---

Ports: Draft National Policy Statement

My Lords, the Committee will be relieved to know that I do not intend to speak for three hours and 19 minutes to use up the four hours that have been allocated for this debate. We have heard views reflecting a number of interests. I was delighted that all three noble Lords who contributed welcomed, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, the publication of the report. On one thing we are united. It is on desiring a successful ports industry that is able to develop sustainably. We want an industry that can respond to changes in the levels and patterns of trade while maintaining the sector’s excellent record as a steward of landscapes, shorelines and marine resources, many of them environmentally and historically important. I shall say a bit more about that, particularly in response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Nothing that I heard this afternoon leads me to think that we have got it wrong in the national policy statement in terms of this fundamental direction. We are fortunate that we have a ports industry that has consistently shown itself ready to invest when the time is ripe commercially. It is an industry that has, in recent years especially, proved its readiness to work with the statutory environmental bodies as well as with other consultees and, guided by those environmental advisers, to find design solutions that protect the environment where possible and compensate amply for any incursions into protected sites. We take the view that this is an industry that has earned the right to be trusted to get on with the job in line with the national policy statement because that allows it to do what it is best placed to do. I shall respond to the various points made in the debate but resist the temptation to comment on the noble Earl’s grandfather. I wonder whether his amazement would be greater at the fact that the Labour Party has adopted a market approach to these matters or at the fact that his grandson sits on the Conservative Benches. I think that is a nice point that he and I can perhaps debate on another occasion. We are aware that the Conservative Party does not like the IPC but, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, pointed out, we spent a lot of time considering the planning legislation, and the IPC was the outcome. I remind the Committee that the core principle of the new regime is to separate the Minister’s role in settling policy from the quasi-judicial function of considering applications for specific schemes within the framework of that policy. The argument about the so-called democratic deficit misunderstands the Minister’s present role in considering cases. Ministers have to act in a quasi-judicial way and not take account of political considerations. The place for democratic input—where Ministers should be, and are, accountable—is in setting the policy. We continue to believe that an expert independent body, as now constituted in the IPC, represents the fairest and most effective means of dealing with these cases. The noble Earl referred to the criticism by the Royal Town Planning Institute. We welcome, and are considering carefully, the RTPI’s detailed views alongside the other responses to the consultation. However, I am bound to say that the Government cannot accept the proposition that we should switch to a locationally directed policy in the way that it proposes. We feel that the RTPI overestimates the need for guidance on the identification of acceptable locations for new port development. In reality, port operators have plenty of incentive to develop at locations which will mesh well with inland transport needs—not least because they will have to pay for any measures to ensure that a network can accommodate the traffic that is generated, whether by associated infrastructure, traffic management or other measures in combination. The NPS makes it equally clear that thorough environmental mitigation will be required where there would otherwise be avoidable adverse impacts. At the same time, the institute seems to underestimate the importance of ports being free to compete and to take their own views on commercial prospects. They are not static; they vary over time and from sector to sector. The Government do not, and should not, second-guess those judgments, and neither should the IPC. The noble Earl asked me about safeguarding. The policy on safeguarding was set out in the interim report on the ports policy review. Sites, including potential port sites where there is a realistic prospect of port development within 15 years, should be considered for safeguarding. The ports NPS that we are considering today does not alter that policy. The noble Earl also mentioned rail alignments, particularly those inland from the ports. The transport assessment for an application will be expected to deal with any possible conflict with developments inland, making use of the same network infrastructure. We believe that master-planning by the ports will help to ensure that network providers are fully apprised of plans at an early stage. The last point made by the noble Earl to which I shall reply concerns the environmental statement. It is clear that the applicant is responsible for preparing the environmental statement. The role of the IPC or other decision-makers is to assess that statement and ensure that it is compatible with the NPS. The draft NPS distinguishes the applicant’s assessment from guidance for the decision-maker in relation to each impact. I now turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I strongly welcome the support that he has given the IPC and the NPS and his belief that the Government have this right. He also supports the concept that the market is the best way of determining the future. He raised a question about timing in relation to national networks and regretted that we were not considering the other national policy statements on transport at this time. We take the view that the ports NPS is a free-standing document. Specifically, the guidance that it contains on transport impacts, in section 2.17, will be fully consistent with the NPS on national networks when that is published shortly. The national networks NPS will