Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee takes note of the initial proposal for an amended National Policy Statement for Ports.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to open this debate. National policy statements set out the primary legal framework for planning decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects, with the Planning Inspectorate providing the examining authority. In the case of ports, they will normally also incorporate a deemed marine licence, on advice from the Marine Management Organisation.
In July 2024, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a review of relevant national policy statements to provide greater clarity for applicants and decision-makers. In the case of ports, a review had already been announced under the previous Administration, and this Government agreed that the review was indeed justified according to the criteria in Section 6 of the Planning Act 2008. The extant National Policy Statement for Ports was designated in 2012, and a great deal has happened institutionally, empirically and policy-wise since then.
The National Policy Statement for Ports initially applied to the whole of England and Wales, but following the Wales Act 2017 it now applies only to England—plus Milford Haven, which is a reserved trust port as defined in the Act. Nevertheless, we have sought to make sure that the national policy statement will continue to take full account of institutional and regulatory differences in Wales, where relevant.
The initial proposed revised national policy statement for ports was laid in Parliament on 4 June 2025 and published for public consultation, alongside an appraisal of sustainability and habitats regulations assessment. When I refer to the national policy statement for ports from now on, I will mean this initial proposed revised version unless the context indicates otherwise.
In parallel with this publication, the department issued revised port freight demand forecasts for the whole of the United Kingdom, and these forecasts are quoted in the revised national policy statement for ports. The forecasts, very briefly, predict substantial demand-driven growth in unit load traffic—in roll-on roll-off and containers primarily—alongside a continuing decline in liquid bulks, particularly reflecting the changing energy generation mix. The consultation closed on 29 July 2025, and 38 responses were received—not a great number, but including numerous seriously considered suggestions for detailed amendments from respondents closely engaged with the sector. We are considering these and will issue a formal response in due course and revise the draft national policy statement for ports as necessary.
One message that has come through from many respondents, aside from the drafting of the NPSP, is the need for promoting wider familiarity with it, especially among local authorities, in view of its relevance to other consenting regimes, as well as for development consent orders under the Planning Act, for which it sets the statutory framework.
In another place, the Transport Select Committee is currently scrutinising the proposed national policy statement for ports and will publish its report by 14 November, the end of the relevant period that has been stipulated. The committee took written submissions up to 1 August and held oral hearings on 10 and 16 September. After the committee has reported, the Secretary of State will formally respond to its report, as prescribed by the Planning Act. The Government then aim to lay the national policy statement for ports in its final form for its statutory 21 sitting-day consideration period. I look forward to hearing all the contributions to today’s debate. I beg to move.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, we are a maritime nation. I first understood the importance of this in my role as Transport Minister in the previous Government, when I was given one of those responsibilities that nobody else really wanted—to look after the EU exit preparedness work.
In that role, I also got another dodgy promotion; I was promoted to be the Minister for Kent, despite representing beautiful Redditch in Worcestershire. My brief was to keep cross-channel traffic moving via Dover Port and to support hauliers. In that capacity, I brought forward the heavy commercial vehicles in Kent orders underpinning Operation Brock and the Kent access permit to protect communities and keep trade flowing. When France closed its border a day or so before Christmas that year, the “Keep Dover Clear” plan helped to restore movement and clear thousands of HGVs. Little did I know that, in that role, I would suddenly become an expert in ordering Portaloos for lorry drivers to be situated at the side of all the dual carriageways. I hope they will thank me now. I will end this digression, but I hope it illustrated why I know how important not only Dover but our other ports are. As many noble Lords have said, these vital arteries handle around £122 billion worth of trade in a normal year. A delay at one port can impact the movement of people and freight across the UK.
This debate is not a political hot potato; we all want to give our ports the certainty to invest. Their success means supply chain resilience, lower costs for British consumers and, of course, growth and jobs. This statement brings a much-needed update to the planning framework for our ports. I know that it has been widely welcomed by the port sector, which I commend for its pragmatism and flexibility over the years. I also add my support for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, with his detailed, front-line commercial business experience and his industry background. I really look forward to the Minister’s response to the gaps in this policy that the noble Lord highlighted. I will broadly base my comments in this debate on the evidence given by the sector, Ministers and officials in the hearings before the Transport Select Committee, which highlighted a few gaps and missed opportunities.
We all know that in any planning policy the overriding objective should be to balance planning acceleration, clarity and certainty with community consultation and any adverse impacts on coastal ecosystems and residents. I very much agree with some of the points made about the lack of linkage and read-across to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will shortly return to this House for Report. In my opinion, and as noted by the committee, there is no interaction in this policy statement with the proposed new environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levies proposed in that Bill. For example, it is not clear whether EDPs would provide a model for or supersede the ideas around the proposal for maritime net gain. Investors want certainty and clarity on this point, so would paying into an EDP interact with the ports-specific marine licensing and the habitats regulations assessment?
