Oral Answers to Questions

Noah Law Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

We need to ensure that regional airports like Exeter and Newquay have the connectivity into larger airports that they need. Through our consultation on the Heathrow expansion national policy statement, we were dedicated and focused on how to increase that connectivity via either public service obligation connections or routes into the airport through a regional fund to better facilitate those connections. More broadly, whether it be through airspace modernisations to facilitate better connectivity or by ensuring that regional airports are better protected against fluctuations in the price of jet fuel, the Government are committed to taking comprehensive action to support the sector, recognising that it can serve as a catalyst both for economic growth and for the economic connectivity for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents that he rightly points to.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Earlier this year, we saw an issue with Cornwall council being unable to secure any eligible bids for its public service obligation service from Newquay airport. Since then, the council has been scrabbling around trying to secure new commercial routes, which is very welcome and much needed. What consideration has the Minister given to more flexible PSO arrangements that might allow airports such as Newquay to bid in with a more commercial outlook on how we get that support?

[Keir Mather]

PSO routes are crucial to connecting areas of the country such as Cornwall, which serve as regional economic catalysts to the nation’s capital. I note that since the end of the London-Newquay PSO in April, commercial connectivity has been retained, but I know that my hon. Friend is eager to see this work go further. The Department remains open to continued engagement with Cornwall council and options to maintain connectivity, and I will bear in mind his points about more flexibility in PSO arrangements as part of those discussions.

E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

Noah Law Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate, and in particular for underlining the potential impact of catastrophic injuries from such illegal vehicles.

I will add a couple of other problems resulting from the lack of regulation in this area. There has been a reduction in sales of legal e-bikes—surely not something that we want—because of the proliferation of illegal ones. Unfortunately, we are also seeing links with exploitation in the gig economy and with criminality. There has been a catastrophic drop in the sales of L1 category motorbikes too.

This problem is symbolic of people’s sense of a lack of control over their local area. It is exactly the kind of thing that the Prime Minister is getting a grip on right now, and it is important that we show leadership. My questions are all about solutions. First, when will the Department for Transport release its research into illegal e-bikes and food delivery? I believe it is due in the spring. Will the Department push for parliamentary time to talk about that?

Secondly, what progress has there been on the national work-related road safety charter? Can we see some details of that? Thirdly, we need more control over the supply chain and sales of illegal e-bikes, e-scooters and conversion kits. We need oversight and enforcement. One mechanism for that would be through the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025—a number of Members have been pushing for that. It has been three months since the consultation on that; when are we going to see some outcomes?

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am sorry, but I will not, because I want to be fair to everybody else.

Finally, can we please have a commitment from the Department for Transport to convene other Departments on this issue? I know that the Minister cares passionately about local people having control over their area, as he has shown in every role he has undertaken. With his Department, will he take the initiative to bring together all the Departments concerned about this problem, and will he do so before Christmas and make a big splash about it, so that people hear about it in the media and do not buy their kids these dangerous products and kits for Christmas, leading to the kinds of injuries that we have heard about?

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Within my constituency, the communications I recently held with residents on antisocial behaviour highlighted major concerns about e-bikes and other powered bikes being ridden not just around town, but in abandoned china clay pits, on footpaths and along other rights of way. My constituents rightly raised concerns about safety and the impact of antisocial behaviour, where rules are deliberately ignored by riders, on those shared spaces.

Those concerns should not be dismissed; our constituents are right to expect the law to be enforced effectively, so I welcome the Government’s additional powers to seize and dispose of dangerous vehicles being used unlawfully, and the wider efforts to tackle the sale of unsafe and illegal products. Those measures should help us to ensure that the enforcement agencies can respond much more effectively.

At the same time, however, there is a wider point to contribute to this debate, particularly when it comes to young people. Many young people are drawn to e-bikes because of the freedom, the independence and the sense of community that they offer. That interest in itself is not a problem to be regulated, as strict as we must be in some of the other measures we have described today; it can be channelled into sports, into skills, into training and volunteering opportunities.

I highlight the work of the Cornwall Bicycle Project in Par, which provides those vital skills and the volunteering and community engagement opportunities, engaging people from a wide range of backgrounds, including those who have struggled in mainstream education and are looking for routes into employment and training. The model ensures that the enthusiasm for e-bikes can be channelled in a positive way: it can offer a practical route into learning new skills, it can build confidence and responsibility, and it can create connections within those communities.

