritise connectivity in the round and that means investing in the road and rail links that serve our ports, recognising them as national assets deserving of strategic infrastructure funding action that could be taken, recognising ports as critical national infrastructure, using special development orders to streamline planning and consenting for significant port infrastructure.
There is a pilot project ongoing for the Falmouth Docks expansion with a coordinated approach under the MMO, who are acting as a lead regulator. This is actually working well as a fast track licensing process. It 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 and old and rediscovered, are the gateway to the rest of the world and a gateway to the economic future of our country, as well as our coastal towns.
They can be unlocked, but it will take focus and coordination and I, for one, really want to untap the potential. Those young people living in our coastal towns can see so clearly and need to grab hold of for their future.
And at present, the main dedicated support available to ports comes through the Offshore Wind Growth Fund, which is privately operated, and that leaves a gap in public funding for that critical infrastructure needed to unlock the projects. My own port in Falmouth has very ambitious development plans to service and potentially assemble floating offshore wind, as well as defence, commercial ship repair and cruise. It's a truly mixed port and a no regrets investment, but at a cost of about £120 million, a huge investment and one that they will struggle to fund from shareholders alone.
There's also the issue of how ports are owned. Some, like Falmouth, are privately owned, some, like Falmouth Harbour Commissioners, are trustee owned and some, like Gorran Haven in my constituency are charitable trusts, and they often fall through the cracks of the funding that's available. There is an argument I am a co-operative MP that ports as those kind of vital community assets should be publicly owned or cooperatively owned, and that's something that I just want to put in the air there for the minister to consider. How do we get our money into ports?What should we do?Firstly, a joined up approach across government departments is so necessary.
The minister is here from the Department for transport today, but ports sit between multiple departments. Des années de t Ministry of Defence. The Treasury, of course, where the money will come from. Um. So sometimes it does feel like it's hard to know who to go to. And the ports fall through the cracks. And secondly, targeted funding for port infrastructure to support the clean energy industries is essential. That would help reduce the upfront risk, improve return on investment and leverage private capital.
For example, in the Celtic Sea, Port Talbot has benefited from funding. The new port will unlock an initial 4.5GW of floating offshore wind, and the government's investment in Port Talbot is bolstered by their newly released Celtic Freeport 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 of those puffins, those financial organisations from the government, to bridge that 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 specialized ports, minimising those bottlenecks and providing flexibility. Different ports bring very different strengths. Falmouth, Plymouth and Shipbuilding in Appledore all very different. A single port approach for flow in the Celtic Sea just wouldn't work. There's 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. However, the North Sea already has an established supply chain and port capabilities.
And 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 floating offshore wind, for example, demands. Yet developers can't make those commitments without the revenue certainty that a contract for difference provides. So it feels like the two are waiting on each other to see who it's like. Game of chicken who moves first. And compounding this 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.
So that ends up in a structural gap that leaves ports unable to be ready when the projects need them, even when the commercial will exists on both sides. And breaking that deadlock really requires direct government intervention in the form of revenue support or a form of underwriting to de-risk that early investment. Without this action, we risk ceding our emerging floating offshore wind industry to competitors like France, who have invested £900 million in their port of Brest by mobilising the National Wealth Fund, for example, to support strategic port infrastructure, the government could absorb a meaningful share of that risk and give the ports the confidence to proceed ahead of those contract for difference awards, rather than waiting until it's too late.
So some examples of that support forward contracts, capacity leasing arrangements, state underwritten procurement mechanisms to address strategic infrastructure bottlenecks, either as an anchor tenant, the state could act as an anchor tenant through defence or strategic demand or as an enabler. Using that procurement and underwriting to support the development of that infrastructure. Finally, we must prioritise connectivity in the round and that means investing in the road and rail links that serve our ports, recognising them as national assets deserving of strategic infrastructure funding action that could be taken, recognising ports as critical national infrastructure, using special development orders to streamline planning and consenting for significant port infrastructure.
There is a pilot project ongoing for the Falmouth Docks expansion with a coordinated approach under the MMO, who are acting as a lead regulator. This is actually working well as a fast track licensing process. It 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 and old and rediscovered, are the gateway to the rest of the world and a gateway to the economic future of our country, as well as our coastal towns.
They can be unlocked, but it will take focus and coordination and I, for one, really want to untap the potential. Those young people living in our coastal towns can see so clearly and need to grab hold of for their future.
15:28
15:28
15:29
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I like him. He's got hair and I haven't you know. What can I say. What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship. And a special thank you to the Honourable Lady for Truro and Falmouth for highlighting this important topic for consideration today. The title of the of the of the debate is Ports and Connectivity. Um, I'm going to be very specific from Northern Ireland's point of view, and I would maybe title it perhaps me ports and Connectivity.
And I'll explain why that is. Is no port as such in my constituency. We are in the outskirts of Belfast and our thriving agri food sector, uh, from. My community of Strangford uses support to ship globally all over the world. So for us, the Belfast port is incredibly important for for my constituency and for our agri food sector. We also have our harbours which bring in the fishing catches in Portavogie, a different type of port. But nonetheless, just to put that on the record and as a representative of Northern Ireland, I'm particularly concerned by the problems with the Windsor framework has created for those trading across our borders and between ports.
And I want to spend some time, if I can, Madam Chair, explaining what the difficulties are. And then the Minister perhaps might be able to give us some answers to that. And then I want to talk about Belfast Port and some of the things that they're doing, because we should be greatly encouraged by some of the things that are happening there. The Windsor Framework, first of all, welcome, Minister, to this place, and I wish him well in this debate and and in the job that he does.
And I look very much forward to his answers to all the questions, searching questions, hopefully. Well, even better answers would be, would be better. Um, the Windsor framework continues to create friction at ports used by trading between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Businesses report increased costs and administrative burdens. Sometimes blunders, disruption to supply chains, delays and expanded inspections. And just last year, logistics UK head of trade and devolved policy Nicola Mullins used to be a former LA MLA at the Assembly and Lydia of great Knowledge, outlined that there's a lack of awareness of the practicalities of the framework and the reluctance amongst some GB businesses to trade goods in Northern Ireland.
Due to the extra requirements we have almost unique difficulties and I asked the port of stepping in the chamber area and asked the Minister a similar question, and he said he had umpteen pages in the on on the Windsor framework and was well aware of the issue. So maybe the Minister might be able to to give us some of the way through the process. Brexit created the challenge for 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.
Much expectation. We certainly didn't get the Brexit to the rest of the United Kingdom got. Uh, we've had one that's, uh, is tied up in bureaucracy. To some extent. There's been this has been oversold and it's created a misperception that the challenges faced by Northern Ireland over the Northern Ireland Protocol could be removed. And the fact is that hasn't been the case. There continues to be significant new processes. But as owners continue to report frustration with the significant restrictions placed on them, draining their time, effort and money.
So when it comes to the ports and connectivity, well, we're not having the same connectivity as everybody else. There's a significant basis for concerns that Northern Ireland may be placed at a competitive disadvantage, with GB based retailers in their own market, and there is substantial evidence, uh, to to prove that issue. And I know the minister will be aware of those some of those things, and I appreciate it, is acknowledging some of the problems Northern Ireland firms report, uh, higher costs on GB from imports from GB and frustration with difficulties.
Uh, third country firms have faced when trying to sell to Northern Ireland. Issues with smooth trading are disproportionately affecting small businesses in Northern Ireland, with many companies criticising the assistance available to them from government. So again, if it's easier, if it's handier to to make it more simple to trade, well then we should try and we should be trying very hard to do that. More must be done to support, uh, vulnerable. Enterprises. And they state that 58% report almost ten years on from Brexit that they were facing moderate to significant challenges trading ten years later and things haven't improved.
Thank goodness. It's quite unbelievable. 34% of the business surveyed simply cease trading to Northern Ireland, rather than meet the demands of the framework, because the paperwork is so laborious and so complex and so repetitive, uh, that it puts people off. And this clearly demonstrates market access from Northern Ireland is clearly compromised. Small business owners within Northern Ireland have been forced to adapt, and those retailing um shorter. Shelf life products are now largely limited to within Northern Ireland only just because it's not possible to do that with short life, uh products and others face increased export charges, which is another cause and another issue that they need to address as well.
And some even report having to travel to England themselves as Holly Typekit, some of my constituents that do that every, every week, every fortnight, I should say, and sometimes every month. And they're not. And are now reluctant to deliver due to the paperwork required. So there remains a need to restore Northern Ireland's place within the UK's internal market, as it continues to be subject to certain EU rules, while GB is not, it is essential, I believe, that Northern Ireland stakeholders play a meaningful role in improving trading problems to ensure trading operates effectively and a put the issue down for the protocol.
That's my first issue. I've been a bit laborious, but it's a bit complicated and I wanted to have it all on record. However, there is still hope and I found in the recent announcement outlining the Belfast Harbour, where they launched an ambitious 25 year master plan. I was able to have some, along with my colleagues, a member for, uh, a and the my friend the member for Belfast East, um, a massive 1.3 billion investment to expand port capacity, support the green energy transition and to.
