Airport Expansion

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Previous Questions in this House have dealt with the construction of the third runway in relation to carbon. The Government expect those two schemes, which are being taken forward, to demonstrate how carbon reduction applies not only to the construction of the runway itself but to the freight traffic and surface transport implications of the third runway. Those factors will be taken into account. There is no reason for the expansion of Gatwick—and, for that matter, of Stansted and Luton—to be incompatible with that of Heathrow. Heathrow is the UK’s only hub airport and deserves to be of a size that can increase economic growth for the whole country.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Following the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I would like to help the Minister. The current Airports National Policy Statement states that it expects Heathrow to have

“landside airport-related traffic … no greater than today”—

namely, in 2018, when the document was published. Can he state—I think this would help the noble Baroness —whether the same requirement will appear in the new airports national policy statement, which will appear next year and be the basis for the Heathrow expansion?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord will of course recognise that things should have moved on from 2018 but have not. This Government are determined for the first time to move forward with the expansion of the UK’s only hub airport. The statements made in the Airports National Policy Statement in 2018 will be reviewed in the light of the two proposals the Government are currently pursuing, and we will choose one of them before the end of November. The necessary alterations to the draft new airports national policy statement will be available next summer.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I am pleased to speak in the debate about this amendment order. As the Minister has set out, the order amends the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to bring land subject to the Railway Byelaws within the definition of relevant land to facilitate the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle parked in a station car park. This will bring simplicity. It brings railway car parks into line with other car parks, which will allow private parking operators to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle rather than just the driver for unpaid parking charges, which has been an anomaly for some time.

The consultation on this matter was launched in 2020, so I ask the Minister why it has taken over five years for this small order to appear before the House. It seems uncontroversial, and over five years seems a long time. I know that signage costs were one concern raised in the consultation, but the background note explains that budget provisions have been made to cover this, so that should not be a reason for the delay.

In principle, we welcome this rather technical change and the fact that a consultation took place. However, as anyone who has been an MP or an elected member of a council or an assembly knows, parking and parking fines are always controversial. MPs and councillors receive much casework expressing frustrations and problems with many car parking operators and providers, who often lack transparency and are unaccountable; they can sometimes seem unreasonable. Clear and new signage that is accessible is welcome, but what is the timescale for implementing the new code for private car park operators, which has been consulted on recently?

The public need to have confidence in the overall regulatory framework covering private car parking providers to ensure they have greater transparency and consistency, that they are not being unfairly penalised and that they have that forum for appeals when things have gone wrong. Will the Minister ensure that resources are in place so that operators comply with the forthcoming code, particularly regarding signage, fair changes and independent appeals?

Finally, I understand the Government’s assessment that a statutory review of these regulations was judged disproportionate. However, will the Minister commit to revisiting that decision if there is evidence of unforeseen consequences for operators or users of the relevant land from this order? I await the Minister’s response with interest.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, this instrument seeks to amend the Protection of Freedoms Act. The moment one sees a Labour Government fiddling with our freedoms, one is naturally anxious as to what they have in mind. That Act was one of the great achievements of the coalition Government—in fact, it was a Liberal Democrat-inspired achievement—from those happy days when the country was run by a quad of David, George, Nick and the red-headed guy, whoever that was, but now it is being amended, so one looks very carefully at what is proposed. In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, it is much less dramatic than it might be and it is, in essence, to do with enforcement at railway station car parks.

However, I have some questions. I am interested in the thinking and timing behind this order, particularly in how it fits with the proposed architecture of the rail reform Bill, which was published for the first time last week and is, therefore, now available to us so that we can scrutinise the Government’s plans for railway reform.

The basic position is that car parks at railway stations are currently covered by railway by-laws. What is wrong with that? It turns out that the by-laws are unsatisfactory in some respects. So it was open to the Government to come to this House with a view to amending the railway by-laws that govern station car parks—keeping it all within the railway family, if you like—but that is not in fact what they have done. The Department for Transport has not taken us down that track; instead, it is, in effect, outsourcing the whole matter to an MHCLG code of conduct. How does that fit with our plans for a single directing mind for railway infrastructure?

