National Policy Statement for Ports

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

After that innovative departure from our normal process, it is a pleasure to speak—an unusual pleasure because, despite the centrality of ports and shipping to this country, we rarely debate such things in the House.

I have no current interests in the maritime sector but I do, as they say, have form. I was on the board of the Lloyd’s Register, which was founded in 1760, and I was the first woman to be appointed to the board of the Harwich Haven Authority. That authority was founded in 1863 and serves the massive Port of Felixstowe; Ipswich, which has been a port since Anglo-Saxon times; the ferry service from Harwich; cruise ships that call occasionally; support vessels for offshore wind; and a green energy hub at Bathside Bay. I mention all that because it exemplifies the diversity and complexity of the modern maritime sector.

The Harwich Haven Authority is a trust port. Not only does it ensure the safe navigation of some of the largest ships in the world accessing the Port of Felixstowe; it is also the custodian of the estuary in terms of both safe and efficient access and the health of its environment. My first ask of the Minister is that the national policy statement more explicitly reference the distinct legal and operational responsibilities of trust ports such as Harwich Haven.

As we have already heard in a single speech, so much has changed since this document was last published in 2012. I want to begin by reflecting on whether it would not have been better to have had a more fundamental revision of the document, because this feels rather like tweaking. The complexity of the modern port sector might be better served if the document were a little more up to date and far reaching.

It is not just me saying that: in its submission, Portsmouth International Port commented that the document should reflect the entire breadth of the ports industry as it is now, not as it was in 2012. Various evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee reflected the fact that the document does not identify the import of sustainable aviation fuels, alternative maritime fuels, and carbon capture and storage.

It has also been pointed out that there are no government forecasts for offshore energy or passengers in the way that there are for freight. Evidence from Associated British Ports suggests that more emphasis should be put on non-tonnage routes, and Portsmouth has highlighted the increasing development of passenger-related activities and their ever-changing needs. Harwich Haven talked to me about how bulk cargo patterns are changing due to global trade realignments—the less said about that, the better—and climate change requirements, which are leading to a need for more flexible storage and modernised handling structures.

It is particularly important that we get the basis of this document right now because, once the Planning and Infrastructure Bill takes effect, these documents will be reviewed every five years. It is important to have a solid baseline for that five-yearly review to take place. The Government have set out a number of objectives, including growth, efficiency and support for their own clean energy ambitions. They rightly frame the approach as market-led. Indeed, they see competition in the sector as key to driving up efficiencies and improving innovation. I think we could all agree with that, but a market-led approach leaves us with a particular challenge when it comes to the major infra- structure required to support the port sector. Road and rail improvements are provided long after the development has taken place. Political indecision, funding challenges and lengthy and complex planning processes mean that significant problems build up before any serious attention is given to dealing with them.

For example, the Orwell Bridge near Ipswich is the only HGV-suitable route out of the Port of Felixstowe. It is an ageing asset and requires regular maintenance; it was closed for a long period over the summer, when all the vehicles, including HGVs, were rerouted through the centre of Ipswich, which has narrow roads and subsequently suffered very serious congestion right through the summer. The A120 between the A12 and the ports is one lane in each direction for much of the route and is increasingly inadequate.

Given the Minister’s background, and given that the Government have a rail freight target of 75% growth by 2050, I was particularly interested to see that this document is entirely non-rail. Rail gets no specific mention, although there is a mention of HGV parking. As an example, the huge volume of freight movement between the Port of Felixstowe and the Midlands would benefit enormously from a series of measures to improve rail links between the hub of Nuneaton and Felixstowe. The branch line between Felixstowe and Ipswich is single track and is already operating at capacity. Improvements at Ely and Haughley junction are desperately needed. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, just referred to how grid connections are increasingly essential.

My final set of points relates to the highly complex and changing nature of the planning and consent regimes that face ports undertaking development of any kind. This is a recurring theme throughout the consultation responses and in the oral evidence given to the Select Committee. The Government’s intention is to save ports time and money on planning, and everyone would welcome that, but this threshold does not suit all the types of work that are needed to sustain, for example, offshore energy. My noble friend Lady Pidgeon will talk about that. Portsmouth International Port talked to me about how it wants to be sure that the NPSP offers support and context to all its throughput activities, development projects and improvements that it promotes.

I have observed the increasing physical distance between port activity and the physical port itself. Logistics or even security can be quite some distance from the port, which is important in the context of local planning. Stakeholders have suggested that deemed consent orders should include activities such as berth deepening, access roads, security and grid connections, and that this should be explicit in the NPSP. RenewableUK highlighted that, with multiple consenting routes for renewable energy projects, a clear overall framework is essential.

Many ports have developed master plans, which have been encouraged by the DfT since 2008. This document, interestingly, is silent on the role of port master plans and their status, which is a pity, because they can act as a very useful tool for working with local planning authorities. What exactly is the status of this document with regard to local plans? Will it be a material consideration for local authorities and the MMO, for example? Will the Government consider discussing with stakeholders the potential for port master plans to be explicitly recognised?

This is particularly important when it comes to protecting potentially valuable port-related land from other developments such as housing. It is a real issue in ports such as Portsmouth and London Gateway, which are located in urban areas. Witnesses are suggesting that the read-across to the current planning Bill is not clear, which is unfortunate; we should not be in that position.

I have three quick points to conclude. Statutory decision-makers are all subject to reductions in funding, people shortages and backlogs in decision-making. Speeding up the planning process will not happen unless we look at the resourcing of it. During the oral evidence session, witnesses spoke about the potential for a one-stop shop approach to help applicants through the maze of legal and regulatory permissions required. Finally, will the Minister assure the Grand Committee that his Government will look at the representations carefully to see whether improvements can be made to the clarity, hierarchy and status of this important document?