Lastly, I recognise the role that Imerys has played more broadly in supporting access to nature, outdoor recreation and sports within the china clay area—but it should not be down to one company to solve this huge issue in our area. Local authorities, police, business, community organisations and education providers need to be supported by our Government in a strategic manner to play their part.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

We now come to the Front-Bench speeches.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

Noah Law Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Samantha Dixon (Chester North and Neston) (Lab)]

It may not be a matter of interest, but for the record and for transparency, my niece works in the aviation industry.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the chair for the all-party parliamentary group on aviation.

[The Chair]

We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses and schedules have been selected and how amendments have been grouped together for debate. The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group will be called first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate if they wish to speak in the current debate by bobbing. Please bob on each occasion on which you wish to speak during the proceedings.

At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or the new clause or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment to a vote—that includes grouped new clauses—that is at the Chair’s discretion. My fellow Chairs and I will use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following the debates on relevant amendments.

I remind Members that decisions are taken in the order in which they appear on the Bill. That means that some amendments may be decided on considerably later than the point at which they are debated. I hope that explanation is helpful.

Clause 1

Air transport and airport services: rights and duties

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for her amendments 8 and 9. Taken together, they would require regulations made under clause 1 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. As such, I will address them together.

I agree that regulations made under the Bill’s powers must receive proper parliamentary scrutiny. The question is not whether Parliament should scrutinise them, but what level of scrutiny is proportionate to their nature and effect. Clause 1 deliberately provides for a split approach, ensuring that Parliament’s time is focused where the potential impact is greatest. Some regulations may make only minor or technical changes—for instance, updating the name of an organisation—and it would not be proportionate to require an affirmative debate in every such case.

By contrast, regulations creating criminal offences or financial penalties could have a significant effect on businesses and individuals, and the Bill rightly reserves the affirmative procedure for those measures. The amendments would therefore apply the highest levels of scrutiny, irrespective of the substance of the regulations, placing unnecessary demands on parliamentary time without improving oversight.

[Noah Law]

Does the Minister find it as curious as I do that the Conservative party tabled amendment 5? It is all about having a smaller state, more effective regulation and competition in the aviation industry, but requiring the affirmative procedure for such matters would put us out of whack with other markets.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

Noah Law Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

It was a pleasure to visit Bristol airport to see its impressive and ambitious plans to facilitate new international routes and to modernise its terminals. It wants more people to use the airport, so it is incumbent on us all to think about how we can best facilitate that. With the new Prime Minister’s increased focus on pushing power out into every local community in the United Kingdom, local mayors and local authorities will also have an enormous role to play in ensuring that we have the right public transport connectivity to our airports so that more people can benefit from being able to travel cheaply and comfortably to airports in their local areas.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Similarly to my hon. Friends who have just spoken, we have serious issues at Newquay airport about connectivity, so I welcome the suggestion on local transport connectivity that promoting alternative modalities will be part of the review, but to what extent will the Minister join up that review with the other work he is doing more broadly to support smaller regional airports through, for example, the review of the public service obligation, which is so necessary for airports like Newquay to be able to bid in a more flexible way?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that PSOs serve as a lifeline for many regional airports, and provide important economic and business connectivity to the nation’s capital from many regions of the United Kingdom, including his own, which is serving as a catalyst for regional economic growth. We of course need to think about the intersection of these questions, and how we can work with local mayors to create robust public transport systems that can get people to the places they want to go, to facilitate economic growth across the entire United Kingdom. My hon. Friend makes the point well.

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 6, which seeks to require the Government to publish proposals for a cap on airport drop-off charges within six months of Royal Assent, and to specify that the cap must be £5. The Government have committed to reviewing the impact on airport users within 12 months of Royal Assent. The new clause would cut across that proposal by requiring the Government to bring forward proposals for a specific £5 cap before the review had completed, effectively predetermining the outcome before evidence had been adequately considered. For those reasons, I cannot support the new clause and ask the hon. Gentleman not to press it to a vote.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

Noah Law Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I understand what my right hon. Friend and other colleagues across the House are saying about the need for independent oversight, particularly on the aviation side, but on the consumer side, does he agree that when the CAA works, it really does work, as in the case of the constituent of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade)? Therefore, does he agree that is absolutely right for the Government to bring forward those powers for consumer protection?