The department is also doing this at a very strange time because, again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, pointed out, the Government are in the process of consulting on a new code for the private enforcement of car parking. I believe that the consultation closed only in September, which is very recently. Of course, it is too early for MHCLG to have finished its consideration of that consultation or to have issued its plans for the future, so we do not know what we are actually being invited to impose on drivers who are parking their vehicles in railway station car parks.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, complained, quite rightly, that it has taken five years since the consultation was undertaken to bring this order forward. My complaint is that, now that it is coming forward, it is being done in a very rushed manner when, given where we are with the consultation on the code of conduct, it would be a great deal more sensible if the instrument were to wait until we knew what that code of conduct said. Indeed, one would have thought that the train operating companies currently being absorbed into the Department for Transport—that is, the train operating companies or Great British Railways, which is going to replace them—will want to know as much as I do about what the enforcement regime will look like, once the new code of practice is in place, before they relinquish their powers under statutory by-laws, which, as I understand it, the Minister can extinguish without reference to Parliament.

In general, if the Government want to do this, the Official Opposition will not stand in their way, I think, but this seems to me to be a very strange thing for the Government to want to do just at the time when they are putting in place a single directing mind covering all rail infrastructure—in effect, handing this over to a statutory structure that will be dominated by a parking code of practice which was issued by a different government department and which is not even available to us at the time when the Department for Transport is relinquishing these powers.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this draft order. I am grateful for the scrutiny and interest shown in ensuring that our railway and car parking legislation remains coherent and fit for purpose.

I will first respond to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. The consultation was launched a long time ago. Although I cannot account for periods of time before this Government were elected in mid-2024, it is clear that several factors around the cost of the change and how it would affect train operators’ revenue required resolution before this could proceed. As the noble Baroness remarked, these impacts are now funded and budgeted for, and this draft statutory instrument is being aligned, as has also been remarked on, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s private parking code of practice. In answer to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that is to avoid duplicate signage changes and ensure consistency across the parking industry. Although it has taken a long time, it is clearly the right thing to do.

Heathrow Airport: Third Runway

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Moylan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what information they intend to publish about the proposals they have received for a third runway at Heathrow Airport before announcing any major decisions.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, Heathrow expansion will support UK competitiveness and economic growth. In June, the Secretary of State invited proposals; several were received, and two remain under active consideration. My department will decide on a single scheme by the end of November to inform the Airports National Policy Statement review, which was launched on 20 October. Proposals will not be published by the department, in accordance with the Secretary of State’s letter of 30 June to potential promoters, though some have independently released details of their schemes.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, Heathrow expansion is an absolutely enormous project, and there has been remarkably little public engagement. Before deciding between the two remaining bidders, will the Government agree that they should engage in public consultation, particularly on the costs that will flow through to passengers as a result of the regulatory structure, so that they are aware?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The launch of the Airports National Policy Statement review on 22 October is one of the significant steps that the Government are taking to support the expansion of Heathrow. The review has begun before final scheme selection to allow early policy and analytical work. Public consultation will, of course, take place. Round tables with key stakeholders will be held during the review and consultation phases. The further DCO process afterwards will include statutory consultation and public examination.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

This is a landmark opportunity for Heathrow, for the aviation sector and for the UK economy. The Government remain fully committed to ensuring the expansion is delivered in a way that is timely, cost-efficient and environmentally responsible. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the Statement does two things: it announces a review of the Airports National Policy Statement, but gives us little idea in detail as to how it is to be revised, and it tells us that the only two credible proposals for Heathrow’s expansion are still being considered and that the more fanciful proposals have been dismissed. The two are linked because the core purpose of the current ANPS is to facilitate the expansion of Heathrow. In my view, the timing of the Statement is nakedly intended to persuade the OBR that the project is real and deliverable. I wish to test that.

First, there is the question of delivery of a revised ANPS, which I must say I think Ministers are rather reckless to embark on. The current Airports National Policy Statement was produced under the premiership of my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead and expressly favoured the expansion of Heathrow. It survived scrutiny in the High Court and was appealed to the Court of Appeal by environmental groups on no fewer than 17 grounds of challenge and fell on a single one—the legal meaning of the word “policy”. On that arcane question the whole statement fell. By then, the Government were in the hands of Mr Johnson, who was perfectly content with that outcome. But Heathrow took up the cudgels, and the case went to the Supreme Court, which restored the ANPS.