Regenerate the waterfront, uh, the port itself handles roughly 70% of Northern Ireland's seaborne trade and is scaling up to meet the rising demand and. And capacity restraints that there is elsewhere. And I am very fortunate to have as Northern Ireland's very fortunate to have a large number of cruise ships. I think the figure I've just been informed here is 140 to 150 cruise ships, um, bringing some, they say here cruise ships must be bigger than I thought they were. But these figures are correct.
Some 350 000 people off all those cruise ships. But I suppose when you see some of them cruise ships are absolutely massive. Um, but what they do, they bring the tourism, uh, they bring the spend, they bring it to my constituency of strength because it's not too far from Belfast. It's an area where we, we have the National Trust and Mount Stuart. They come to to the Cistercian monastery, which is early, early century, and grey Abbey as part of it. And then they go to Harrison's, the cafe restaurant, whose neighbour, uh, I am, and just between grey Abbey.
And again, that's a spin off of Belfast. I'm coming to my end. Thank. Madam Chair, I think I've got some indication that might be a good idea. There's a real drive to enable Northern Ireland to be the hub it is designed to be, and I welcome Belfast Harbour's ambition and belief. Now it is the turn of this House to have some ambition as well, and belief in the people of Northern Ireland and renegotiate with the EU to remove the needless restrictions and allow us all to prosper.
And now is the time, I believe, to make that difference. And I asked the Minister very respectfully and very honestly, because that's my way of doing things, uh, that, uh, that he would step in and whether we have a change of, well, we would have a change of prime minister, it's going to happen. But whether there's a change of. Minister, we don't know. But I wish the minister well, I'm pleased. Maybe, Minister, uh, you would endeavour to help us in Northern Ireland to achieve some of the issues and the problems that we have.
Madam chair, thank you for your patience.
And I'll explain why that is. Is no port as such in my constituency. We are in the outskirts of Belfast and our thriving agri food sector, uh, from. My community of Strangford uses support to ship globally all over the world. So for us, the Belfast port is incredibly important for for my constituency and for our agri food sector. We also have our harbours which bring in the fishing catches in Portavogie, a different type of port. But nonetheless, just to put that on the record and as a representative of Northern Ireland, I'm particularly concerned by the problems with the Windsor framework has created for those trading across our borders and between ports.
And I want to spend some time, if I can, Madam Chair, explaining what the difficulties are. And then the Minister perhaps might be able to give us some answers to that. And then I want to talk about Belfast Port and some of the things that they're doing, because we should be greatly encouraged by some of the things that are happening there. The Windsor Framework, first of all, welcome, Minister, to this place, and I wish him well in this debate and and in the job that he does.
And I look very much forward to his answers to all the questions, searching questions, hopefully. Well, even better answers would be, would be better. Um, the Windsor framework continues to create friction at ports used by trading between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Businesses report increased costs and administrative burdens. Sometimes blunders, disruption to supply chains, delays and expanded inspections. And just last year, logistics UK head of trade and devolved policy Nicola Mullins used to be a former LA MLA at the Assembly and Lydia of great Knowledge, outlined that there's a lack of awareness of the practicalities of the framework and the reluctance amongst some GB businesses to trade goods in Northern Ireland.
Due to the extra requirements we have almost unique difficulties and I asked the port of stepping in the chamber area and asked the Minister a similar question, and he said he had umpteen pages in the on on the Windsor framework and was well aware of the issue. So maybe the Minister might be able to to give us some of the way through the process. Brexit created the challenge for 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.
Much expectation. We certainly didn't get the Brexit to the rest of the United Kingdom got. Uh, we've had one that's, uh, is tied up in bureaucracy. To some extent. There's been this has been oversold and it's created a misperception that the challenges faced by Northern Ireland over the Northern Ireland Protocol could be removed. And the fact is that hasn't been the case. There continues to be significant new processes. But as owners continue to report frustration with the significant restrictions placed on them, draining their time, effort and money.
So when it comes to the ports and connectivity, well, we're not having the same connectivity as everybody else. There's a significant basis for concerns that Northern Ireland may be placed at a competitive disadvantage, with GB based retailers in their own market, and there is substantial evidence, uh, to to prove that issue. And I know the minister will be aware of those some of those things, and I appreciate it, is acknowledging some of the problems Northern Ireland firms report, uh, higher costs on GB from imports from GB and frustration with difficulties.
Uh, third country firms have faced when trying to sell to Northern Ireland. Issues with smooth trading are disproportionately affecting small businesses in Northern Ireland, with many companies criticising the assistance available to them from government. So again, if it's easier, if it's handier to to make it more simple to trade, well then we should try and we should be trying very hard to do that. More must be done to support, uh, vulnerable. Enterprises. And they state that 58% report almost ten years on from Brexit that they were facing moderate to significant challenges trading ten years later and things haven't improved.
Thank goodness. It's quite unbelievable. 34% of the business surveyed simply cease trading to Northern Ireland, rather than meet the demands of the framework, because the paperwork is so laborious and so complex and so repetitive, uh, that it puts people off. And this clearly demonstrates market access from Northern Ireland is clearly compromised. Small business owners within Northern Ireland have been forced to adapt, and those retailing um shorter. Shelf life products are now largely limited to within Northern Ireland only just because it's not possible to do that with short life, uh products and others face increased export charges, which is another cause and another issue that they need to address as well.
And some even report having to travel to England themselves as Holly Typekit, some of my constituents that do that every, every week, every fortnight, I should say, and sometimes every month. And they're not. And are now reluctant to deliver due to the paperwork required. So there remains a need to restore Northern Ireland's place within the UK's internal market, as it continues to be subject to certain EU rules, while GB is not, it is essential, I believe, that Northern Ireland stakeholders play a meaningful role in improving trading problems to ensure trading operates effectively and a put the issue down for the protocol.
That's my first issue. I've been a bit laborious, but it's a bit complicated and I wanted to have it all on record. However, there is still hope and I found in the recent announcement outlining the Belfast Harbour, where they launched an ambitious 25 year master plan. I was able to have some, along with my colleagues, a member for, uh, a and the my friend the member for Belfast East, um, a massive 1.3 billion investment to expand port capacity, support the green energy transition and to.
Regenerate the waterfront, uh, the port itself handles roughly 70% of Northern Ireland's seaborne trade and is scaling up to meet the rising demand and. And capacity restraints that there is elsewhere. And I am very fortunate to have as Northern Ireland's very fortunate to have a large number of cruise ships. I think the figure I've just been informed here is 140 to 150 cruise ships, um, bringing some, they say here cruise ships must be bigger than I thought they were. But these figures are correct.
Some 350 000 people off all those cruise ships. But I suppose when you see some of them cruise ships are absolutely massive. Um, but what they do, they bring the tourism, uh, they bring the spend, they bring it to my constituency of strength because it's not too far from Belfast. It's an area where we, we have the National Trust and Mount Stuart. They come to to the Cistercian monastery, which is early, early century, and grey Abbey as part of it. And then they go to Harrison's, the cafe restaurant, whose neighbour, uh, I am, and just between grey Abbey.
And again, that's a spin off of Belfast. I'm coming to my end. Thank. Madam Chair, I think I've got some indication that might be a good idea. There's a real drive to enable Northern Ireland to be the hub it is designed to be, and I welcome Belfast Harbour's ambition and belief. Now it is the turn of this House to have some ambition as well, and belief in the people of Northern Ireland and renegotiate with the EU to remove the needless restrictions and allow us all to prosper.
And now is the time, I believe, to make that difference. And I asked the Minister very respectfully and very honestly, because that's my way of doing things, uh, that, uh, that he would step in and whether we have a change of, well, we would have a change of prime minister, it's going to happen. But whether there's a change of. Minister, we don't know. But I wish the minister well, I'm pleased. Maybe, Minister, uh, you would endeavour to help us in Northern Ireland to achieve some of the issues and the problems that we have.
Madam chair, thank you for your patience.
15:37
15:38
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Jardine. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Um, 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 in Ramsgate stands idle and neglected. Despite its noble history as the home of the navy during the Napoleonic Wars, and more recently, people will remember both the hovercraft and the Sally line taking ferries to France for day trips.
That is emblematic of some of the problems that we have about our ports here in our island nation. Ports connect us and they defend us. They are the places where we trade, where we welcome visitors. And when we choose who stays, our nation's wealth has been built on the ports as the gateway to the world. We are the country we are as a result of our ports and the people who built them and worked in them. Yet for too long we've overlooked them and the communities that sustain them, even as they remain vital to our economy.
Many regional ports, including Ramsgate, operate well below capacity. If we're serious about levelling up and ensuring that the whole um nation benefits from growth, we must look to how we bring trade and investment to ports that have been left behind. Ramsgate has indeed 300 people employed by Vattenfall to operate and maintain the wind farm. There is a plan for a green skills hub. There are opportunities there to be developed and yet effectively it is shut. Even though Ostend wants it to open and to trade with them, Dover is already at capacity and would therefore benefit from the growth of Ramsgate and the Lower Thames crossing, which the government is fully committed to, will enable air traffic and freight to be able 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 as a result of Brexit, we need to be honest about what kind of impact that has had on the ports, in our in our country.
