I welcome the new Minister to his seat. I think this is your first Committee gig, and second gig in Parliament, in your new role. I am sure it is the beginning of a long ministerial career. We also send good wishes to the former Aviation and Maritime Minister, who I am sure has briefed you. He had a long association with the portfolio in opposition and then in government, and we wish him well. This is our second oral evidence session on the Government’s proposal for a revised national policy statement for ports. Last week, we heard from representatives of the maritime sector. It is London International Shipping Week, and this afternoon we welcome the new Minister and his civil service team for his first appearance before the Committee. We will consider the extent to which the Government’s proposals set a clear, long-term direction for the development of ports in England and at Milford Haven. For the avoidance of doubt, any reference we make to the NPS during this session can be assumed to be about the draft revised version of the national policy statement for ports. Please would the panel introduce themselves, starting with the Minister?

Thank you very much, Chair. It is a pleasure to appear before your Committee. I am Keir Mather, the new Minister for Maritime and Aviation.

I am Mike Alcock, the deputy director for ports and shipping at the Department for Transport.

I am Philip Grindrod. I am in Mike’s team on ports and shipping, dealing with the national policy statement, among other things.

Welcome. How will the draft revised NPS for ports improve planning for ports development, compared with the 2012 document?

If you will allow me, Chair, I would like very briefly to start by thanking you—

This time, but we don’t normally.

Thank you; it is very kind of you to permit me. It is a real pleasure to address the Committee for the first time. As I begin this role, I hope it is the first of many such appearances. I am particularly excited to make my first appearance on the subject of ports, which means a great deal to me as a native son of the proud port city of Hull, and during London International Shipping Week. It is a great privilege to answer your questions, so thank you for having me. On your question about how the revised NPSP will improve planning for port development compared with the 2012 document, the first thing to say is that I was very pleased to see, in your first panel session, a broad encouragement from stakeholders on the principles outlined in the NPSP—its presumption in favour of port development to achieve growth in a sector that is critical both to the UK achieving its growth ambitions and to the Government’s mission of becoming a clean energy superpower. The way in which it maintains a marketised sector shows that we retain confidence in the way port operations work in the United Kingdom. We can see the strength in that business model but, more broadly, the revisions better align the NPSP with the Government’s missions on clean and renewable energy and our growth ambitions. In my view, it shows that the dual focus on both decarbonisation and growth can dovetail and support one another. Also—this came up in the first session—the importance of stressing port capacity has been a crucial part of how the UK Government want to approach some of these issues. We want to ensure that we have more competition within the system, more resilience and efficiency at different locations around the country and, overall, a thriving ports sector that is looking firmly towards the future and supporting the UK economy more broadly.

Thank you; that is really helpful. So that is what you expect the difference to be—the draft is different from the 2012 version. Now that your consultation is closed, will there be any differences in the final version, in response to the consultation?

We are very pleased to have had a broad range of responses to the consultation across a wide number of areas. In terms of our overall approach, we are looking to engage in good faith with what everybody has to say about where the NPSP could be improved. Legitimate points were raised both through the consultation and in the previous panel about biodiversity net gain and environmental protections. There have been some comments on dredging and some technical notes from DEFRA on the NPSP from intergovernmental discussions, which we will take forward. Most importantly, I am keen to hear what the Committee think are the main merits and demerits that have arisen as a result of the stakeholder conversations you have been having. That will factor into our work going forward.

Wow—you invite us! Are there issues that came through in the consultation that are not likely to lead to changes in the draft?

Yes. Some issues that were raised are not directly relevant to what the Government considers to sit within the broader scope of the NPSP. But that does not mean they cannot be taken forward as part of other work we are doing. It is incumbent on me, as the new Maritime Minister, to think about how legitimate discussions that have come about as a result of stakeholder engagement can be better integrated into the work of the Department going forward.

It would be interesting to know what issues are on your radar. The NPS is specified as part of the planning system; very briefly, are any other issues in respect of ports on your radar that you are likely to focus on that may be beyond the scope of the NPS?

It is an interesting question. Discussions on the principle of NSIP thresholds and how it relates to section 24 of the Planning Act can happen outside the formal consultation on the NPSP. More broadly, the NPSP references the ambitious principles that the Government want to take forward to make sure that our ports are both resilient and focused on future economic growth, whether in respect of alternative fuels or shoreside electrification. My ambition as the Maritime Minister is that discussions on those sorts of topics take place across the range of my portfolio. I want to give Mike and Philip the opportunity to come in if there is anything they want to add.

I think those are good examples. On the thresholds in section 24, we have seen responses from consultees on passenger traffic, and particularly on offshore development, where not very much cargo comes across the quays and is not likely to exceed the 5 million tonne per annum threshold. That is something we can look at in parallel. It is possible to amend section 24 by statutory instrument, and we could consider doing that. There was also a good deal of discussion and consultation responses about some peripheral issues, such as emissions trading and shipping, which are not really in the purview of the NPS but which the Department is working actively on. Various other issues will have come through in the responses, which were not very numerous but were, as Minister said, quite varied.

