National Policy Statement for Ports

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, we are a maritime nation. I first understood the importance of this in my role as Transport Minister in the previous Government, when I was given one of those responsibilities that nobody else really wanted—to look after the EU exit preparedness work.

In that role, I also got another dodgy promotion; I was promoted to be the Minister for Kent, despite representing beautiful Redditch in Worcestershire. My brief was to keep cross-channel traffic moving via Dover Port and to support hauliers. In that capacity, I brought forward the heavy commercial vehicles in Kent orders underpinning Operation Brock and the Kent access permit to protect communities and keep trade flowing. When France closed its border a day or so before Christmas that year, the “Keep Dover Clear” plan helped to restore movement and clear thousands of HGVs. Little did I know that, in that role, I would suddenly become an expert in ordering Portaloos for lorry drivers to be situated at the side of all the dual carriageways. I hope they will thank me now. I will end this digression, but I hope it illustrated why I know how important not only Dover but our other ports are. As many noble Lords have said, these vital arteries handle around £122 billion worth of trade in a normal year. A delay at one port can impact the movement of people and freight across the UK.

This debate is not a political hot potato; we all want to give our ports the certainty to invest. Their success means supply chain resilience, lower costs for British consumers and, of course, growth and jobs. This statement brings a much-needed update to the planning framework for our ports. I know that it has been widely welcomed by the port sector, which I commend for its pragmatism and flexibility over the years. I also add my support for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, with his detailed, front-line commercial business experience and his industry background. I really look forward to the Minister’s response to the gaps in this policy that the noble Lord highlighted. I will broadly base my comments in this debate on the evidence given by the sector, Ministers and officials in the hearings before the Transport Select Committee, which highlighted a few gaps and missed opportunities.

We all know that in any planning policy the overriding objective should be to balance planning acceleration, clarity and certainty with community consultation and any adverse impacts on coastal ecosystems and residents. I very much agree with some of the points made about the lack of linkage and read-across to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will shortly return to this House for Report. In my opinion, and as noted by the committee, there is no interaction in this policy statement with the proposed new environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levies proposed in that Bill. For example, it is not clear whether EDPs would provide a model for or supersede the ideas around the proposal for maritime net gain. Investors want certainty and clarity on this point, so would paying into an EDP interact with the ports-specific marine licensing and the habitats regulations assessment?

The draft policy statement could also do more to guide applicants and decision-makers through the interplay among the myriad environmental plans and designations that are now in place, which give the marine context such extraordinary complexity. To name just some, we have: marine protected areas, highly protected marine areas, the water framework directive regulations and the associated EA guidance Clearing the Waters for All, the Marine Strategy Regulations, the Environmental Targets (Marine Protected Areas) Regulations 2022 and the environmental improvement plan 2023 targets for designated features in MPAs. Can the Minister explain whether an explicit map will be created or whether this will be simplified in guidance, regulations or legislation?

Next, I address the issue of demand and capacity. The draft statement states that, if all the already consented development schemes were built out, aggregate container capacity would be broadly in line with the “pre-recession forecast for demand”. This reference is to the recession of 2008-09, which intervened between the demand forecasts for the previous NPS and its subsequent adoption in 2012. In the view of some witnesses, this is an unnecessary historical hangover and should be removed or updated given major trade events since then and the availability of DfT forecasts from 2025. The draft recognises that additional and alternative developments might be beneficial for competition and flexibility. Of course, this is important in order not to close the door on a supportive needs case for new container development. We know the Government believe that, to encourage the total port capacity in any sector, it must exceed forecast overall demand if the sector is to remain competitive and resilient. Will the Minister look again at those capacity forecasts?

On the environment, we have been told by witnesses that there are air quality tests, BNG and the maritime net gain that I referred to earlier. Industry wants a single playbook across the many designations to cut duplication and delay. Noble Lords have also spoken about the multitude of pages and reports that are necessary for planning applications.

There is something referred to as the FLOW gap in this document. While offshore wind, in the NPS EN-3, often treats energy infrastructure with a high priority, the ports needed to supply it are not afforded the same elevated designation in this ports NPS. Floating offshore wind loading requires heavy lift cranes, large quays with wide access channels, wet storage and high-load berths. Many ports do not have these, so the upgrade demands are intensive. Will the Minister review the supporting policy statements and the support for this critical opportunity?

This policy statement also says that we should update the national policy statements every five years and streamline consultation. Witnesses said that the ports NPS should say that explicitly and set concise theme-based consultation expectations for applicants, so they can truly benefit from the time savings that Parliament intended.

I have one final point. There is a suggestion, with which I agree, that the NPSP should apply fully to Section 35 directed projects. This was heard by the committee, where witnesses highlighted the ambivalent treatment of Section 35 cases and urged a clear line: if a ports project is brought into the Planning Act regime by direction, the ports NPS should apply in full.

I look forward to the Minister’s comments on all of those points and thank noble Lords for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.