UK port traffic decreased by nearly 13% compared to 2019. In 2023, the EU. The EU still remains a significant partner, however, accounting for 48% of our goods exports and 54% of our imports in 2024. There are opportunities there to be able to strengthen our relationship with Europe through our investment in our ports. The ports are not only about freight, they connect us to our neighbours and support a thriving visitor economy. 18.1 million international passengers pass through UK ports every year.
Around 5000 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 has done to support our ports. Firstly, it is brought forward a consultation on a revised National Policy Statement Report, recognising that the planning framework needs to better support future port development. Secondly, it has used the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy to back in the industrial and energy investment that depends on port infrastructure.
Thirdly, it has begun to recognise more clearly that ports will be central to cleaner shipping, cleaner freight and the energy transition. And part of that is to do with the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Minister, the member for Selby and indeed, my hon. Friend the member for Stockton North. However, there are. There are limited. There are limits to some and to the effectiveness of these measures. Investment is still at risk of being concentrated in the larger schemes and strongest ports, leaving many coastal communities without access to green economy benefits.
The National Wealth fund is capped, while the scale of need across our port infrastructure is much greater. Ramsgate actually only needs £20 million to be able to reopen with the support of private investors. And yet the National Wealth Fund will not look at a project that has got a value or needs less than £50 million. The government still needs to do more to link its port strategy to 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.
Can I suggest three further steps the government could take without additional spending as part of that coastal economic strategy, which should require a coastal economic area to be established within five kilometres of the coast, everywhere across the country, so that we are able to strategically invest according to the industrial strategy that we have in those coastal communities, regardless of everything else that they have, they have one thing in common they are near the sea, and therefore we can see exactly how helpful and useful those ports are in terms of international and national infrastructure part.
Of that should involve mandating a capacity audit of all UK ports. We need to have transparent published data on which ports are operating at full capacity and which are underused. Only then can we start to allocate resources and planning permissions occasionally, and 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 chain all depend on ports. The government needs to be explicit about how ports fit into each sectoral strategy, ensuring that investment decisions are properly joined up.
And as my hon. Friend, uh, I've forgotten, your constituency was just terrible for Truro. Um, 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. There is a really strong case for public ownership of nationally significant infrastructure such as ports, especially in an island nation.
And yet, because of the nature of the way that we invest in our our ports, it is struggling to be able to make the most of its of its growth potential. Um, miss Jardine ports are not relics of our past. They're foundation for our future. For too long we've taken them for granted. I urge the government to give ports the strategic attention they deserve, not just with warm words, but with action that reaches every port community in this country, including and especially Ramsgate.
That is emblematic of some of the problems that we have about our ports here in our island nation. Ports connect us and they defend us. They are the places where we trade, where we welcome visitors. And when we choose who stays, our nation's wealth has been built on the ports as the gateway to the world. We are the country we are as a result of our ports and the people who built them and worked in them. Yet for too long we've overlooked them and the communities that sustain them, even as they remain vital to our economy.
Many regional ports, including Ramsgate, operate well below capacity. If we're serious about levelling up and ensuring that the whole um nation benefits from growth, we must look to how we bring trade and investment to ports that have been left behind. Ramsgate has indeed 300 people employed by Vattenfall to operate and maintain the wind farm. There is a plan for a green skills hub. There are opportunities there to be developed and yet effectively it is shut. Even though Ostend wants it to open and to trade with them, Dover is already at capacity and would therefore benefit from the growth of Ramsgate and the Lower Thames crossing, which the government is fully committed to, will enable air traffic and freight to be able 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 as a result of Brexit, we need to be honest about what kind of impact that has had on the ports, in our in our country.
UK port traffic decreased by nearly 13% compared to 2019. In 2023, the EU. The EU still remains a significant partner, however, accounting for 48% of our goods exports and 54% of our imports in 2024. There are opportunities there to be able to strengthen our relationship with Europe through our investment in our ports. The ports are not only about freight, they connect us to our neighbours and support a thriving visitor economy. 18.1 million international passengers pass through UK ports every year.
Around 5000 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 has done to support our ports. Firstly, it is brought forward a consultation on a revised National Policy Statement Report, recognising that the planning framework needs to better support future port development. Secondly, it has used the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy to back in the industrial and energy investment that depends on port infrastructure.
Thirdly, it has begun to recognise more clearly that ports will be central to cleaner shipping, cleaner freight and the energy transition. And part of that is to do with the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Minister, the member for Selby and indeed, my hon. Friend the member for Stockton North. However, there are. There are limited. There are limits to some and to the effectiveness of these measures. Investment is still at risk of being concentrated in the larger schemes and strongest ports, leaving many coastal communities without access to green economy benefits.
The National Wealth fund is capped, while the scale of need across our port infrastructure is much greater. Ramsgate actually only needs £20 million to be able to reopen with the support of private investors. And yet the National Wealth Fund will not look at a project that has got a value or needs less than £50 million. The government still needs to do more to link its port strategy to 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.
Can I suggest three further steps the government could take without additional spending as part of that coastal economic strategy, which should require a coastal economic area to be established within five kilometres of the coast, everywhere across the country, so that we are able to strategically invest according to the industrial strategy that we have in those coastal communities, regardless of everything else that they have, they have one thing in common they are near the sea, and therefore we can see exactly how helpful and useful those ports are in terms of international and national infrastructure part.
Of that should involve mandating a capacity audit of all UK ports. We need to have transparent published data on which ports are operating at full capacity and which are underused. Only then can we start to allocate resources and planning permissions occasionally, and 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 chain all depend on ports. The government needs to be explicit about how ports fit into each sectoral strategy, ensuring that investment decisions are properly joined up.
And as my hon. Friend, uh, I've forgotten, your constituency was just terrible for Truro. Um, 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. There is a really strong case for public ownership of nationally significant infrastructure such as ports, especially in an island nation.
And yet, because of the nature of the way that we invest in our our ports, it is struggling to be able to make the most of its of its growth potential. Um, miss Jardine ports are not relics of our past. They're foundation for our future. For too long we've taken them for granted. I urge the government to give ports the strategic attention they deserve, not just with warm words, but with action that reaches every port community in this country, including and especially Ramsgate.
15:44
15:44
15:45
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Jardine. It's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair. And I congratulate the honourable lady for securing this important debate. And as the member representing what, measured by tonnage, is the UK's largest port, namely Immingham, and whose constituency includes a part of, uh, Grimsby, although not the dock estate, I know firsthand that ports are the lifeblood of our local of our coastal communities and the driving force of our national economy. Now, Immingham and the Humber ports are owned by Associated British Ports ABP, and they are they have Freeport status.
And I know from the Shadow Secretary of State's visit a few weeks ago that he was impressed by the size of it and the part it plays in the local economy. Around 85% of international freight traded with the UK by weight moves by sea. Nowhere is this reality evident more so than in the Humber, the UK's number one gateway for trade by volume handling. Around 17% of all UK port traffic, facilitating over £60 billion of trade and supporting 9000 regional jobs. However, the national figures show a worrying trend.
Between January and March 2026, total freight tonnage through the 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. A BP has invested £1 billion across the UK over the last five years, and has billions more ready to deploy. Right now in my constituency, significant private investment is happening at scale. In Immingham, the new £200 million Immingham Eastern ro ro terminal.
Terminal is under construction at nearby Stallingborough. The 227 acres helm development is being built out. The pace and scale of these 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. Firstly, delays in 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 this. Secondly, we must address transport links, particularly as the government with the new rail Bill makes much of the fact that they will be taking direct control. Rail freight handles about 10% of ports throughout uh, port throughput nationally, while Immingham connects directly into the national supply chains constrained our ultimate geographic advantage. We must improve the capacity gauge clearance and network resilience across the northern networks. Uh, if we are to increase, uh, the 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 A1 80 at Barnetby. And the last few miles into Immingham are overcrowded and rely on an ancient. Concrete road which caused great problems for both traffic and for the local community. I'm going to have to quickly move on, Madam Chairman, and skip. Skip a couple of pages, but I note that the. MPs are passionate about their coastal community areas and we must do all we can in order to ensure that the economic growth which they can deliver is.
Is is indeed delivered and only with investment from both the private and public sector can that be achieved.
And I know from the Shadow Secretary of State's visit a few weeks ago that he was impressed by the size of it and the part it plays in the local economy. Around 85% of international freight traded with the UK by weight moves by sea. Nowhere is this reality evident more so than in the Humber, the UK's number one gateway for trade by volume handling. Around 17% of all UK port traffic, facilitating over £60 billion of trade and supporting 9000 regional jobs. However, the national figures show a worrying trend.
