Ports and Port Connectivity

Debate between David Chadwick and Jayne Kirkham

Thursday 25th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jayne Kirkham]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

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

[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.