Ports and Port Connectivity

Debate between Christine Jardine and Jayne Kirkham

Thursday 25th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jayne Kirkham]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

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

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Christine Jardine and Jayne Kirkham

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jayne Kirkham]

As a fellow Co-operative Member, I agree that credit unions can do so much and are very important. I certainly agree that if members of the armed forces could be signposted towards them, that would be beneficial to them.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

As we are talking about services and access, figures show that fewer than 31% of female serving personnel register as veterans, which makes it much more difficult for them to access services, particularly if they have faced problems such as violence or bullying in the armed forces. Does the hon. Member think that more needs to be done to encourage female veterans to come forward?

[Jayne Kirkham]

We discussed in the Select Committee that some people simply did not consider themselves veterans for certain reasons, including those she gave or because they had not served for long. An awareness campaign is important so that people can understand that they are entitled to all these things; on leaving the military, a lot of people do not think about it again and they have no idea that these options are open to them. I certainly agree with the hon. Member.

We have talked a bit about SEND provision, and hon. Members here who sit on the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community know much more about that than me. I simply point out that we know our SEND provision has been broken for a long time and that a White Paper is coming, which should deal with and standardise some of these provisions so that people do not miss out. It will not be a postcode lottery—that is the ideal—and our SEND provision should improve so that whether someone is in Basingstoke, Shawbury or Cornwall, the provision they need will be there and will be transferable.

Finally, and briefly, I would like to attest to the importance of the veteran question in the census, as raised in the Select Committee and in our report. Data from the 2021 census has been vital for the local authorities, including in helping them to find some veterans. It has enabled them to understand where veterans are, the challenges they face, and how best to deliver and design services to meet their needs. Retaining the veteran question in 2031 would allow for standardisation and the ability to track changes in trends. The question has also been essential for veterans’ charities and organisations that rely on the evidence to bid for funding. I very much support its inclusion in the next census.

Cornwall has a proud military heritage. Many families have someone who served or is still serving, making extraordinary sacrifices to keep this country safe. They obviously deserve safe homes, fair treatment and a system that understands the unique demands of military life. I am pleased that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is included in the Bill and that I have played a tiny part in shaping it. I am also pleased that those who keep our armed forces moving around will be properly recognised and protected. As a Government, we promised to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and we are starting to deliver on that.