[John McDonnell]

I fully agree, and let me also say that wheelchair compensation is significant in this legislation. Most of us have dealt with cases like that.

Going back to accountability in the process, a number of different organisations have provided us with notes on the legislation. The Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, which I have worked with for over 20 years now, provided us with a helpful note. HACAN reminds us that when the CAA sets out airspace changes, the CAA oversees the progress of the stages and approves whether the consultation—its own consultation—has been adequate or not. In addition, it decides whether the proposals may proceed. It operates its own complaints route, and complaints on issues around airspace are almost impenetrable. The CAA has immense power, and it seems to be a law unto itself in many instances. It has been said in the House today that the lack of consultation is one of its main vulnerabilities.

New flight paths are already being prepared, discussed and considered. In the Heathrow expansion, when Heathrow puts forward its plan for a third runway, it will not be Heathrow that says what the flight paths will be. It cannot be; it is now the airport service that has been set up under NATS. In all my experience with Heathrow, I have never known a thorough and adequate consultation process to take place with regard to the development of airport routes.

I was hoping that we might get more detail in the legislation. That is why I come back to the issue of the Secretary of State’s document, which could be a really powerful mechanism. We could determine, through debates here—therefore, instructions to the Secretary of State—how the CAA will operate in the future.

On the environment, I feel that there is a real lack of firm duties and responsibilities set out in the legislation and guidance procedure that takes into account the health and wellbeing of people and communities. Reference has been made to noise. I cannot believe that we are still in the same situation where we have different noise criteria used in different mechanisms when it comes to decisions being taken. The Gatwick and Luton developments are using two different criteria—two different levels—from which they place the restrictions.

I have gone through the debates and discussions we have had over time and, as some hon. Members will know, we have gone from 57 dB to 53 dB, and then to 43 dB, which is the World Health Organisation’s figure—for the life of me, I do not understand why we do not respect its expertise in all this—and we apply different measures for different decisions, which are driven largely by factors other than the health consequences for people and the impact of noise.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) mentioned the all-party parliamentary group meeting we had on Monday, when we received the latest research. May I put on record my thanks to Dr Charlotte Clark, professor of environmental epidemiology and population health? She has done research on all of this over the years and is the expert. She looked at some of the health implications at the lowest levels of noise that we have been debating, and there was an element of shock for some of us: we knew about the cardiovascular impact, but we now know much more about the impact on mental health in particular.

One of the issues that has come out of our discussions—this includes the Heathrow expansion consultation—is that the latest research on noise and health impacts has not been sufficiently monetised in the discussions and consultations that have taken place. So decision making—particularly on the latest Heathrow expansion proposals—could be on the basis of health impact monetisation as a result of increased noise whose level should be perhaps four times what the Government have put forward so far.

Our constituents are becoming increasingly aware of the health impacts of noise in particular and are demanding greater protections However, from the legislation we are debating, I cannot see how those greater protections will be translated unless we have a stronger capacity in this House to determine the guidance given to the CAA and the parameters set for it in the decision-making process.

I will give hon. Members this example of the debates that have taken place. For the aviation policy framework, we dealt with 57 dB. For the survey of noise attitudes, we looked at 54 dB. We then went to 51 dB and, as I said, 43 dB in the aviation noise attitudes survey and the aviation night-time noise effects study analyses, which relate to the World Health Organisation. We cannot keep going on without a proper noise standard applicable across our whole decision-making process that reflects the latest research on health impacts. I do not think we are there at the moment.

I am pleased with the legislation, because there are some meritorious proposals that will no doubt improve the passenger experience, but it really does not take into account the community experience and the impact it will have. That is why the running theme is that somehow— I will table amendments with others—we have got to get a greater level of accountability, a greater level of transparency and a greater level of empowerment of those communities who are impacted. The proposal by the hon. Member for Horsham for an ombudsman is one mechanism that could be used and could be helpful as a longstop. At the moment, when people in my constituency are faced with these problems, they do not know where to go; it is as simple as that.

Finally, the debate that we will have on Heathrow expansion and the new policy statement will be interesting, given that we do not know what the flight paths will be. If I was a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), I would be extremely worried.