Between January and March 2026, total freight tonnage through the 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. A BP has invested £1 billion across the UK over the last five years, and has billions more ready to deploy. Right now in my constituency, significant private investment is happening at scale. In Immingham, the new £200 million Immingham Eastern ro ro terminal.
Terminal is under construction at nearby Stallingborough. The 227 acres helm development is being built out. The pace and scale of these 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. Firstly, delays in 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 this. Secondly, we must address transport links, particularly as the government with the new rail Bill makes much of the fact that they will be taking direct control. Rail freight handles about 10% of ports throughout uh, port throughput nationally, while Immingham connects directly into the national supply chains constrained our ultimate geographic advantage. We must improve the capacity gauge clearance and network resilience across the northern networks. Uh, if we are to increase, uh, the 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 A1 80 at Barnetby. And the last few miles into Immingham are overcrowded and rely on an ancient. Concrete road which caused great problems for both traffic and for the local community. I'm going to have to quickly move on, Madam Chairman, and skip. Skip a couple of pages, but I note that the. MPs are passionate about their coastal community areas and we must do all we can in order to ensure that the economic growth which they can deliver is.
Is is indeed delivered and only with investment from both the private and public sector can that be achieved.
15:48
15:48
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I'd like to congratulate the honourable member for Truro and Falmouth, bringing this debate to the to to to this chamber. Um, I just wanted to talk about the Port of Liverpool, which is actually mostly in my constituency of Bootle. I want to just set out the importance of it. Oh I do, I'm not able to see Northern Ireland from Liverpool, but I am able to see Wales every day. So um some Celtic, some Celtic collection there. Anyway, uh the total annual tonnage from Liverpool Port is 31 million, about 10% of annual shipping freight in England.
The Liverpool City region, uh LCR. Liverpool city region Maritime sector direct employment is about 10,900. The Port of Liverpool itself has 1400 and the wider supply chain is 48,000. So it is an important economic uh, asset to. Our community. And yes, that has to be set into it being a strategic national asset. The importance of developing improving rail links, in particular in insofar as connectivity is concerned, it's the impact upon regional growth. The grid capacity issues have got to decarbonisation have got to be um, developed in the context of appropriate and appropriate planning framework.
Uh, Liverpool port deals with timber timber liquids, bulk liquids, bulk cargo, general cargo 700 and 20,000 passengers a year. It's a huge economic asset to our area. Um, and it does encourage growth in our economy and has done that for many years. Um, but of course, there's also the issue about the impact upon local communities. And I think that's what's crucial that when we are expanding ports or when when we are developing ports, we have to take into account local communities.
And I'm part of my local community. There's a road that goes from the M57 M58 down to the docks, which thankfully the government decided not to put the Rimrose Valley Road through, which was going to cost £350 million. And and I have fought for years for rail investment. That's the key. And I'm really pleased. I'm really pleased that the rail, Freight and Railways bill, which um identifies. Uh, what 75% of rail freight growth target. Um and a target of.
No by 2050, no less. And that is going to enable us to unlock other markets. And of course, it will provide public investment in the connectivity as well as private investment in public. Public investment, public and private investment. And it's important that those two work closely together. But as I said, local communities have got to be part of the development of that that programme. And that road has at one junction, the A5036 that I referred to at one point, right along it, there's a junction which has best part of HGVs going past um about 2300 both ways.
It's as many as something like um five HGVs, 5HVSA minute going through that particular junction. So what I would also call on the government to do is where it is trying to mitigate the impacts of road traffic on communities. And as a heavily populated community, I would call upon the government in this particular case to ensure that Highways England provides the money to build a new bridge across that road, which was broken down, and I will persist in that. So, yes, we have port development, thousands of jobs linked with it, massive amounts of investment.
But we also have to look after our communities as well. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah.
The Liverpool City region, uh LCR. Liverpool city region Maritime sector direct employment is about 10,900. The Port of Liverpool itself has 1400 and the wider supply chain is 48,000. So it is an important economic uh, asset to. Our community. And yes, that has to be set into it being a strategic national asset. The importance of developing improving rail links, in particular in insofar as connectivity is concerned, it's the impact upon regional growth. The grid capacity issues have got to decarbonisation have got to be um, developed in the context of appropriate and appropriate planning framework.
Uh, Liverpool port deals with timber timber liquids, bulk liquids, bulk cargo, general cargo 700 and 20,000 passengers a year. It's a huge economic asset to our area. Um, and it does encourage growth in our economy and has done that for many years. Um, but of course, there's also the issue about the impact upon local communities. And I think that's what's crucial that when we are expanding ports or when when we are developing ports, we have to take into account local communities.
And I'm part of my local community. There's a road that goes from the M57 M58 down to the docks, which thankfully the government decided not to put the Rimrose Valley Road through, which was going to cost £350 million. And and I have fought for years for rail investment. That's the key. And I'm really pleased. I'm really pleased that the rail, Freight and Railways bill, which um identifies. Uh, what 75% of rail freight growth target. Um and a target of.
No by 2050, no less. And that is going to enable us to unlock other markets. And of course, it will provide public investment in the connectivity as well as private investment in public. Public investment, public and private investment. And it's important that those two work closely together. But as I said, local communities have got to be part of the development of that that programme. And that road has at one junction, the A5036 that I referred to at one point, right along it, there's a junction which has best part of HGVs going past um about 2300 both ways.
It's as many as something like um five HGVs, 5HVSA minute going through that particular junction. So what I would also call on the government to do is where it is trying to mitigate the impacts of road traffic on communities. And as a heavily populated community, I would call upon the government in this particular case to ensure that Highways England provides the money to build a new bridge across that road, which was broken down, and I will persist in that. So, yes, we have port development, thousands of jobs linked with it, massive amounts of investment.
But we also have to look after our communities as well. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah.
15:52
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Jordan. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. And can I thank my hon. Friend the member for Truro and Falmouth for securing this debate. We're seeing how important this is. We know that ports handle 95% of Britain's physical trade, and sea freight accounts for the majority of UK's international freight. But as we're here in the grid and road and rail infrastructure outside the port, gates is still too often treated as an afterthought.
And so if the government is serious, and I believe it is about economic growth, decarbonisation and national resilience, then we need to see changes in how we approach this. In my constituency, the Port of Southampton demonstrates why it's Europe's leading cruise turnaround port. It's the UK's second largest container terminal. Um. We see 3 million passengers come through each year. It's important gateway for vehicles, manufactured goods and international trade. With over £71 billion of value every year.
It supports 45,000 jobs nationwide and anchors a wider Solent maritime cluster worth £10.6 billion. Now, I know this debate is not a competition for best port in the country, though I would argue that Southampton would create a very strong case. But what this what is very clear is that Southampton, for all the strengths and benefits I've just listed, is not just a stereotypical rich South eastern sea to many communities around the port experience severe deprivation and limited opportunity. Um. Some more in common.
Research recently released finds 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. So the investment that we're asking for is not just about expanding ports for the sake of it. It's about redistributing that value back into the communities that generate it, that investment locally can be a catalyst for national growth. And again, Southampton has been leading. We delivered the UK's first commercial scale cruise ship to shore power facility that cut 5000 tonnes of carbon.
It's generated £150 million in GVA benefits in 2024 alone. Private investment in and around the port is moving ahead, but as we've heard, the constraint is often the public infrastructure outside its gates. So I do struggle with the fact that, you know, we we have the two port, sorry, ship to shore plug in points, but we can only use one of them if we plug the second one in the lights in Southampton go out. So if the one UK port that's already leading onshore power cannot fully utilise that potential for another decade, because we've been told the grid expansion won't come until 2036.
And 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 that competitive advantage. So there is an urgency to this, um, the case. For road and rail investment is just as strong. DP World Modal Shift programme has increased the containers leaving Southampton by rail from 21% to over 30% in just three years. That's 200,000 lorry journeys off the roads, saving 45000 tonnes of carbon.
Again, we just need the scale to keep that continued. So I would just close with three specific asks for the minister, and I'm grateful for his engagement with myself and with the sector recently. Firstly, can we please 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 please commit to ring fencing, the Maritime Emissions Trading Scheme revenues for some port and maritime decarbonisation investment?And thirdly, and finally, can we please get British Great British Railways National Highways to treat freight paths and port connectivity as first order planning priorities?Let's match that ambition with urgency and with a plan.
Thank you.
And so if the government is serious, and I believe it is about economic growth, decarbonisation and national resilience, then we need to see changes in how we approach this. In my constituency, the Port of Southampton demonstrates why it's Europe's leading cruise turnaround port. It's the UK's second largest container terminal. Um. We see 3 million passengers come through each year. It's important gateway for vehicles, manufactured goods and international trade. With over £71 billion of value every year.
It supports 45,000 jobs nationwide and anchors a wider Solent maritime cluster worth £10.6 billion. Now, I know this debate is not a competition for best port in the country, though I would argue that Southampton would create a very strong case. But what this what is very clear is that Southampton, for all the strengths and benefits I've just listed, is not just a stereotypical rich South eastern sea to many communities around the port experience severe deprivation and limited opportunity. Um. Some more in common.