The timeline tells its own story. In 2015, the Airports Commission recommended a third runway. In 2018, Parliament approved it by 415 votes to 119, yet only by December 2020 did the Supreme Court clear the legal path for Heathrow to proceed—five years ago. Now, in October 2025, Ministers tell us rather recklessly that the policy is going to be revised and accelerated and we are going to go through the whole process again, with all the potential challenges involved. It is a brave or reckless Government who set out on this course.

The Government have an answer to this. In the Statement, the Secretary of State says:

“On judicial reviews, we have announced that we will work with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for a review to move through the court system for national policy statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects”.


At present, the average time for such reviews stands at roughly 1.4 years. What is the Government’s target? How long do the Government expect it to take for the new airports national policy statement to be approved? Remember, it is the Chancellor’s ambition that this runway should open in 2035, with spades in the ground many years before that, given how much muck has to be moved in order to embrace Heathrow’s plans. I am indeed making the simplifying assumption—it may not be true—that the Heathrow proposal is the one eventually chosen by the Government in November and not the alternative scheme. I may be wrong about that, but I think my assumption is reasonable and, for the moment, simplifying. That gives us five years.

Meanwhile, public debate on the whole thing has been minimal, because we have very little information about the proposals. The projected cost of Heathrow expansion stands at £49 billion. The market value of Heathrow Airport, which we know from the last time its shares traded last year, is around £9.5 billion, even though its regulated asset base is closer to £20 billion. People are willing to pay £9.5 billion for something which has a regulated asset base of £20 billion, and they are then proposing that, despite the fact that it is heavily leveraged, much more so than it was 10 years ago when it was discussing this project, we have to reckon with the fact that it wants to spend at least £49 billion—that is the publicly quoted figure; it may be more by now—on a third runway to increase capacity by 50%. My second question is whether this is credibly financeable and whether the Government believe that it is.

However, the airlines do not trust Heathrow, because they are expected to pay in advance off the regulated asset base. In fact, they are paying already, because the CAA has approved that some of the costs that Heathrow incurs can already be charged to the airlines and thus to the flying passengers. They think that because Heathrow is incentivised by the current regime to make its expenditure as high as possible, it is untrustworthy. They point to various things, such as a new baggage system completed in 2016, which was priced at £234 million but ended up costing £435 million, and a cargo tunnel with a budget of £44.9 million that ended up with an estimated cost of £197 million. They point, in contrast to Heathrow’s plan to spend £49 billion on a single runway, to terminals at Barcelona, Frankfurt, Madrid and Munich, that all cost half or less when taking the size of the terminals into account; the fact that Changi is expected to create a new terminal for £8 billion; and that New York’s JFK will open its new Terminal 1 in 2026, the centrepiece of a £15 billion transformation that will be completed by 2030.

What are the Government going to do about Heathrow and its regulatory structures? They say that they are going to change them. The Statement says:

“The Government will therefore work with the Civil Aviation Authority to review the framework for economic regulation for capacity expansion at Heathrow, ensuring the model provides strong incentives for cost-effective delivery”.


What has the Civil Aviation Authority, the regulator, been doing for the last 20 years in that case, if it has not been ensuring firm delivery? So my third question is: what are the Government going to do about that?

I plan to speak for eight minutes.

There is also the matter of noise, which I would like to pursue at some stage, but not at the moment. With that, I will sit down, but I believe that the Government have a lot to do to show that this project is credible, and that they are not contributing to its fast delivery by revising the airports national policy statement at this stage.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate on the review of the airports national policy statement and the Government’s announcement regarding Heathrow. But let me be very clear that the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that expansion of Heathrow would be a mistake from the Government and deliver a blow to our net-zero commitments.