be available alongside the ports NPS when new port developments are brought forward. I think it was for these reasons that Sir Michael Pitt, the chairman of the IPC, told the Transport Select Committee in another place that he was relaxed about the fact that it had not proved possible to issue the national networks document at the same time as we were able to issue the one for ports. The noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord Bradshaw, raised the question of developer funding for road and rail infrastructure. The general requirement for port developers to fund road and rail infrastructure serving the customers of the development is similar to what has long been required of other developers. It constitutes an incentive towards choosing location so as to minimise such impacts and acts as a lever whereby incentives to increase rail share where appropriate can be cemented into the planning. It is true that other countries, typically, do not apply such requirements, but that does not necessarily mean that they are right to do that. Somebody has to pay for the necessary infrastructure. In other countries, it may be paid for by the general taxpayer or the general user. So it is a fallacy to believe that somehow or other the infrastructure can be provided free. That has not been the approach that we have traditionally followed in this country with major infrastructure schemes and planning matters. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, asked a question about the Marine Management Organisation, a subject on which he is a far greater expert than I could ever be. As I said earlier, the NPS will be a significant consideration for MMO cases. If we can express the needs case better in the NPS for both the IPC and MMO in the light of the comments that we receive, we will certainly do so. We are working closely with the MMO and will be ready to give supplementary guidance if that is needed. The MMO will be a centre of marine expertise and the body responsible for a new marine planning system involving the development and implementation of marine plans in English inshore and offshore waters, which will enable a more strategic approach to be taken to the use of our seas. The last point from the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, related to timescale. We envisage that the timescale for typical cases would take less than a year from application to decision. We think that the new system will save the promoters time, because it will streamline the various different and sometimes overlapping regimes into a single consent regime, avoiding the need for expensive and lengthy public inquiries. Having national policy statements will provide industry with a clear policy framework against which their applications will be assessed. The shorter timeframe for considering infrastructure applications will also help to ensure that decisions are made more rapidly. I turn now to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, whose general support I welcome. I listened to the very strongly felt views that he expressed again about Network Rail. It is not the first time that I have heard them. Before I refer to the question of noise, I turn to a subject to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, also referred, on habitats and biodiversity. While it cannot be ruled out that any new ports application will have an adverse impact on the Natura 2000 network or the sites and species accorded comparable protection, that application will need to be subject to full assessment under the habitats and wild birds directives. For port NSIPs, the IPC, advised by Natural England, will be the competent authority to undertake the final assessment. That point was made by both noble Lords. On noise, I refer the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, to section 2.22 in the statement, particularly sections 2.22.2 and 2.22.3. The statement says: ""The impacts of excessive noise are wide ranging, with the most common being disturbance, that can lead to annoyance or loss of sleep. This affects quality of life, and may affect human health. It can also affect the use and enjoyment of areas of value such as quiet places and areas with high landscape quality … It is therefore considered essential that its impact be carefully considered and managed within the context of sustainable development. In this section, in line with current legislation, ‘noise’ includes vibration"." The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, then asked me about the new approach to appraisal, NATA. That has been the result of a thorough consideration by economists and traffic modellers. Its recent refresh was the subject of extensive consultation with the wider public and specialist consultants. Carbon emissions are dealt with in NATA evaluations and I can confirm that the Government have adopted NATA. I now turn to rail freight and gauge clearance—another subject to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred. The Government are, with contributions from the port industry, the RDAs and others, supporting gauge clearance to extend the cleared network nationally so that hi-cube containers—the 9 feet 6 inches containers—can be carried on standard rail wagons. That is included in the £200 million that we have allocated for the development of the strategic freight network and £150 million for the productivity TIF. Among the ports that will benefit are Felixstowe, Southampton and Liverpool. Gauge clearance of the railway from Teesport is under review. We are aware—and we miss the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, today—that the Rail Freight Group has argued that the ports NPS does not go far enough in encouraging the use of rail both in the operation and construction of the port facility itself. The department will consider the details of the Rail Freight Group’s response along with the others, but the consultation draft of the national policy statement goes further than previous policy statements in encouraging the use of rail as well as coastal shipping. As section 2.17 sets out, that should be done in a structured and proportionate manner that reflects evidence from the transport assessment in supporting the application.