Research recently released finds 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. So the investment that we're asking for is not just about expanding ports for the sake of it. It's about redistributing that value back into the communities that generate it, that investment locally can be a catalyst for national growth. And again, Southampton has been leading. We delivered the UK's first commercial scale cruise ship to shore power facility that cut 5000 tonnes of carbon.
It's generated £150 million in GVA benefits in 2024 alone. Private investment in and around the port is moving ahead, but as we've heard, the constraint is often the public infrastructure outside its gates. So I do struggle with the fact that, you know, we we have the two port, sorry, ship to shore plug in points, but we can only use one of them if we plug the second one in the lights in Southampton go out. So if the one UK port that's already leading onshore power cannot fully utilise that potential for another decade, because we've been told the grid expansion won't come until 2036.
And 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 that competitive advantage. So there is an urgency to this, um, the case. For road and rail investment is just as strong. DP World Modal Shift programme has increased the containers leaving Southampton by rail from 21% to over 30% in just three years. That's 200,000 lorry journeys off the roads, saving 45000 tonnes of carbon.
Again, we just need the scale to keep that continued. So I would just close with three specific asks for the minister, and I'm grateful for his engagement with myself and with the sector recently. Firstly, can we please 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 please commit to ring fencing, the Maritime Emissions Trading Scheme revenues for some port and maritime decarbonisation investment?And thirdly, and finally, can we please get British Great British Railways National Highways to treat freight paths and port connectivity as first order planning priorities?Let's match that ambition with urgency and with a plan.
Thank you.
15:57
15:57
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and no doubt, given what I'm about to say, everybody would have wished I was confined to 4 or 5 minutes rather than ten. But there we go. Uh, yes. I'd like to commend the honourable member for Truro and Falmouth for securing this debate on this vital topic and the fact that we have seen so many parts of the country represented here perfectly demonstrates the fact that the UK is a proud maritime country with a strong history and global trade, and with maritime critical to our future as well.
The honourable member for Truro and Falmouth talked about that maritime history and the key role of ports and our coasts for defence, offshore wind and a wider economic impact. The honourable member for Strangford talked about the benefits of the cruise ship sector to his constituency and the impact of the Windsor framework and Brexit on trade. The honourable member for East Thanet talked about the very sad demise of Ramsgate as a port and the importance of coastal regeneration and a wider coastal economic strategy. The honourable member for Brigg and Immingham quite rightly talked about the critical role that Immingham Port plays in so much.
Freight imports, particularly bulk cargo, and how we need to invest in gauge clearance and rail freight. That's what I'm going to be saying a lot more on. And the honourable member for Bootle talked about the critical importance of engaging local communities and doing what we can to reduce the impact on local roads of the vast amounts of lorries that serve our ports. And finally, the honourable member for Southampton, Itchen, belatedly started a contest for best port in the country. But alas, we'd have to rerun the debate to find out who would win that one.
Our ports are central to economic growth. They are our domestic industries, gateway into 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, and this port ecosystem handled 423 million tonnes in 2020 for 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. And 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 Select Committee scrutiny of the NPS did find aspects of it unclear or incomplete, particularly its intentions to streamline planning decisions for major port developments. The select committee also recommended that ports should be designated as critical national priority infrastructure, which would help speed up planning decisions, and the committee 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. The. The onward connectivity from ports around our country is not up to scratch. The rail line, or, more often than not, the road directly linking ports is the weak link in the system. And one of the key barriers to getting more freight on rail is the ongoing lack of electrification. And that's not particularly for decarbonisation reasons. It is simply the fact that electrically freight hauled by an electric locomotive accelerates so much faster and can help to accommodate freight trains amidst passenger trains far more easily.
Are so many examples of a short bits of railway that could be electrified. In order to realise some of those benefits. Probably the two best examples are the three miles of the London Gateway branch, which are not electrified and many freight operators run freight trains using diesel locomotives for hundreds of miles underneath electrified lines, simply because those three miles are not electrified. Now, DP world has offered to pay half of the estimated £20 million cost. Now, there is a skepticism in this government and previous ones about railway electrification, because previous schemes have gone over budget.
But Sir Andrew Haines, then chief executive of Network Rail and now chairman of DFT operator, gave testimony to the Transport Select Committee that the best way to bring electrification costs down is commitment to a rolling programme so that supply chain gains that maturity and does it, and what better way to kick that rolling programme off than a commitment to doing the three miles of London Gateway three miles, relatively little in the way of bridges and tunnels, a great opportunity for supply chain to to to get started. So who knows?Perhaps the minister in his speech will give that commitment to spend £10 million matching DP world £10 million, make a great name for himself and start off a railway electrification revolution in this country, which would also benefit Felixstowe, Immingham.
Southampton. Middlesbrough, Seaforth Container Terminal and many others. I look forward to hearing that in his speech. If we want to support business and boost the stagnant economic growth plaguing the country at the moment, we must not only invest in our ports but the roads, railways and networks that connect them to the rest of the country. The private sector is willing to do that. I've outlined DP world, but another good example is GB Railfreight, who've invested £150 million in buy mode, which means they can run under diesel or electric class 99 locomotives.
Now they have said to me they would like to be able to run those locomotives on electric power far more than they will be able to when they enter service this summer. Because of that lack of electrification of our network. And our approach to this really does contrast very unfavourably with that of other countries in the Netherlands. They built this railway called the router, which is a dedicated freight only railway serving the port of Rotterdam. And they did that both to both to boost rail freight capacity and to take freight trains off the existing network, enabling them to run the very high frequency passenger services that they do.
And of course, another big benefit of, of moving freight off the roads is to reduce the need to have to invest in some very expensive and disruptive road schemes. The A34, through my constituency in Oxfordshire, is becoming more and more congested now. There's lots of reasons for that, but certainly high lorry volumes are a significant factor in that. Notwithstanding the good progress that the honourable member for Southampton, Itchen, highlighted, that DP world has made in terms of getting more traffic from Road to Rail from Southampton.
Now, of course, transport isn't the only thing holding back our ports. We all saw images of miles of lorries queuing outside Dover and transport businesses earlier this year were still describing the ongoing, quote unquote, pure hell of Brexit paperwork. In evidence to the Business and Trade committee. So we need to cut the Brexit bureaucracy and red tape to enable our port sectors to really thrive. The Public Accounts Committee found, and I quote, a clear increase in costs, paperwork and border delays for UK businesses after Brexit and the National Audit Office similarly 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 were required annually, adding significant friction. UK ports handled around 10% less cargo in 2024 compared to 2029. The the last full year before Brexit, and this 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. And to do this, we need closer ties with Europe.
And that is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a bold new partnership with the European Union, including joining the single market and the customs union. This would tear down barriers for businesses and boost trade with Britain's biggest market. Now, Labour may have had themselves in with their current red lines on Europe. 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. But 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. Miss Jardine, our ports should be not be the Brexit bottlenecks they are today, but should be the engines at the heart of economic growth, as so many honourable members have eloquently articulated, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
The honourable member for Truro and Falmouth talked about that maritime history and the key role of ports and our coasts for defence, offshore wind and a wider economic impact. The honourable member for Strangford talked about the benefits of the cruise ship sector to his constituency and the impact of the Windsor framework and Brexit on trade. The honourable member for East Thanet talked about the very sad demise of Ramsgate as a port and the importance of coastal regeneration and a wider coastal economic strategy. The honourable member for Brigg and Immingham quite rightly talked about the critical role that Immingham Port plays in so much.
Freight imports, particularly bulk cargo, and how we need to invest in gauge clearance and rail freight. That's what I'm going to be saying a lot more on. And the honourable member for Bootle talked about the critical importance of engaging local communities and doing what we can to reduce the impact on local roads of the vast amounts of lorries that serve our ports. And finally, the honourable member for Southampton, Itchen, belatedly started a contest for best port in the country. But alas, we'd have to rerun the debate to find out who would win that one.
Our ports are central to economic growth. They are our domestic industries, gateway into 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, and this port ecosystem handled 423 million tonnes in 2020 for 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. And 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 Select Committee scrutiny of the NPS did find aspects of it unclear or incomplete, particularly its intentions to streamline planning decisions for major port developments. The select committee also recommended that ports should be designated as critical national priority infrastructure, which would help speed up planning decisions, and the committee 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. The. The onward connectivity from ports around our country is not up to scratch. The rail line, or, more often than not, the road directly linking ports is the weak link in the system. And one of the key barriers to getting more freight on rail is the ongoing lack of electrification. And that's not particularly for decarbonisation reasons. It is simply the fact that electrically freight hauled by an electric locomotive accelerates so much faster and can help to accommodate freight trains amidst passenger trains far more easily.
