National Policy Statement for Ports

Lord Mountevans Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the proposal for a revised national policy statement for ports. We know that ports matter; they are a key element of sea-borne trade and national resilience. As we saw so clearly during Covid, they deliver, they perform and they make negligible demands of the state for their funding. I have worked in the maritime industries, primarily shipping, for all my adult life. Initially, I was a shipbroker with the world’s largest shipping services provider, a British company, and in recent years I have held senior positions in major maritime trade associations and bodies.

When talking of the port sector as a key element of British maritime in speeches in the 2010s, I used to note that they were investing around £600 million of their own money in their facilities annually. But the figure has been growing. Since the pandemic alone, something between £4.4 billion and £6 billion of port investment has been made. In the coming five years, they are planning to invest £1 billion annually, and there is an expectation that this could go higher.

There are some 130 commercial ports handling imports and exports, with over 80% of trade conducted through the 20 leading ports. Investment in the coming years will be spread widely. The biggest scheme at present is DP World’s expansion of London Gateway, which is more than £1 billion of investment on its own. This is focused on container berths and rail freight facilities. Another notable investment is the new £400 million port development in the highlands to recreate the dormant Port of Ardersier, which will target the offshore wind market as a major hub for the North Sea.

Ports matter not only because they are the gateway for the UK’s international trade, and are broadly self-financed, but because they are key employers in our often-disadvantaged coastal communities.

I particularly welcome the fact that the statement fundamentally recognises the value of the sector as structured, with a number of different ownership models, but essentially private and very competitive. I believe the continued presumption in favour of port development and the support for a market-led approach is the right course, backing our successful ports and their managements. Overcapacity in each market segment now appears to be an explicit policy aim, rather than a welcome side-effect of a market-led approach. New capacity can stimulate increased demand. This will all drive growth, the Government’s key objective.

But this continued presumption in favour of port development and a market-led approach has very important implications for security, defence and national resilience. The UK, like so much of western Europe, faces increasing threats and grey zone activity. We all recall that in March this year the container vessel “Solong” collided with the tanker “Stena Immaculate”, which was at anchor off the Humber. The tanker was on charter to the US Military Sealift Command, carrying jet fuel for the US Air Force. The collision caused a fire and the release of aviation fuel, which then ignited. I am sure I was not alone in immediately thinking that this was no accident. However, my understanding subsequently is that it was a most unfortunate accident. The fact that the emergency services performed superbly should not blind us to the realisation of what might have happened.

I chair the Maritime Security Advisory Group, a small group whose aim is to increase awareness of the vulnerability of the UK in key areas such as international cables; undersea oil and gas pipelines and infrastructure; electricity interconnectors; offshore wind turbines and their shore connections; and, of course, ports themselves. Just imagine for a moment if the “Stena Immaculate” had, as a result of the collision, shifted position and moved in the direction of one of the communities or numerous installations that line the Humber. Or imagine if the vessel had sunk in one of the channels. There could have been major economic disruption, and even loss of life.

Of course, as an island the UK has a very long coastline. The scope for a hostile state or actor to inflict profound regional or national damage is enormous. The UK is very vulnerable given the very extended coastline, the subsea infrastructure and the ports. The more our ports expand and compete under the new strategy, with growing capacity giving wider options, the better.

The NPSfP is to be warmly welcomed not only for boosting growth but, importantly, for directionally boosting national resilience, but the policy could do more. Ports are not merely gateways for international freight. The policy could seek more actively to support port developments that address wider non-volume, non-traditional cargo activities. For example, there is enormous potential provided by renewable energy, the cruise trade—3 million passengers per year are passing through—and logistics development. Offshore wind remains a huge opportunity for the UK and will require significant expansion of port infrastructure, much of it highly specialised.

Meeting the requirements of the offshore wind industry should be accorded a higher priority by Government. A legitimate concern is that this opportunity has not been grasped more strongly earlier. Ports are designated as a foundational industry in the Government’s industrial strategy; it is of the upmost importance that they support growth and competitiveness, ensuring that the UK remains an attractive destination for global shipping businesses.

I know the industry feels that a higher important should be accorded to port investment. There are a number of actions that could help in the area of planning. First, the policy could be made more effective if planning policymakers were required to take account of it as a material consideration when drafting development plans, marine plans or other plan-making documents. Secondly, it should identify port operators and statutory harbour authorities as formal statutory consultees in the plan-making process. Thirdly, it could better protect the role of ports and their paths to future development through including or strengthening in the policy the status of the NPSfP against other national policy statements, giving ports mandatory consultee status in relevant development proposal assessments and ensuring that ports are better recognised within strategic spatial planning. Finally, the NPSfP— this acronym is worse than the one for the Caribbean trade agreement—should place greater emphasis on the importance of port connectivity, as road and rail development projects that are particularly significant for the movement of goods to and from ports can clearly reference the NPSfP in their proposals.

I also draw attention to the lack of measures to support alternative fuels, along with necessary shore power for vessels as well as the essential grid upgrades that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned. In a week when the IMO will be debating and voting on its net-zero proposals for shipping, I ask the Minister if there should not be a stronger alignment proposed with international frameworks such as the IMO net-zero framework and the FuelEU maritime regulation.

My final point is that the industry feels that greater recognition should be given to the scope for UK ports to act as trans-shipment hubs for Europe and more distant locations. In conclusion, the call made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for a more fundamental review has much merit.