In my constituency, because the flights are largely east-west and west-east, we have the bizarre situation that they affect Longford where, when the aircraft fly over you feel like throwing yourself to the floor, and they affect a number of the Heathrow villages, but they do not as yet impact on the centre of my constituency. We now have the risk that the flight paths might well do that. So, again, we are talking about maybe another 1 million or so people being impacted by the development of Heathrow, yet in our debate in this House about the policy statement we will not have certainty about those flight paths. That cannot be right when making such a major decision. That is why I am hoping that when the Committee meets and when we come back on Report we can have a sensible debate about the sort of amendments that can be brought forward on that theme of accountability, because if we can increase accountability, we can increase confidence in Government decision making on this issue in the long term.

I agree with hon. Members who have raised the importance of aviation to our economy. Of course it is important; it employs a large number of my constituents, and we are trying to make sure that we create aviation capacity that is economically beneficial to the country while protecting our constituents’ health and wellbeing overall.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the newly elected chair of the all-party group on aviation.

I welcome the steps taken by our Labour Government today to improve accessibility and protections for disabled airline passengers, to bolster consumer protections, and to simplify the legislative framework, and in doing so to boost our economy and the aviation sector more broadly. We have heard a lot today about the potential benefits of that. There are benefits as much as there are increased obligations for carriers, but I would be keen to hear more from the Minister in his winding up about some of the benefits that we can unlock on the airport and infrastructure side as well, because we have heard today from colleagues representing other small regional airports about the compliance costs associated with that. I would be interested to hear from Ministers how this Bill could address that, and what other support the Department could put in place to help small regional airports, such as Cornwall Airport Newquay in my constituency and a neighbouring constituency.

We know in the case of Cornwall Airport Newquay that the Cornwall Council approach has chopped and changed. As Ministers have heard before, that is deeply unhelpful, but only by improving the passenger experience, as this Bill doubtless does, will we be able to encourage improved passenger footfall and boost revenues to support the sustainability of airports such as Cornwall Airport Newquay.

I thank the Minister for the steps that Cornish MPs have already heard about in relation to the public service obligation. I appreciate that Ministers have left the door open to Cornwall council to continue or restart those conversations, should it be able to bring eligible bids forward in the future. That is really important, because as much as we can all work to promote commercial conversations with various airlines—and new routes have been introduced on the back of that—it is only through support for regional airports and by improving the passenger experience, as I know this Bill will do, will we boost the use of those airports.

We have also heard of the importance of transport connectivity—integrated transport. I know that this Government’s devolution programme and the extension of bus franchising, such as the work we are doing with Cornwall council, should prove fertile ground for improving links where councils choose to take up those powers and use them constructively. I use this opportunity, perhaps shamelessly so, to be an advocate for regional airports and the connectivity they provide to basket-case situations, as we see in Cornwall’s current transport links. I call on the Minister to go beyond these great steps that he is taking today to support regional airports such as mine in Newquay.

Ports and Port Connectivity

Noah Law Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered ports and port connectivity.

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

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

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

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

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

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

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

[Jayne Kirkham]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Noah Law]

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

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Noah Law Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

14. What steps she is taking to help ensure that the transport system supports economic growth.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

18. What steps she is taking to help ensure that the transport system supports economic growth.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)]

Transport is a key enabler of economic growth. That is why we are investing £92 billion to maintain and modernise our roads and railways, deliver major projects such as HS2 and East West Rail, and support leaders in our towns and cities. This will unlock productivity and support a thriving UK economy, enabling over 39,000 new homes and 42,000 new jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Alexander]

I sympathise with my hon. Friend. Some parts of the country have been held back by poor transport links from years of Tory underfunding. I am pleased, though, that with this Labour Government, Staffordshire has been allocated more than £39 million this year in highways maintenance funding, plus £92 million in local transport grant from 2026 onwards. It is now up to the local authority to use that funding to deliver for its residents, and I know he will continue to press it to do so.

[Noah Law]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the recent boost to the local transport grant for my constituents in mid-Cornwall, but one of the barriers to more transformative rail investment in Cornwall remains a lack of shovel-ready projects to proceed with, which I have been talking about with residents in the western clay country and Fowey. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that we can get Cornwall’s railways back on track?

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity to talk with me about the importance of improving the transport system for his constituents. Through the local transport grant, Cornwall council will receive more than £25 million, which local leaders can use to support schemes in line with local priorities. We will issue guidance later this year so that local authorities can decide how to use their multi-year allocations, and I encourage my hon. Friend to take up this cause with his local council.