The draft policy statement could also do more to guide applicants and decision-makers through the interplay among the myriad environmental plans and designations that are now in place, which give the marine context such extraordinary complexity. To name just some, we have: marine protected areas, highly protected marine areas, the water framework directive regulations and the associated EA guidance Clearing the Waters for All, the Marine Strategy Regulations, the Environmental Targets (Marine Protected Areas) Regulations 2022 and the environmental improvement plan 2023 targets for designated features in MPAs. Can the Minister explain whether an explicit map will be created or whether this will be simplified in guidance, regulations or legislation?
Next, I address the issue of demand and capacity. The draft statement states that, if all the already consented development schemes were built out, aggregate container capacity would be broadly in line with the “pre-recession forecast for demand”. This reference is to the recession of 2008-09, which intervened between the demand forecasts for the previous NPS and its subsequent adoption in 2012. In the view of some witnesses, this is an unnecessary historical hangover and should be removed or updated given major trade events since then and the availability of DfT forecasts from 2025. The draft recognises that additional and alternative developments might be beneficial for competition and flexibility. Of course, this is important in order not to close the door on a supportive needs case for new container development. We know the Government believe that, to encourage the total port capacity in any sector, it must exceed forecast overall demand if the sector is to remain competitive and resilient. Will the Minister look again at those capacity forecasts?
On the environment, we have been told by witnesses that there are air quality tests, BNG and the maritime net gain that I referred to earlier. Industry wants a single playbook across the many designations to cut duplication and delay. Noble Lords have also spoken about the multitude of pages and reports that are necessary for planning applications.
There is something referred to as the FLOW gap in this document. While offshore wind, in the NPS EN-3, often treats energy infrastructure with a high priority, the ports needed to supply it are not afforded the same elevated designation in this ports NPS. Floating offshore wind loading requires heavy lift cranes, large quays with wide access channels, wet storage and high-load berths. Many ports do not have these, so the upgrade demands are intensive. Will the Minister review the supporting policy statements and the support for this critical opportunity?
This policy statement also says that we should update the national policy statements every five years and streamline consultation. Witnesses said that the ports NPS should say that explicitly and set concise theme-based consultation expectations for applicants, so they can truly benefit from the time savings that Parliament intended.
I have one final point. There is a suggestion, with which I agree, that the NPSP should apply fully to Section 35 directed projects. This was heard by the committee, where witnesses highlighted the ambivalent treatment of Section 35 cases and urged a clear line: if a ports project is brought into the Planning Act regime by direction, the ports NPS should apply in full.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments on all of those points and thank noble Lords for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It is fitting that, in calling the debate, the House has recognised the importance of the port sector in England and the UK as a whole. Our ports are essential to our trade and our economy, and it is important that they should have a stable, clear planning framework that respects commercial judgment and the competitive setting that has successfully nurtured investment over the years, while at the same time providing for not only environmental protection but environmental enhancement.
Noble Lords will recognise the consultative nature of the draft policy and of this Grand Committee debate, and the range of representations made across the consultation and in the hearings of the Transport Select Committee in the other place. All of those will be considered by the Secretary of State. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I was not going to take the time of this Committee or test the patience of those attending it, some of whom are very well versed in ports, by going through the document in detail. I will attempt to deal with many of the points that have been raised, but, for any that I fail to deal with, I will write.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others raised important points about energy supply, power supply and new technologies. I listened carefully to what he said, because it was very well argued. The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Greenway, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, also raised those points. We will go away and further consider this. There are energy national policy statements that will deal with the supply of energy, and the Government are working with the energy supply companies, but I very much take on board the rapidly changing nature of energy supply and, therefore, the need for this policy to recognise those opportunities and for us as a nation and the Government to take advantage of what ports can propose to do. The answer to the question of whether we are open-minded to all forms of new energy is that we are; some are immature and therefore need to evolve, but it would be daft, frankly, not to have regard to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Fuller, and others about taking this in hand.