A reliable and safe transport system is vital for economic prosperity in all parts of the country, and improving transport is essential to combat climate change and air pollution, but we must ensure that new infrastructure supports the UK’s climate targets. Analysis from the New Economics Foundation suggests that approving the expansion of Heathrow Airport would cancel out the climate benefit of the Government’s clean power plan within five years, and expansion of Gatwick and Luton Airports would cancel out the climate benefit of the CPP by 2050, so the Government’s sudden support for airport expansion just does not stack up.

Ed Miliband, speaking at the Environmental Audit Committee on 27 January this year, said:

“Any aviation expansion must be justified within carbon budgets … If it cannot be justified it will not go ahead”.


Will the Minister confirm that the four new tests—the evidence-led approach set out by the Secretary of State—will have to be met in their entirety before this Government will give the green light to Heathrow expansion? Will the Government publish the metrics for each of these four new tests so that there is transparency in the assessment? Will the Minister confirm that they will not proceed with Heathrow expansion if the Climate Change Committee advises that the plans do not meet legal obligations on climate change, including net-zero or air-quality obligations?

Let us look at noise pollution. It is a really big issue. Around 700,000 people are impacted currently by noise from Heathrow. It is not just those who are living in places such as Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow and Surrey—around the airport site. In places such as Lambeth and Southwark, residents have the clash of Heathrow flights and City Airport flights throughout the day, causing serious nuisance. The CAA workbook has highlighted that the number of those who are overflown could double to 1.5 million under some Heathrow expansion plans. Noise is an issue which many people feel has escaped any meaningful legal control for too long, leaving overflown communities exposed to excessive noise, impacting their health and quality of life. As part of this work, will the Government adopt the World Health Organization’s recommended noise levels to address noise pollution from the operations of Heathrow Airport?

I come to the point about surface access. While we do not want to see expansion and we do not believe it stacks up economically or environmentally, the last thing the area needs is an airport expansion plan that does not address and fund fully surface transport to the airport. It is a problem now and, therefore, higher modal share for public transport must be a foundation block for the Government’s assessment. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s commitment to fully funded surface transport access as part of this work? As part of the assessment of the two options, will the Government ensure that surface rail access, including the southern and western rail links, are an integral part? Will the Government consider the future of the premium Heathrow Express line as part of its surface access assessment, and when will this be published?

I pick up particularly these points around rail surface access because the letter from the Secretary of State in June stressed

“surface access mode share targets, including elements of a surface access strategy”

and went on to talk about it covering

“public transport, and active travel”.

Yet in the letter that was published last week, on 22 October, under the heading “Surface access”, it states:

“To minimise unnecessary disruption, please provide additional information regarding the construction of road schemes”.


Rail seems to have been downgraded. I really want some assurance from the Minister today.

In an attempt to demonstrate growth, the Government are misguided in thinking that an expanded Heathrow can deliver for the whole country. There are many other schemes that would deliver a lot more for communities across the country. We do not support Heathrow expansion and will closely monitor every stage of this process to ensure that local communities are heard loudly and clearly.

Open Access Rail Services

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I listened to my noble friend with care and respect because he has significant prior experience in running railways. He is right that we should be careful, because we are dealing with only 1% of the passengers and the rest of the network has 99%. We should be careful to allow people to innovate where innovation is a good thing and where there is space for it. We should not allow innovation where it is not a good thing, costs taxpayers money and cannot be accommodated on a very constrained network.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, a lot of people listening to this might think it quite disedifying and perplexing to hear this hate fest against open access services, which are the most popular with commuters, drive down prices where they exist and give consumers what they are looking for. Under the Government’s proposals, the decision on whether open access will be granted for new or continued services will be transferred from an independent regulator to Great British Railways, which is an interested party as a provider of competing services. Does the attitude expressed by the Minister not show how unfit for that purpose the new Great British Railways will be when it starts with such an antagonistic disposition?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord has drunk his own Kool-Aid on this. I made it quite clear that there are benefits to be provided. He also needs to do a bit of careful research, because there are very few commuters on open access services. Commuting is one of the things that has a high fixed cost and generally does not cover the cost of its operations. Open access is successful for people making long-distance journeys irregularly, and some of the operators are very good at it.