Rural Railway Stations: Step Free Access

Noah Law Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. Accessibility on our railways is not simply a question of engineering and infrastructure development; it speaks to the kind of society that we want to build: one that enables independence and provides equality of opportunity and dignity for every passenger, regardless of their mobility.

Rural stations in particular can be lifelines for those who would otherwise find travel difficult, but as we have heard many remain inaccessible to those who need them the most. That is why I am delighted to mark the progress being made at Par station in my constituency. For many months, I have worked with Network Rail, Cornwall council and the Department for Transport to ensure that the long-promised accessible footbridge at Par remains part of the Mid Cornwall Metro scheme despite the significant pressures on the national Access for All programme, which may have proved useful.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

In my constituency, in Bookham, access to the train to London is via an uneven path through the woods. Network Rail has not prioritised accessibility upgrades. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must do more with accessibility schemes, like those he just mentioned?

[Noah Law]

I certainly agree that the Department for Transport and Network Rail must look where there are gaps in funding those schemes to see what can be done to help plug those gaps. As we have heard from hon. Members across the Chamber, the Access for All scheme has sadly come to represent the kind of pork barrel politics that characterised the last Government’s approach —and approach that said, “We will make plans that you will love but we’re not going to tell you how we will fund them.”

Happily, the outline work on the Par station project is completed, and local residents in Par are delighted, but project partners are preparing for a key go or no-go decision in December. There remains the £1.5 million additional funding gap that must be resolved if the scheme is to proceed to full design and delivery. I urge Cornwall council to make a final push to secure that investment so that much-needed step-free access can finally be delivered for local passengers. I urge the Minister to do everything that he can to help us get this project over the line. It represents not only an important improvement for residents but a clear demonstration that we can deliver the kind of change that so many have long hoped for.

Cornwall, with its dispersed population and its growing demand for greener and better-connected travel, stands to benefit greatly from that ambition. Investment in accessibility is not just an afterthought; it is central in ensuring that every part of the country, in urban and rural areas alike, shares equally in the economic and social opportunities that modern inclusive transport can unlock. Accessible public transport should not be seen as a luxury or an optional add-on; it is a basic expectation for every community, however rural. It deserves continued support across the rail network.

Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils

Noah Law Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

On the matter of parish councils, I recently met members of Staindrop parish council, who have been asking for more than a decade to have two crossing points at the entrance and exit to their beautiful village, which is on the main road between Bishop Auckland and Barnard Castle. Traffic often does not drop its speed down to 30 mph. Pensioners in Staindrop have said that they feel put off from doing something as simple as crossing the road to attend a social function because of their fear of crossing that road. It is a travesty that Staindrop parish council can ask for the same thing over and over again, but the highways authorities just keep saying no.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

As a proud Cornish MP, I am as strong an advocate as anyone for the role of parish and town councils. They have their eyes and ears on the ground, and understand where there is the most serious need for crossings, as my hon. Friend eloquently describes in his constituency. Does he agree that there is huge need for a crossing in Nansledan in my constituency, where the new Newquay strategic road has been built with little consideration for the flow of traffic coming into the village?

[Sam Rushworth]

I do not know if my hon. Friend needs a crossing in his constituency because I am not local to that area. But I will tell hon. Members who does know: his parish council and the people who live there. If that is what they are asking for, they should be listened to.

Department for Transport

Noah Law Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member asks a good question and the answer is that it is a mixture. It is the philosophy of devolution that is important because mayoral combined authorities in particular can deliver in ways that will be different according to their specific priorities and needs.

There has been a potential challenge to the Department in achieving national priorities. It is also worth noting that the main estimate for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provides additional funding for the West Midlands and Great Manchester combined authorities, so there are other pots of money from other Departments that mayors can pool together to put to best use for their authorities. Will the Minister set out what happens if a devolved institution diverges from departmental priorities, for example by opting not to fund active travel despite the Department’s objective to increase active travel?

The future introduction of place-based business cases, as set out in the spending review, has the potential to transform how Government think about the value and benefit of transport interventions and outcomes. When business cases are reformed along those lines, we look forward to seeing a difference in how the Government draw and think about those connections.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments about the importance of place-based transport investment. Does she share any of my concerns that some of that place-based transport investment is a little too urban and concentrated too much in mayoral combined authorities, and that there may be areas outside those regions where more transformational place-based investment is warranted?