Are so many examples of a short bits of railway that could be electrified. In order to realise some of those benefits. Probably the two best examples are the three miles of the London Gateway branch, which are not electrified and many freight operators run freight trains using diesel locomotives for hundreds of miles underneath electrified lines, simply because those three miles are not electrified. Now, DP world has offered to pay half of the estimated £20 million cost. Now, there is a skepticism in this government and previous ones about railway electrification, because previous schemes have gone over budget.
But Sir Andrew Haines, then chief executive of Network Rail and now chairman of DFT operator, gave testimony to the Transport Select Committee that the best way to bring electrification costs down is commitment to a rolling programme so that supply chain gains that maturity and does it, and what better way to kick that rolling programme off than a commitment to doing the three miles of London Gateway three miles, relatively little in the way of bridges and tunnels, a great opportunity for supply chain to to to get started. So who knows?Perhaps the minister in his speech will give that commitment to spend £10 million matching DP world £10 million, make a great name for himself and start off a railway electrification revolution in this country, which would also benefit Felixstowe, Immingham.
Southampton. Middlesbrough, Seaforth Container Terminal and many others. I look forward to hearing that in his speech. If we want to support business and boost the stagnant economic growth plaguing the country at the moment, we must not only invest in our ports but the roads, railways and networks that connect them to the rest of the country. The private sector is willing to do that. I've outlined DP world, but another good example is GB Railfreight, who've invested £150 million in buy mode, which means they can run under diesel or electric class 99 locomotives.
Now they have said to me they would like to be able to run those locomotives on electric power far more than they will be able to when they enter service this summer. Because of that lack of electrification of our network. And our approach to this really does contrast very unfavourably with that of other countries in the Netherlands. They built this railway called the router, which is a dedicated freight only railway serving the port of Rotterdam. And they did that both to both to boost rail freight capacity and to take freight trains off the existing network, enabling them to run the very high frequency passenger services that they do.
And of course, another big benefit of, of moving freight off the roads is to reduce the need to have to invest in some very expensive and disruptive road schemes. The A34, through my constituency in Oxfordshire, is becoming more and more congested now. There's lots of reasons for that, but certainly high lorry volumes are a significant factor in that. Notwithstanding the good progress that the honourable member for Southampton, Itchen, highlighted, that DP world has made in terms of getting more traffic from Road to Rail from Southampton.
Now, of course, transport isn't the only thing holding back our ports. We all saw images of miles of lorries queuing outside Dover and transport businesses earlier this year were still describing the ongoing, quote unquote, pure hell of Brexit paperwork. In evidence to the Business and Trade committee. So we need to cut the Brexit bureaucracy and red tape to enable our port sectors to really thrive. The Public Accounts Committee found, and I quote, a clear increase in costs, paperwork and border delays for UK businesses after Brexit and the National Audit Office similarly 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 were required annually, adding significant friction. UK ports handled around 10% less cargo in 2024 compared to 2029. The the last full year before Brexit, and this 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. And to do this, we need closer ties with Europe.
And that is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a bold new partnership with the European Union, including joining the single market and the customs union. This would tear down barriers for businesses and boost trade with Britain's biggest market. Now, Labour may have had themselves in with their current red lines on Europe. 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. But 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. Miss Jardine, our ports should be not be the Brexit bottlenecks they are today, but should be the engines at the heart of economic growth, as so many honourable members have eloquently articulated, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
16:05
16:05
16:06
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Miss Jardine, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. Thank you also for allowing male members to remove their jackets, although that was before you saw the honourable member for Scotland wanted his shirt. I would like to also thank the honourable member for Truro and Falmouth for proposing the debate today, particularly for those who represent a coastal communities across the country, and also those of us who are near coastal communities. Basildon and Billericay has Tilbury and London Gateway within well within very short driving distance for so many of my constituents and employers, and they both employ hundreds of them.
Um, and we also we all rely on across the country on ports, though ports like Immingham, which I visited with my honourable friend recently, and also ports like Felixstowe, which I've also visited in recent months. And it was great to hear also the honourable members for East Barnet and Southampton Itchen refer to the Port of Southampton one 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 obviously a major hub as well for British cruise ships as well.
Ports themselves can be important economic indicators, as we saw in the recent ONS Statistical Bulletin, we saw a concerning decrease in ships visiting UK major ports and as my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech, that total freight tonnage down 3% in only three months at the start of the year compared with the year before. Considering the government's struggles to grow the economy, it does feel it's rather illustrative and concerning to see tonnage falling in this fashion. But it is not just tonnage alone. Mujahideen.
Last October, the Port of Aberdeen CEO said that oil and gas activity at the port was down 10% at that point in 2025, and a staggering 25% of 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 and demonstrates why we need to think about this issue more broadly than just the ports alone. Ports do not merely play a critical role in their local economies, but they do do that.
They are also indicators of our broader economy, and they are of national and indeed international importance. What today's debate appropriately illuminates is how ports are connected to other parts of the economy, and what we can do to help them prosper. For both freight and passengers is of utmost importance. With 95% of our imports and exports passing through them. As an island nation, our ports have always been fundamental to our everyday lives and to our global success. As a 2018 review into port connectivity noted, at its most basic level, port connectivity is about the equality of access to and from ports via predominantly land based transport networks.
Yet in everyday terms, this can encompass a range of issues that have significant consequences. As honourable members from all sides have mentioned, these are around specific road schemes and rail schemes as well, with impacts extending from electricity generation all the way to the food on our shelves. It is this very interconnectedness with our economy and the everyday lives of our people, which 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. And today there is much, much more to be done when we consider what that means. The first port of call, port of call must be ensuring the effective use of our roads. As the UK major ports group have said, the major ports see more than 60% of their freight they handle move in and out by road haulage, and the EPA have noted that in 2019, road haulage is around 70% of their major throughput.
These substantial numbers demonstrate the need to reduce bottlenecks and to maintain road quality around our ports. That is why the conversation on are around our ports and ports communities is inextricably tied to our national resilience as well. So where the government is making improvements, they should obviously be welcomed, such as the Lower Thames Crossing or the A666 and the M27 upgrades started under the last government, which will directly enhance the ability of passengers and hauliers to access our port network. However, I would also issue a challenge to the government to do more to improve the experience and reduce costs wherever possible of those who seek to connect to our ports.
As I mentioned by honourable members, we must also ensure that our international partners are worked with closely. There are real concerns coming up about the school holidays, and there's obviously clearly concerns and need for discussions with the French about the entry and exit system. We are in a preposterous position where a facility in Dover has been built but cannot be activated until the technology is working for the kiosks, which are specifically the responsibility. As the minister knows, of the French police, and I hope that the government can be clear that more accountability must be taken and can the president of the airports.
Of the Council, presidents of Airports Council, International Europe, who said politicians should stop pretending that ease is. Working just fine. It really isn't. Whether that comes through our airports or our port infrastructure. Furthermore, the government can improve the connectedness of ports as much as it likes. But when it puts forward policies such as the Emissions Trading Scheme, saddling people in areas such as the Isle of Wight specifically with greater costs, it is inevitable that connectivity will be hurt as well.
That is why we will always judge them by what they are specifically doing to help or hinder our ports and port connectivity, not merely by their rhetoric. However, as members from across the House have also noted, roads and the impact of costs imposed are not the only factors affecting the connectivity of our ports. Members have been right to note the significance of rail, including the honourable member for Bootle. Take Felixstowe near my own constituency, where there are 58 trains arriving and departing each day across three dedicated rail terminals, serving 15 international destinations and moving more containers by rail than any other port in Britain.
This enormous logistical exercise demonstrates the importance of supporting our rail freight sector. Now, I will not relitigate this substantial debate that occurred in the committee stage of the Railways Bill, considering there are 509 separate mentions of rail freight during that stage of the bill alone. Nevertheless, I think it is worth acknowledging that many members on this side of the House and actually across different parties, across the whole House, are concerned about the protections contained within that legislation. My colleagues and I are concerned that GBR retains too much power to run roughshod over private business, particularly those concerns around rail freight, which rightly has a target to grow.
If we were to see improved connectivity ports, we will need to see the government support these private companies in growing these services. In addition, it must be open to projects that increase the capacity, such as Elian Hawley junctions. And I do agree with the honourable member for Didcot and Wantage around London Gateway as well. Ultimately, it is crucial to remember that our ports have repeatedly been hubs of innovation. The containerisation of the 20th century completely 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, this can only be achieved with an absolute focus on increasing economic growth a phrase often used but not practised as often by the current government. As we see changes in the government. And although the member for Strangford mentioned perhaps the move of the of the government Minister, I hope that is not the case, particularly for him. I hope it considers how it can achieve this growth and support our ports in helping to grow the UK economy.
Um, and we also we all rely on across the country on ports, though ports like Immingham, which I visited with my honourable friend recently, and also ports like Felixstowe, which I've also visited in recent months. And it was great to hear also the honourable members for East Barnet and Southampton Itchen refer to the Port of Southampton one 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 obviously a major hub as well for British cruise ships as well.