The noble Lord also referred to the future railways Bill. We have already made it quite clear that Great British Railways needs to be the body that decides who implements the timetable. Currently, there is not one. It will have to have some rules for access to the railway, which will be developed from the current rules and will be consulted on. If third parties believe that they have been disadvantaged by GBR not following its own rules, or doing something in the wrong way, our proposal will be that they have the ability to appeal to the independent regulator. I think that is perfectly fair, but I also think it is really important that your Lordships’ House recognises that nobody is currently in charge of the national railway timetable except the Secretary of State and me. Outside North Korea, that is really not a good circumstance to have.

Drink-Drive Limit

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I come back to the question of drug-driving, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. Nobody expects there to be available a roadside test for drug-driving that is as effective as a breathalyser for alcohol. However, given that figures from the department show that there are now more deaths from drug-driving than from drink-driving, what in particular is the department doing in terms of training or other equipment that would assist the police in roadside enforcement, which has been shown to be the most effective way of deterring this activity?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

There are, of course, a variety of drugs, which need to be tested in different ways. The department is very concerned about drug-driving and will look at it again in the revised road safety strategy. The noble Lord is right that detection is more difficult because of the variety of drugs, but the department is looking carefully at it because the enforcement effort has to be consistent over drugs and drink.

International Maritime Organization: Net-Zero Framework

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am afraid I am not qualified to judge whether or not flying drones over major oceans is going to work in this respect. I will certainly take that suggestion back to my department to see whether or not they can make sense of it.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, given the apparently implacable hostility of the United States Administration and the very low number of states that voted for this framework in London last week, are the Government not deluding themselves in thinking that one more heave and we will achieve it next year? As my noble friend Lord Fuller suggested, would it not be better if the IMO, guided by the Government, were to focus on the question of the dark fleet? This is being used to ship sanctioned oil around the world in a way that only benefits dictators. Would it not be sensible to get real about some of these things?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord needs to recognise that a worldwide organisation such as the IMO can do more things than one at the same time. What he says about the dark fleet, and what the noble Lord previously said about it, is right, and the IMO should challenge it and do what it can about it. As the noble Lord has just heard, UK shipbuilders and designers are at the forefront of designing new low-carbon and no-carbon shipping. It would be an awful shame if the Opposition Benches were not to support a good piece of the British economy which has the potential to sell not only in Britain but around the world.

Great British Railways: Rolling Stock

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that there are a lot of old vehicles. The average age of vehicles on the national network is 17 years. There are 12,000 vehicles across 14 operators, and it is essential that we plan for the future, if only because several thousand jobs in the manufacturing plant in Derby and the assembly plants at Newton Aycliffe, Goole and Newport, Monmouthshire, all depend on this—as does, as she is right to say, passenger comfort and reliability for rolling stock that has reached the end of its normal life.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, when the Government nationalised the train operating companies, they said that one of the advantages was that they would no longer be paying fees to the private sector. Have the Government carried out, or do they intend to carry out, an assessment of the value for money to the taxpayer of continuing to finance rolling stock through the use of roscos in the private sector?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Government’s policy is to continue to use the private sector to supply rolling stock to the British railway market. That has been quite clear since the manifesto before the election and nothing has changed. I think it is likely that the cost of rolling stock will be better than it has been, simply because the life of the rolling stock has been uncertain, but not sufficiently to diminish the risk taken by those companies, which is why they exist and why they should make a profit.

Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, following on from my noble friend Lady Foster, I will touch on the second point she raised, because it is relevant. We have a situation where the CAA’s delegation and decision-making powers are being changed because of the nature of the arrangements with the European Union.

This whole set of regulations is part of a much broader project led by the CAA at the moment, which deals with, among other things, the simplification of the licensing and training of general aviation pilots—of which I am one. The issues around the changes in licensing are very important, because they bring about the ability of someone, who, like me, flies a single-engine piston aircraft, to fly an electric aircraft. I will not go into the shock-horror that the likelihood of me flying an electric aircraft is equivalent to my enthusiasm for driving an electric car, which is rather limited at the moment.