I recognise the extensive experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, at Harwich. We must do this national strategy now because it has not been done since 2012. There is an opportunity to do something more fundamental in the future, but, having not had one for 13 years, the Government intend to get it more up to date to enable port development to be more easily examined through the planning processes and hence go forward more quickly than it otherwise might have done. I take the point, also made by others, that it could be more fundamentally reworked, but the Government are committed to doing something now because, although I hear criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and others, the previous Government do not seem to have had regard to this strongly. They started the process but did not finish it, and our job is to finish this sooner rather than later and then do it regularly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and other noble Lords raised the matter of connectivity to ports. As in other boundary areas between this and the national policy statements, we must take a view on what is covered in which area. I absolutely recognise the proposition that ports need good road and rail connections. As she and other noble Lords will know, we were challenged in the rail enhancements programme simply by the current state of the economy. Proposals that would improve freight routes to ports were not taken forward, but they have not been removed from the plans for ever; they will be considered further. In the meantime, there is consideration of further rail connections at London Gateway—I spoke to DP World about them the other day—so we are thinking about those areas and recognise the importance of those connections. The use of port master plans is primarily for early engagement with communities and planning authorities. We will think further about how much more useful they might be. I recognise what the noble Baroness said.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, referred to important issues around security. We fully agree that, with the current state of international relations and modern technology, we should be very mindful of security. Indeed, this policy is designed fully to include security considerations. He referred to the recent ship collision in the North Sea; it was an unfortunate collision but it was not motivated by security considerations, although we obviously recognise that it could have been. We are mindful of that.
We are also mindful of the need for local authorities to recognise the importance of ports. Indeed, one of the strengths in renewing this document is our renewed commitment to draw this issue to the attention of appropriate local authorities so that they are fully engaged with the development and importance of ports —including the critical nature of ports for all communities in Britain, particularly in the communities where they are placed.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, clearly has intimate knowledge of this sector; I recognise and respect what he says. He is, as many people who are close to these subjects might be, more critical of how this works in practice and how it might work. The best thing I can do is take away his detailed comments and consider them carefully, bearing in mind his long and current experience. I would say that there is no legal impediment to long leases—take, for example, the recent development in Southampton—but I am not going to challenge anything he says, other than to say that the Government are anxious to make the best of this. We will listen carefully to what he has to say. The intention of this policy is to make port development easier and better. We will reflect carefully on what the noble Lord has to say and see what we can do about the points that he raises.
I welcome the general support given by a number of noble Lords in this discussion. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, raised the relationship with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The answer to this is that the Government intend to make things easier to do. This is very complicated; it is not a subject that has been tackled by previous Governments, but this Government are determined to do it. The relationship between these proposals and elements of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill needs to be considered carefully. The final ports strategy will relate to, and be relevant to, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which noble Lords will recognise is going through this House as we speak.
There is a point about the use of forecasts, which is that the forecasts in here are those from Government, but they are not constraints—a point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Applicants are welcome to make their own forecasts. The Government should have some forecasts about port usage, but there is no universal knowledge, so applicants are welcome to make their own. We are going to think about doing more with floating offshore wind farms. The point about FLOW from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, and others is well taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about Scotland, which has its own policies so this document does not and should not refer to it. He too referred to the interaction with other policies. We must draw a line somewhere about which national policy statements deal with which issues, and we are expecting the energy national policy statement.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to grid capacity, which I mentioned before. The Government are working with power suppliers. It is clearly an important part of the Government’s energy policy to have enough capacity on the grid and the connections into places that need it in order to supply the power that is so obviously needed, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others referred.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, asked me to reflect on the connection between this national policy statement for ports and the industrial strategy, and I will do so. She raised several other matters that I have already dealt with in terms of onward transport and the capacity of road and, in particular, rail. She raised the matter of the Crown Estate; the department works closely with it. She also raised offshore wind, on which I have already commented. I recognise that she also raised some points about the connection between this policy statement and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We will go away and make sure that the statement is consistent with the outcome of that Bill’s consideration in the House.
The intention of the national policy statement is to make it easier for applicants who want to expand ports to do so. That has to be considered at the point of revising the statement. It is not the intention—other noble Lords suggested that it might be—to make this more complex. The outcomes of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and of this national policy statement are clearly designed to enable those who own and operate ports to more easily expand them in order to deal with the commercial development of port traffic.
Finally, the glass of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is definitely half empty this afternoon. I do not recognise some of the things that he is talking about. In any event, I should say to him very quietly but probably persistently, that if the previous Government thought that this was so bad and that the fragmentation of the planning system prevented the commercial development of ports, they could have done something rather more about it in their term of office than they did. Starting this process off, which is obviously the right thing to do after not having an updated statement for 13 years, is designed to make development easier and improve the commerce of this country, and hence its economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked me three direct questions at the end, the first of which was: are the forecasts contestable? Yes, they are, and applicants are welcome to use their own forecasts. Secondly, he asked: will the Government take steps on electricity costs and grid connections? They will and I have said that the Government are working with power suppliers. Thirdly, he made a comparison of this with the Chancellor’s Statement in March. The answer is that there is no inconsistency at all. The intention of revising this policy statement is to produce a clearer playing field for port expansion and development. That is exactly what the Chancellor was talking about in terms of developing trade in this country. It has not been done for 13 years. It should have been done; it is being done now, and this is the right thing to do.