Ports themselves can be important economic indicators, as we saw in the recent ONS Statistical Bulletin, we saw a concerning decrease in ships visiting UK major ports and as my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech, that total freight tonnage down 3% in only three months at the start of the year compared with the year before. Considering the government's struggles to grow the economy, it does feel it's rather illustrative and concerning to see tonnage falling in this fashion. But it is not just tonnage alone. Mujahideen.
Last October, the Port of Aberdeen CEO said that oil and gas activity at the port was down 10% at that point in 2025, and a staggering 25% of 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 and demonstrates why we need to think about this issue more broadly than just the ports alone. Ports do not merely play a critical role in their local economies, but they do do that.
They are also indicators of our broader economy, and they are of national and indeed international importance. What today's debate appropriately illuminates is how ports are connected to other parts of the economy, and what we can do to help them prosper. For both freight and passengers is of utmost importance. With 95% of our imports and exports passing through them. As an island nation, our ports have always been fundamental to our everyday lives and to our global success. As a 2018 review into port connectivity noted, at its most basic level, port connectivity is about the equality of access to and from ports via predominantly land based transport networks.
Yet in everyday terms, this can encompass a range of issues that have significant consequences. As honourable members from all sides have mentioned, these are around specific road schemes and rail schemes as well, with impacts extending from electricity generation all the way to the food on our shelves. It is this very interconnectedness with our economy and the everyday lives of our people, which 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. And today there is much, much more to be done when we consider what that means. The first port of call, port of call must be ensuring the effective use of our roads. As the UK major ports group have said, the major ports see more than 60% of their freight they handle move in and out by road haulage, and the EPA have noted that in 2019, road haulage is around 70% of their major throughput.
These substantial numbers demonstrate the need to reduce bottlenecks and to maintain road quality around our ports. That is why the conversation on are around our ports and ports communities is inextricably tied to our national resilience as well. So where the government is making improvements, they should obviously be welcomed, such as the Lower Thames Crossing or the A666 and the M27 upgrades started under the last government, which will directly enhance the ability of passengers and hauliers to access our port network. However, I would also issue a challenge to the government to do more to improve the experience and reduce costs wherever possible of those who seek to connect to our ports.
As I mentioned by honourable members, we must also ensure that our international partners are worked with closely. There are real concerns coming up about the school holidays, and there's obviously clearly concerns and need for discussions with the French about the entry and exit system. We are in a preposterous position where a facility in Dover has been built but cannot be activated until the technology is working for the kiosks, which are specifically the responsibility. As the minister knows, of the French police, and I hope that the government can be clear that more accountability must be taken and can the president of the airports.
Of the Council, presidents of Airports Council, International Europe, who said politicians should stop pretending that ease is. Working just fine. It really isn't. Whether that comes through our airports or our port infrastructure. Furthermore, the government can improve the connectedness of ports as much as it likes. But when it puts forward policies such as the Emissions Trading Scheme, saddling people in areas such as the Isle of Wight specifically with greater costs, it is inevitable that connectivity will be hurt as well.
That is why we will always judge them by what they are specifically doing to help or hinder our ports and port connectivity, not merely by their rhetoric. However, as members from across the House have also noted, roads and the impact of costs imposed are not the only factors affecting the connectivity of our ports. Members have been right to note the significance of rail, including the honourable member for Bootle. Take Felixstowe near my own constituency, where there are 58 trains arriving and departing each day across three dedicated rail terminals, serving 15 international destinations and moving more containers by rail than any other port in Britain.
This enormous logistical exercise demonstrates the importance of supporting our rail freight sector. Now, I will not relitigate this substantial debate that occurred in the committee stage of the Railways Bill, considering there are 509 separate mentions of rail freight during that stage of the bill alone. Nevertheless, I think it is worth acknowledging that many members on this side of the House and actually across different parties, across the whole House, are concerned about the protections contained within that legislation. My colleagues and I are concerned that GBR retains too much power to run roughshod over private business, particularly those concerns around rail freight, which rightly has a target to grow.
If we were to see improved connectivity ports, we will need to see the government support these private companies in growing these services. In addition, it must be open to projects that increase the capacity, such as Elian Hawley junctions. And I do agree with the honourable member for Didcot and Wantage around London Gateway as well. Ultimately, it is crucial to remember that our ports have repeatedly been hubs of innovation. The containerisation of the 20th century completely 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, this can only be achieved with an absolute focus on increasing economic growth a phrase often used but not practised as often by the current government. As we see changes in the government. And although the member for Strangford mentioned perhaps the move of the of the government Minister, I hope that is not the case, particularly for him. I hope it considers how it can achieve this growth and support our ports in helping to grow the UK economy.
16:13
16:14
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
It's a pleasure to serve. Under your chairmanship. I'd like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the member for Truro and Falmouth for 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 I think that the contributions by MPs from across the House very much reflected that. So I'd just like to very briefly turn to some of the comments that were made. The Honourable Lady for Truro and Falmouth pointed to the importance of the symbiotic relationship that exists between the great halls of the Royal Navy and civil maritime in this country, and how we need to raise all boats in developing our maritime policy, and how I need to work hard with my colleagues to do so. She also spoke of the proud history of the Port of Falmouth, but also the exciting future which is to come both in floating offshore wind, which I know that she is challenging, but also for the next generation who share the deep sense of civic pride that exists in our port communities but are among the most ambitious about the ability to enhance that status and project it into the future.
She also spoke of the importance of industrial strategy zones, and then providing a catalyst for economic growth, something that was also reflected by the honourable member for Saint Austell and Newquay. I also note the point that she made around the funding for the business case for the the rail improvement project of which she speaks. I'd be really grateful if she would write to me to set out the detail of that again, and we can pick it up and see what more we can do to support her in her work.
And I think that the contributions by MPs from across the House very much reflected that. So I'd just like to very briefly turn to some of the comments that were made. The Honourable Lady for Truro and Falmouth pointed to the importance of the symbiotic relationship that exists between the great halls of the Royal Navy and civil maritime in this country, and how we need to raise all boats in developing our maritime policy, and how I need to work hard with my colleagues to do so. She also spoke of the proud history of the Port of Falmouth, but also the exciting future which is to come both in floating offshore wind, which I know that she is challenging, but also for the next generation who share the deep sense of civic pride that exists in our port communities but are among the most ambitious about the ability to enhance that status and project it into the future.
She also spoke of the importance of industrial strategy zones, and then providing a catalyst for economic growth, something that was also reflected by the honourable member for Saint Austell and Newquay. I also note the point that she made around the funding for the business case for the the rail improvement project of which she speaks. I'd be really grateful if she would write to me to set out the detail of that again, and we can pick it up and see what more we can do to support her in her work.
16:15
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Of the United Kingdom and the economic bonds that exist between it. I'm very pleased to say that I've accepted an invitation to visit Belfast Port for myself to see those operations first hand, and I'm very encouraged to hear that they are engaging in the master planning process and have such an exciting programme of expansion. As regards his points on the Windsor, the UK government is working hard to reset the relationship with our European partners. That's going to bring simplified trade procedures and reduce friction at ports.
But he is right to hold us to account on this incredibly important issue for businesses in his constituency. The Honourable Lady for East Thanet showed how planning reform initiatives and national growth are not things that need to happen in exclusion of one another. They must go hand in hand to deliver for communities like the ones that she represents for the Port of Ramsgate. She is right to be ambitious about wanting to revive the prospects for that port. I've just visited the Port of Portsmouth, which is another municipal port, which shows how that system can work incredibly well to drive growth, and I thank her for having similar ambitions for her constituency.
The honourable member for Brigg and Immingham, I'm excited to visit the Port of Immingham very soon to see the investment that they are bringing forward. He will know that as a whole lad, his seat is very familiar to me. He raises the really important point, which a lot of honourable members did around the grid connection process. I can confirm to him that I'm working very closely with colleagues in Desgagnés, but also within Ofgem and Neso to make sure that we clear out projects from the pipeline, which are not shovel ready or can be scaled at pace, making sure that our ports get the grid connections that they deserve.
This will also be a major focus of the forthcoming maritime growth strategy, which we are hoping to bring out later this year. He also raised the importance of rail connectivity, a point echoed by the honourable member for Bootle, and I'm glad that they've focused on the fact that we can unlock air efficiency and air quality improvements for local communities, as well as enhancing our port infrastructure. I think that's an incredibly powerful point. The member for Southampton, Itchen, also raised the point that we don't reflect on enough that beyond the quayside, even where we have some of the most successful ports in the United Kingdom, stark inequalities can exist in coastal communities, both in access to opportunity and the fantastic roles that we have within the maritime sector, but also major issues to do with economic inequality, which is this government's driving mission to seek to address.
We want to make sure that ports like Southampton continue to grow and continue to offer fantastic services through the cruise sector, and part of that is making sure that we get the grid connections right. But it's also about making sure that people who live in coastal communities benefit from the enormous opportunities, improved port connections can bring. The Lib Dem spokesman encourages me to make spending commitments from from this despatch box, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint him today, but I am very interested in his point around rail freight connectivity from London Gateway and those three miles.