My question, which follows on from the point raised by my noble friend Lady Foster, is about the delegation of powers to the CAA. She raised a very good point on drones, but I would like the Minister to set out for us whether there were any changes as a result of these circumstances in the agencies, which can have a delegation from the CAA to make decisions, and whether that is adequate in terms of who looks into which agencies can have those delegated powers.

I will raise another point. This statutory instrument does not appear to have happened through impact assessments or anything else; it is a usual statutory instrument where nothing seems to have been necessary to draw to anyone’s attention. To what extent are the resources of the CAA being tested, as a result of these regulations or of ones that have been envisaged? As I think we are all aware, the CAA is short of cash. It is already doing a considerable number of functions, including coming up to date on the things that I have referred to: technology, licensing, the training of pilots and so on.

There is also the question of safety, which develops inexorably as we go along due to the rise of new-generation aircraft. There is also the issue around airports, including the changes in the control zone basis of airports, which must be costing the CAA considerable sums of money. Can the Minister also confirm that there are adequate resources for the operation of the CAA to pay agencies or others to which it delegates powers, and that he is satisfied that we will not need to go back to the Treasury and ask it for more cash? Safety in the air—the safety of training and the other uses of pilots et cetera—must be paramount if our skies are to be secure.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I express my gratitude to the Minister for arranging a very helpful briefing by officials.

Like my noble friend Lady Foster of Oxton, I had some concern about the abandonment of the use of Form 1 for certain non-safety critical parts. We can rely only on the personal assurance of the Minister that, in proceeding in this route, he and his department will take full responsibility for the consequences of that decision. As my noble friend pointed out, the notion of a non-safety critical part can be deceptive because of the close integration of every working part on an aircraft. We cannot challenge the statutory instrument on that basis; we have to accept that the Minister and his department know what they are doing and that they are willing to accept the responsibility that falls on them from pursuing this proposal.

I also share the caution expressed by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate about the delegation of Civil Aviation Authority powers, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. Beyond that, and with those reservations, the Official Opposition have no objection to this instrument, which consists largely of consolidation and clarification. We have no objection to it, but we would like to hear the Minister’s response on those areas that cause us some potential concern.

National Policy Statement for Ports

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

We have had a pretty devastating critique of all sides of this document in this debate. The revisions were initiated by the previous Government with a view to promoting a thriving, modern port sector, but it has emerged under this Government as something of a damp squib. Even the Minister does not seem to think that it has much content. I listened to his speech carefully, and he delivered the preamble very well, telling us all about the procedural history of the document—including even the dates on which the Select Committee in the other place had taken evidence. I expected him to go on to tell us about what the document actually said, the main changes that it was going to make and how it was going to achieve the Government’s growth agenda—but he just sat down at that point. That is because the document is wholly inadequate to the challenges and opportunities.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan spoke about the grid connections and the need to increase them, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, spoke about rail and road connectivity and other matters of that sort. I am not summarising the whole debate—but my noble friends Lord Mountevans and Lord Fuller added devastatingly to her critique, on the basis of very considerable knowledge. My noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch pointed out that the NPSP lives in a sort of parallel universe, with no connection to the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which we are debating in a different forum at this very moment—from day to day, in the course of this week. It does not seem to do the job.

Ports are central to the economy of this country; they handle the overwhelming majority of our trade and act as gateways for energy and manufacturing, providing employment and opportunities in coastal communities. They are strategic national infrastructure without which growth, resilience and security cannot be delivered. What marks out the United Kingdom port sector is the environment in which it operates. It is unsubsidised, competitive and dynamic—well, reasonably dynamic if one believes what my noble friend Lord Fuller said; perhaps some parts of it need a little shaking up.

When a port expands, develops a new terminal or invests in green technology, it does so with private capital and at its own risk, which means that the framework set by the Government must not disincentivise investment. We support that approach to the provision of ports in this country; we do not want to go back to the disaster of nationalised ports—and the mention of the dock labour scheme by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, reminds one of the horrors that existed on those occasions. But to be successful and invest, the ports need some sort of certainty.

