National Policy Statements

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

This motion is brought before the House on the day that the Chancellor has unveiled his national infrastructure plan on which the UK’s economic recovery is supposed to rest. I have to say that those are grand hopes for a 150-page wish list with little coherence and even less sense of how it will be delivered. Although it is welcome that the House is getting the chance to debate the national policy statement on ports—an important innovation pioneered by the previous Government and made possible by the passage of the Planning Act 2008—it is time that Ministers faced up to the opportunities that are being missed because of failure to join up key decision making on transport infrastructure.

First, though, let me say what we support. We are pleased that national policy statements are going ahead and that Ministers have chosen to accept the Transport Committee’s recommendation that debates on them should take place in Government time.

We have heard today, in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, that Britain faces continued stagnation. Unfortunately, it will take more than a national policy statement on ports, no matter how finely crafted, to return our flatlining economy to health. However, although not sufficient, thriving ports are necessary to any recovery. Any successful route out of these doldrums will require an economic rebalancing that includes Britain’s exporting more to the rest of the world.

With about 90% of world trade taking place by sea, we need more than ever to ensure that Britain has sufficient modern, efficient port capacity that is capable of handling the size of ships and containers that are coming to dominate global trade. That port capacity needs to be linked to a land-based transport network that provides reliable and efficient links for exported and imported goods. That means having fast and free-flowing road links to major ports and increasing capacity on key rail routes, not only in relation to train paths but to enhancing the loading gauge to allow larger containers to be carried. That is why the last Labour Government worked with Network Rail to allow containers of 9 feet 6 inches to be carried between Southampton and the midlands. Today’s statement on rail freight interchanges is therefore welcome.

Our ports are essential to this island nation. They are part of our heritage and our future as a global trader. In 2010, the UK’s ports handled 512 million tonnes of freight, making our ports sector the largest of any in Europe. Ports and directly related services account for about 58,000 jobs, widely distributed across the country. From Immingham to Southampton and from the Medway to Liverpool, ports are at the centre of local economies.

We support the principles behind the policy statement in that port expansion is essential economically but must be conducted in ways that benefit local economies, drive regeneration and are environmentally sensitive. That is because businesses seeking new markets will be looking to the new Administration to deliver on the significant expansions consented to by the previous Government: a two thirds increase in the handling capacity at Felixstowe, consented to in 2006; the London gateway port that the Minister mentioned, handling up to 3.5 million containers a year and consented to in 2007; a doubling of capacity at Liverpool, also consented to in 2007; and further major expansions given the green light at Bathside bay in Harwich, at Teesport, and at Bristol.

Although we agree with the underlying principles of the statement and will therefore support its approval, the way in which it has been presented exposes serious shortcomings in the Government’s approach to planning transport infrastructure. I hope that the Government will reflect on that and make changes so that their already disjointed infrastructure planning does not deteriorate further.

The need to link ports with other infrastructure projects, particularly in road and rail, is obvious. However, the Minister has not given a satisfactory explanation of why he has ignored the recommendation of the Transport Committee to integrate the NPS on ports with the promised NPS on national networks.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Eddington report was published in 2006 or 2007. The previous Government did not get on with improving road infrastructure to the ports. I say gently that it is a bit rich for him to criticise this Government for not moving more quickly on that.

[John Woodcock]

Progress was made, but unquestionably more needs to be done. I think that it was incumbent on the incoming Government to respond positively to the recommendations made by the Transport Committee just before the last election. It is a matter of great regret that they have not done so.

The Government have chosen to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission, yet the entire statement is written on the basis that the IPC exists. I hope that the Minister will make it clear in winding up, if he has time, or in writing if necessary, whether the end date that he gave of April next year is a firm date or simply a target, and whether that change will require further consultation on the NPS.

The House is being asked to approve the NPS without reference to wider ports policy, most notably on ownership models, including mutualisation. As the Minister is well aware, that is of great interest to many Members and local communities, most notably around Dover and the trust ports. The lack of any guidance on ownership and changes of status in the NPS demonstrates why it is not a substitute for a proper ports policy. I hope that the Minister, whom it is an unexpected pleasure to see today, or the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), will commit to coming before the House with a comprehensive statement on ports policy, in which the NPS sits.

It is unfortunate that the statement gives such limited consideration to the economic and social impacts of port development proposals, particularly on local employment. After the fiasco of the Thameslink procurement process, Ministers claim to be alive to these issues, yet they seem to be little more than an afterthought in this document.

The Transport Committee recommended that the statement should include preference for port development to reduce inland road transport, yet that is missing from the statement. It contains no wider policy on how to achieve a reduction in the reliance on road freight. We hope that Ministers will consider revising the NPS to ensure that development decisions are taken in a way that specifically promotes and encourages a modal shift for onward transportation away from roads and on to rail and coastal shipping.