That's, of course, more clearly within the remit of Lord Hendy and the other place. But if he would write to me about it, I'd be very interested to engage with it on him further from a maritime perspective. The Shadow Secretary of State as well was characteristically strong in his advocacy for the Port of Tilbury, which I had a real pleasure to visit recently, and I do take his point very seriously on board about implementation of E. S. We continue to work with our EU partners and member states to encourage pragmatism.
Whenever queues build to reduce the impact for UK travellers and operators, and I can assure him that I'm working very closely with my counterparts in the Fcdo and the Home Office to ensure that we deal with those problems as they arise. But the impact of our ports cannot be underestimated. Around 85% of the goods that cross UK borders pass through them. The fundamentals of everyday life, the food that we eat, the clothes that we wear, the energy that we rely on, they all arrive by sea.
Ports are also major employers for our coastal communities. They support around 30,000 direct jobs, and latest figures show 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 make sure that the proceeds of that growth are spread, spread more equitably among the coastal communities that members represent. This is why last year, ports were recognised as a foundational industry, and the government's industrial strategy.
But that was in no small part, a recognition that is down to the swathes of investment that UK ports are already making, with £6 billion committed across the country since 2020, government is working hard to match that appetite for growth through the National Wealth Fund. Although I've heard some of the limitations that exist in terms of the inevitability of propositions before that organization, £5.8 billion is being directed toward five priority sectors, backing projects that face the greatest barrier to finance. Earlier this month, the fund announced £200 million for ports, the largest single investment it has made in the sector to date.
And last year, government announced a further £448 million for the UK shore programme, helping innovators across maritime to develop sustainable technology, including improving grid connections at UK ports. But 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, and that is why we will soon publish the revised National Policy Statement for ports, providing greater certainty to those proposing new developments. And may I just put on record my thanks to the Transport Select Committee for their robust scrutiny of the statement, which we have done our level best to include in our editions, and updating to the statement itself.
We're 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. But 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. And from the Lower Thames crossing in the south to the TransPennine route upgrade in the north, the government is pouring billions into improving ports 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 to see a 75% increase in rail freight by 2050. That is alongside the duty that exists to promote rail freight within the bill. And as we invest in growth and connectivity, we must also ensure that the sector is ready to meet its climate commitments. The maritime Decarb strategy doubles down on our mission to build a greener future.
Setting clear targets and guiding principles to help us get there. Last year, we ran a call for evidence to understand ports current and future energy needs, and 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 this 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'd like to close by once again thanking my hon. Friend the member for Truro and Falmouth for securing this debate, and for all the honourable and right honourable members who have made such considered contributions. Thank you, chair.
But he is right to hold us to account on this incredibly important issue for businesses in his constituency. The Honourable Lady for East Thanet showed how planning reform initiatives and national growth are not things that need to happen in exclusion of one another. They must go hand in hand to deliver for communities like the ones that she represents for the Port of Ramsgate. She is right to be ambitious about wanting to revive the prospects for that port. I've just visited the Port of Portsmouth, which is another municipal port, which shows how that system can work incredibly well to drive growth, and I thank her for having similar ambitions for her constituency.
The honourable member for Brigg and Immingham, I'm excited to visit the Port of Immingham very soon to see the investment that they are bringing forward. He will know that as a whole lad, his seat is very familiar to me. He raises the really important point, which a lot of honourable members did around the grid connection process. I can confirm to him that I'm working very closely with colleagues in Desgagnés, but also within Ofgem and Neso to make sure that we clear out projects from the pipeline, which are not shovel ready or can be scaled at pace, making sure that our ports get the grid connections that they deserve.
This will also be a major focus of the forthcoming maritime growth strategy, which we are hoping to bring out later this year. He also raised the importance of rail connectivity, a point echoed by the honourable member for Bootle, and I'm glad that they've focused on the fact that we can unlock air efficiency and air quality improvements for local communities, as well as enhancing our port infrastructure. I think that's an incredibly powerful point. The member for Southampton, Itchen, also raised the point that we don't reflect on enough that beyond the quayside, even where we have some of the most successful ports in the United Kingdom, stark inequalities can exist in coastal communities, both in access to opportunity and the fantastic roles that we have within the maritime sector, but also major issues to do with economic inequality, which is this government's driving mission to seek to address.
We want to make sure that ports like Southampton continue to grow and continue to offer fantastic services through the cruise sector, and part of that is making sure that we get the grid connections right. But it's also about making sure that people who live in coastal communities benefit from the enormous opportunities, improved port connections can bring. The Lib Dem spokesman encourages me to make spending commitments from from this despatch box, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint him today, but I am very interested in his point around rail freight connectivity from London Gateway and those three miles.
That's, of course, more clearly within the remit of Lord Hendy and the other place. But if he would write to me about it, I'd be very interested to engage with it on him further from a maritime perspective. The Shadow Secretary of State as well was characteristically strong in his advocacy for the Port of Tilbury, which I had a real pleasure to visit recently, and I do take his point very seriously on board about implementation of E. S. We continue to work with our EU partners and member states to encourage pragmatism.
Whenever queues build to reduce the impact for UK travellers and operators, and I can assure him that I'm working very closely with my counterparts in the Fcdo and the Home Office to ensure that we deal with those problems as they arise. But the impact of our ports cannot be underestimated. Around 85% of the goods that cross UK borders pass through them. The fundamentals of everyday life, the food that we eat, the clothes that we wear, the energy that we rely on, they all arrive by sea.
Ports are also major employers for our coastal communities. They support around 30,000 direct jobs, and latest figures show 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 make sure that the proceeds of that growth are spread, spread more equitably among the coastal communities that members represent. This is why last year, ports were recognised as a foundational industry, and the government's industrial strategy.
But that was in no small part, a recognition that is down to the swathes of investment that UK ports are already making, with £6 billion committed across the country since 2020, government is working hard to match that appetite for growth through the National Wealth Fund. Although I've heard some of the limitations that exist in terms of the inevitability of propositions before that organization, £5.8 billion is being directed toward five priority sectors, backing projects that face the greatest barrier to finance. Earlier this month, the fund announced £200 million for ports, the largest single investment it has made in the sector to date.
And last year, government announced a further £448 million for the UK shore programme, helping innovators across maritime to develop sustainable technology, including improving grid connections at UK ports. But 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, and that is why we will soon publish the revised National Policy Statement for ports, providing greater certainty to those proposing new developments. And may I just put on record my thanks to the Transport Select Committee for their robust scrutiny of the statement, which we have done our level best to include in our editions, and updating to the statement itself.
We're 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. But 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. And from the Lower Thames crossing in the south to the TransPennine route upgrade in the north, the government is pouring billions into improving ports 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 to see a 75% increase in rail freight by 2050. That is alongside the duty that exists to promote rail freight within the bill. And as we invest in growth and connectivity, we must also ensure that the sector is ready to meet its climate commitments. The maritime Decarb strategy doubles down on our mission to build a greener future.
Setting clear targets and guiding principles to help us get there. Last year, we ran a call for evidence to understand ports current and future energy needs, and 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 this 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'd like to close by once again thanking my hon. Friend the member for Truro and Falmouth for securing this debate, and for all the honourable and right honourable members who have made such considered contributions. Thank you, chair.
16:23
16:23
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for chairing today. And thank you to all the members who have come from all edges of the country and spoken so beautifully about their ports. And it does seem there are themes, obviously, that have come out. And I do thank the Minister for addressing, um, pretty much all of them. Firstly, of course, is rail. That rail freight growth target is really welcome and we need to make sure it happens.
The grid really important to speed up those grid connections. We're all looking at about ten years for connecting our ports to the grid. And that's just simply not good enough. And then planning, um, ports being national infrastructure that I do see moves in planning, even in my own port in Falmouth. And those are really good innovations. But I suppose my main plea is to look at how we unlock investment in our ports. Um, talking about the flexibility of public investment from the National Wealth Fund and how we build the confidence in our ports and the revenue that may be coming from those new green energy, um, businesses and industries to unlock and allow private investment to simply flood in because it's there, it wants to do it.
It just needs the confidence, um, to be able to do that. So thank you all for coming today. And, um, I really hope that when we next come here by the next election, that our ports are all up to, um, up to speed and things are flowing in and out.
The grid really important to speed up those grid connections. We're all looking at about ten years for connecting our ports to the grid. And that's just simply not good enough. And then planning, um, ports being national infrastructure that I do see moves in planning, even in my own port in Falmouth. And those are really good innovations. But I suppose my main plea is to look at how we unlock investment in our ports. Um, talking about the flexibility of public investment from the National Wealth Fund and how we build the confidence in our ports and the revenue that may be coming from those new green energy, um, businesses and industries to unlock and allow private investment to simply flood in because it's there, it wants to do it.
It just needs the confidence, um, to be able to do that. So thank you all for coming today. And, um, I really hope that when we next come here by the next election, that our ports are all up to, um, up to speed and things are flowing in and out.
16:25