---

Ports: Draft National Policy Statement

I, too, thank the Minister for outlining this policy statement. He will be pleased to hear that I am not going to follow the noble Earl down the road of playing politics and doing away with the IPC. This House has already spent many days discussing both the IPC and the Marine Management Organisation, which is to be very much involved in these future port development decisions. So I shall steer well clear of the political side. The statement has broadly received a welcome from the industry, and I think that the Government have more or less got it right. The ports make a major contribution to the UK economy. We are, after all, an island, and more than 90 per cent of all our imports and exports go by sea. So they are extremely important. They also operate in the private sector and, unlike some other ports on the continent, are unsubsidised. They operate on the basis of free and fair competition. That is something that we would all like to see maintained. As the Minister said, the development should be based on market consideration; that is also most important. It is certainly something that the shipping companies take into account. They like to have a choice of ports competing with each other: that all makes for good business. I should at the outset have declared a minor interest in that I have worked as a paid consultant to a small company operating in the ports business. However, our clients are basically from other parts of the world and we have not in fact worked for British ports for seven or eight years at least. We operate in difficult economical times, but this statement is looking far ahead, and I think that that is absolutely right. We all hope that things will get better. I am pleased to read just today that there has been a sudden surge in shipments over the past two or three months, which has to some extent caught the shipping companies on the hop. They were not expecting things to recover quite so quickly. However, they are still cautious—it could be just a little blip. As the Minister said, a number of consents have already been given to major port developments, and those are indeed welcome. However, the economic circumstances have necessarily delayed some of them, and I believe that in one case consent for a container terminal has been changed to a different use. This is something else that happens in ports—conditions and traffic forecasts change. On the Humber I think that a container terminal has now been changed to a biomass power station with a facility for bulk ships to bring in the biomass. Although the statement has received broad support, there are one or two areas of concern, one of which is the need for a closer link to the other national policy statements, especially regarding road and rail networks. It is generally thought that it would have been much better if they had been issued at the same time, because obviously ports need close links to the hinterland through either road or rail. Incidentally, while on that subject, the Minister mentioned the Transport Select Committee. I have read some of the evidence given to it and there was quite a lot of discussion about why ports in the south-east seemed to take precedence all the time. In many ways, the reason is quite obvious: it is because the main trade routes coming in, especially from Asia, go to the continent as well, and the south-east ports are adjacent to the continental ports. I have known the shipping companies for many years and they all say that there is no way that they would move those ships up to Liverpool or even the Bristol Channel. It is very expensive to divert a ship and it is still cheaper to send the goods from Felixstowe or the other south-east ports to the Midlands and other places by road or rail. There is also concern over the financing of inland transport links. By and large, the Government have expected ports to pay for road and rail infrastructure when they have a new development. This is a difficult point because on the continent—and our ports are competing with the continental ports—such developments are paid for by the relevant Government. I think that our Government should look at their overall plan and be responsible for providing those links if new port developments need them. There are also concerns over prioritisation where decisions on port developments are to be left to the IPC or the MMO. I think that the Government need to give greater guidance, especially in relation to their economic and transport policies, and particularly to the Marine Management Organisation, which will be dealing with many of the smaller harbour changes—what used to be called the harbour revision orders. I think that these will multiply in view of the Government’s energy policy, which includes the development of many offshore wind farms, and obviously ports will be keen to get some of that business. It is important that the MMO is given more guidance in regard to ports because the IPC will be dealing with major port developments, whereas the MMO will be dealing with all sorts of different areas. Therefore, I believe that the Government should make certain that it gets more specific guidance on any port decisions that it has to make. Finally, perhaps greater emphasis could be put in the statement on the single consent regime. This is a major point in all the changes in the planning process. Over the years, ports have argued that getting permission for any new development takes so long and is so long-winded and that so many people have to be consulted that having a single consent regime would be a great step in the right direction. However, I think that it should be borne out in the statement. I shall not go into the environmental concerns, but I know from having been closely involved in the Marine and Coastal Access Bill that they are something that ports have to take into account. The Government should find some way in which to prioritise any major necessary port development that is going to help our economy. I am reminded of a time perhaps 20 or 30 years ago, perhaps before other noble Lords taking part in this debate were in this House, when we debated an extension to the port of Felixstowe. Some filibustering went on in the Commons beforehand, when honourable Members kept the House up all night and even got round to I mitating bird calls in the middle of the night. They were saying that this thing should not go ahead because of the number of birds. Birds are no fools; they are quite capable of flying half a mile in one direction or another. I am told that they even nest on the container terminals these days, so we need not have too many worries about birds. That was slightly flippant—but this statement is going in the right direction. It can be tweaked a little before it becomes firm policy, but I wish it well.