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. One reason that the initial emphasis has been on mayoral combined authorities and urban areas is because work is already being done on such transport strategies, so they are often further ahead. Our buses inquiry deliberately focused on buses connecting communities away from the large urban areas. My hon. Friend is right that as local authorities have been stripped out over the past 15 years, much of that expertise among members and particularly among officers, just is not there, so there are often not the people needed to do that strategic work. I hope that will change and that when our buses inquiry report is published that element of the debate will be included.

I will move on to specific transport modes, starting with buses. Evidence to our Committee inquiry on buses connecting communities emphasised the value of bus services, and the need for measures to promote their use, especially in rural and suburban areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law]

The hon. Member is making a detailed and impassioned speech about the possibilities for transport investment throughout the country. Does he recognise the value of electrification of the Cornish main line? The benefit would be in the region of 10 times the cost, and there would be potential for a grid upgrade of the kind he mentioned.

[Olly Glover]

I agree that full electrification is the best solution for the Devon and Cornwall main line, and we can use battery trains on the branch lines once that has been done. I would welcome a longer conversation with the hon. Member, because I understand that the current thinking is for discontinuous electrification with batteries, which is not the right solution for that critical artery across Devon and Cornwall, given that there are dual carriageways, but the railway has had very little investment in the past 40 years.

Integrated transport is key to growing confidence in and therefore use of public transport. It improves interfaces between modes, as well as easing pressure on our creaking road network. The forthcoming Government integrated transport strategy is welcome, but it must address disintegrated timetables for the railways, buses and other forms of transport, baffling and expensive fare structures, unwelcoming bus stations, and the lack of walking and cycling routes. Integrated transport is how Switzerland achieves the highest rate of public transport use in Europe.

The key question for our transport system, which is so critical to our economy, our environment and social inclusion, is whether we want more of the same, or whether we want to create a transport system that really enables access to jobs, social mobility and economic change. Current plans suggest a little too much of the same, rather than a real change of course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

When we talk about national renewal and about building a fairer country, that promise must be visible in places such as Cornwall. I am speaking today not just as the Member of Parliament for St Austell and Newquay and the clay country, but on behalf of a nation and region that has for too long been overlooked when it comes to transport infrastructure. While urban areas receive wave after wave of capital funding, Cornwall—despite its strategic economic potential—has to fight for anything more than basic improvements.

The Mid Cornwall Metro was billed as a flagship rail project for regional regeneration, but this summer we face the real possibility of reduced services, delays in driver training, and a fractured promise to towns such as Newquay that rely on connectivity to survive and thrive. That is not fairness; it is failure. We must move beyond piecemeal, incremental improvements. A “real” Mid Cornwall Metro would link St Austell to Newquay via the western clay country, and is about as shovel-ready as is possible with a major project of that scale in Cornwall. It is backed by rigorous analysis and an albeit outdated feasibility study, and has a cost-benefit ratio of 2.3. It would connect our critical minerals industry with global opportunity, it would help our young people gain access to jobs and training, and it would breathe life into some of the most under-invested communities in the south-west.

We know there are still announcements to come, but Cornwall cannot sit at the back of the queue any longer. Over the period covered by the spending review, the south-west will receive £201 million in local transport grant funding. I think that is about a quadrupling of the present amount, which is extremely welcome, but just £24.4 million of it is allocated to Cornwall. In the same period, the West of England combined authority, despite its similar population, will receive £752 million. We should like to see the same progress on investment in transport as we have seen in so many other areas, such as local government—with its fair funding—and health, given today’s announcement about the Carr-Hill formula. What we need is a Department for Transport that works with us in Cornwall, not around us. We need proper devolved authority over our local rail system to optimise transport integration and to serve forgotten communities such as Foxhole, Nanpean, Treviscoe and St Dennis, where our track turns to trackbed; we need investment that reflects our economic and industrial ambition; and we need decisions that are based on public good, not on postcodes.

The Green Book review, in proposing place-based approaches to investment, sets our Government a clear challenge. Cornwall is ready to step up to that challenge. Much of the shadow of what we now see as our infrastructure was cast in the last industrial revolution, but with the right investment in Cornwall, we can lead in the next.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.