On climate change, there is little in the NPS on emissions. The Government need to make it clear whether they will accept the advice of the Committee on Climate Change to include the UK’s share of shipping emissions in the 2050 target.

Finally, we support and welcome the growing demand from the offshore energy sector for additional port capacity, including in my constituency of Barrow and Furness. The Government need to take a more proactive role to ensure that the UK takes a larger slice of this booming market. That is referenced in the NPS, but there is little detail. Will the Minister say how the Government intend actively to promote the potential for ports in the offshore energy sector?

The statement shows some progress but, with the economy flagging, the Government need to raise their game on ports and infrastructure across the piece.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The NPS is extraordinarily important. Representing Dover, I know just how important it is. Only today, the approval has been announced of a plan for the development of the western docks at Dover. It is a gold-plated plan on a rather larger scale than it needs to be, with a price tag of £400 million of investment, and the application has taken getting on for five years to go through the system—an awfully long time. Although the planned capacity will possibly not be needed until 2025 or 2030, owing to the economic difficulties that the country has faced in recent years, and although a gold-plated scheme certainly is not needed, it is an important step forward for the development of the port of Dover. It is much easier to amend an application once permission has been granted than to make a new one.

The fact that it has taken so long for the application finally to be approved underlines the need for a far swifter system of getting applications passed and sorted out. As the Transport Committee made clear in its report, there have been calls from business interests and others for major infrastructure projects to be handled properly, not with extensive public inquiries and long drawn-out decision-making processes but in a shorter and sharper way—something a bit less than the terminal 5 or Sizewell B inquiry nightmares. The NPS is therefore extraordinarily welcome.

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) was right that the application at Dibden bay took a long time and got thrown out. It took four years, and I believe that it cost the applicant some £45 million, so that was dead money. That makes no sense whatever. The new, swifter method will be much better.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), rightly made the point that it is desirable to consider the wider aspects of the matter. My understanding is that the NPS is more focused on planning applications for ports than on whether development rights will be granted. I agree with him that, some years on from the Eddington report, which was produced back in 2006, not a lot has happened to the road infrastructure to ports. Although I picked him up for making a slightly partisan point about that, the fundamental point was accurate. We in Dover have been waiting for the upgrade of the A2, which is an important potential artery to the port. It was in the roads programme back in 1997, but was taken out and has not yet got back in. We have been waiting for that road to be dualled and upgraded for years, but it has not happened. We feel very strongly about that, and the Eddington report was fundamentally correct on the matter.

I turn to the NPS itself. The contents page reveals a massive focus on the environmental side of things. There are sections on, for instance, the environmental impact assessment, habitats and species regulations, pollution control, climate change control, biodiversity—so the list goes on. There is, one suspects, a greater concern about flood risks, coastal change and all the environmental things—including, I dare say, the lesser-spotted shellfish—than on socio-economic impacts, tourism and, above all, regeneration.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

I totally agree with the point that my hon. Friend has just made, and I wish to highlight one example in my constituency. The port facilities have existed for more than 100 years, and they offer every opportunity for growth and more jobs. However, they sit close to sites of special scientific interest, which are impeding that development. The fact that those SSSIs have been sitting close to that port development for so long surely illustrates that nature is resilient enough to accept port expansion.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for that fundamentally good point.

We need to think harder about the people involved. We need to consider ownership models, as the shadow Minister said, but also regeneration, tourism, jobs and money. We need to think about strengthening and boosting our economy, and making the most of our ports, just as much as we think about the environmental side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

As a constituency MP I recognise the supreme importance of the turnaround facility to Liverpool. However, I also recognise that a reasoned judgment has to be made on the proper way in which to go ahead. The statements that the hon. Gentleman made about Liverpool’s intentions are not accurate, but this is not the place in which to pursue the detail of that. I hope that a reasonable decision is made. Liverpool City council has made an offer to deal with the very point that the hon. Gentleman has made, but that is for somebody else in another place to address. I simply ask for reason to be applied to resolve the issue.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I do not want to intrude on the private grief between Southampton and Liverpool. I represent Dover, which has a little less cruise business. It is also further away and can take a more dispassionate position. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that there is something of a state aid issue here and that that needs to be handled with extreme care?

[Mrs Ellman]

The state aid issue is a matter that will have to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. After discussing it with all the relevant parties, I hope that a reasoned judgment can be made.

Earlier today, when the Chancellor delivered his autumn statement, he referred to the regional economic significance of ports and made reference to the support that he intended to give to developments in the Mersey and the Manchester ship canal in relation to Peel Holdings. It is because ports have such an important economic effect on a region that the issues that I raise are so significant and I hope that the Government are able to consider them.

In light of the time that has elapsed since the report was compiled by the Committee under the previous Government and the changes and statements that have been made, I believe that the port statement should not be opposed. None the less, I want to hear from the Minister about how he will address some of the outstanding issues that I have raised tonight.