The current planning system is, frankly, far too complex. Ports have to navigate local planning authorities, marine licensing regimes, environmental regulators and in some cases the national infrastructure planning process; the result is fragmentation, duplication and delay. We could look to a document like this to start removing those problems, but it does nothing—it changes nothing of any real significance at all. Time and again, applicants face the uncertainty of competing judgments from different authorities.

This is no small matter—every delay in planning ties up capital, weakens competitiveness and deters future proposals. In a sector where operators already carry full commercial risk, that uncertainty is corrosive. If an operator is prepared to risk its own capital within the bounds of environmental and safety law, that willingness should be taken as compelling evidence of need. That principle is acknowledged in the draft statement, but it must be made stronger and clearer. Forecasts have a role in setting context, but they must never be allowed to become shackled or allow the planning system to be used to constrain investment.

The draft statement includes national freight forecasts. As background, they are useful, but they are no more useful than if anybody else commissioned a national freight forecast from a reputable body. There is nothing particularly insightful about them simply because they are published by the Government, but they must not be allowed to become constraints. To treat them as in some ways binding would be to undermine the very responsiveness that has been a defining feature of the port sector in this country.

Somebody a moment ago—forgive me if I forget which noble Lord—said that to have competition you need some surplus capacity. Tying the system to forecasts would be fatal in that regard. Ports operate in fast-moving competitive markets; they must be able to respond to emerging opportunities, such as hydrogen, carbon shipping and storage, offshore renewables and international redistribution. But they must continue simply to feed us and provide us with the goods that we depend on day to day. All these wonderful, environmental, green things are very important, but we fundamentally depend on this: 40% of our food is imported into this country and a lot of it comes on ships. A lot of other heavy goods also come here. This cannot be captured adequately on backward-looking models by this sort of forecast. If every scheme is required to prove its case against centrally produced forecasts, we will miss opportunities that are vital to the future of the economy.

The draft statement acknowledges that it is for each port to take its own commercial view of demand and to bear its own risks. That is the correct principle, and it must be reinforced clearly throughout the final document. Building capacity and resilience ahead of demand is not speculative extravagance; it is a strategic necessity if the UK is to withstand shocks to supply chains and maintain competitiveness. I was horrified by the figures quoted by my noble friend Lord Fuller on the costs of landing goods at different ports in this country compared with a serious network of major ports facing us across the North Sea.

We come then to energy. Ports stand ready to enable cleaner growth from shore power, electrification and new fuels, but cannot do this while electricity prices in the United Kingdom remain among the highest in Europe. They are not among the highest actually; they are the highest—driven in part by layers of environmental regulations. Nor can they deliver if grid connections are delayed year after year. The outcome is perverse: a policy environment that speaks of net zero with urgency but in practice deters the very investment needed to achieve it.

I put three questions to the Minister. First, will he confirm that the forecasts in the final statement will be contextual only and not determinative nor taken by the planning system as being determinative, and that promoters will be free to take their own view of need? Secondly, what steps will the Government take to bring down electricity costs and accelerate grid connections so that ports can invest in green infrastructure rather than being held back by policy-driven costs? Thirdly, how does this document fit in with the Chancellor’s ambition, which she stated in a Written Statement on 17 March this year? I quote:

“To reset the UK’s regulatory landscape and achieve this vision, the government will implement a package of reforms over the Parliament that focus on … tackling complexity and reducing the burden of regulation, including that the government will commit to reducing the administrative costs of regulation for businesses by 25% by the end of this Parliament”.


Is the port sector going to benefit from that pledge and why does it not appear in this document as a driving consideration?

The port sector needs a framework that provides clarity, consistency and proportion. If the national policy statement delivers these qualities, ports will invest boldly, they will innovate and they will support the growth and resilience that this country needs. But if the statement leaves ambiguity, lacks ambition, constrains investments or piles systemic obligations onto individual schemes, we will deter the very capital on which future prosperity depends.

Looked at as a narrow planning document, this might just work—but as a vision of the ports system that we want to see in this country, it fails systematically and comprehensively. I do not think I am going too far in saying that the tenor of this debate is that the Government should take this away, start again and come back with something that sets a real vision for ports that will serve us well into the future.