May I add something? I thought the BPA representative in your session last week made a good point about making sure that the NPSP is clear, offers strong guidance and direction and sets the ambition on things like renewable energy and shoreside electrification, but not making the document overfull and therefore losing sight of the overall strategic drive of what it seeks to achieve. That is a balance we have sought to strike.

Minister, you mentioned being interested in what we had heard from our consultation so far, and we have a couple of questions about that. One is about the view that the Government should provide an overall strategy for ports to make sure that developments are planned in accordance with where the Government want to lead the sector. Would that be a useful tool alongside the NPS?

The DfT always hopes to think strategically about how to take our ports sector forward, but to an extent there is a risk of looking down the wrong end of the telescope on this issue. The UK ports sector’s main strength is the market-led approach—which I believe you discussed with the panellists the other day—whereby UK ports are able to compete with one another, not only in the modes of appearance to which they suit their port operations but in pursuit of innovative technologies, and in the way port operations can intersect with emerging markets when it comes to renewable energy and offshore wind. If you take an issue like decarb, the UK Government announced £448 million yesterday to invest into decarbonising maritime, but over £700 million of private sector investment is being announced as part of London International Shipping Week. In terms of the Government’s strategic vision for making the UK a green energy superpower, a lot of the private ambition from port operators dovetails very nicely with those aims. Of course, we take a strategic view as a Department and work across Government on issues to do with marine spatial prioritisation, which are very important to thinking strategically about lining up our marine environment to suit both our economic and our environmental strategic objectives.

I do not want to open a can of worms, but although I understand what you are saying about the DfT not quite taking a hands-off approach but being comfortable with the private sector approach, that is about capacity management and not about looking at the broader strategic role of sea-bound or sea-based freight in the UK. There is also a sidebar thing about decarbonisation, but do we not need a strategy for ports nevertheless?

It is true that we need to be cognisant that the Government must think very carefully about how freight is managed through our port system. If global events and the destabilisation we have seen have taught us anything, it is that we need both flexibility and resilience within the system to ensure that UK trade is protected against upheavals. The presumption in the NPSP that you build extra capacity into the system as a preference, but with the flexibility of having different modes of appearance at different ports, and competition both within the UK and with our European and global partners, grants you the resilience and flexibility you need to weather the global headwinds. I understand that that is not a neat answer to your question about how it aligns with an overall strategy, but it provides us with quite a broad range of offensive measures to make sure that our ports are up to scratch and can be both reactive, in terms of increasing capacity, and sufficiently flexible to respond to market demand and the global trade upheavals we have seen over the last few years.

In other words, it is go with the flow.

It is not quite go with the flow; it is about making sure that we have a constructive approach with a marketised sector to make sure we are getting what we need from a UK national security and resilience perspective, while recognising the fact that, overall, a marketised ports sector is a model that has worked very well for the UK economy.

My team works very closely across other Government Departments to monitor supply chain resilience. We are always keeping an eye on how the shipping sector is responding to international events and potential pressures on supply chains. We also work very closely with the shipping sector to understand the measures they are taking in relation to international events.

I was not intending to be facetious in saying go with the flow; the flow of goods is clearly of paramount importance. We have also heard the view that the revised NPS is a little unclear about how it can be applied to non-strategic infrastructure projects under section 35 of the Planning Act. Philip, do you expect to make further changes to the document to clarify that?

We will certainly look at the detailed points people have made about that in consultation. It is clear that applications can be directed in under section 35 of the Planning Act. It is also clear that if there are significant developments in the support of offshore wind, which is a major Government priority, they would be strong candidates to be directed in if the applicants wanted that. That flexibility is there. The national policy statement also carries significant weight for non-development consent order consenting, particularly through the harbour empowerment revision order regime, and for marine licensing as well. Something we picked up from the consultation, and from your last session, is that we could perhaps do better at promulgating it to a wider audience, including local authorities, in some parts, and smaller ports, to underline its relevance. That is something we probably do need to pick up.

My colleagues may want to ask about harbours and marine licences later in the session, so I will leave it there.

Minister, this is clearly not the only national policy statement that has had recent changes; the ones for energy, water and national networks have too. How does the revised NPS for ports take account of the changes to other NPSs?

The NPS takes account of other NPSs and, where possible, it does its very best to mirror their drafting. The national networks and energy NPSs may present relevant considerations for port decisions, and it is very important that we have that kind of synchronicity between the NPSs to make sure that we understand the interconnectedness of how ports contribute to some very exciting, emerging and fast-growing areas of UK economic advantage, including offshore wind.

We co-ordinate quite a lot with other Departments through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We talk to our colleagues in DESNZ, and we look quite carefully at the drafting. We might look again at some areas to check that we have not inadvertently strayed in details of drafting on any points where wrong inferences might be drawn from inadvertent minor changes of language. We can look again at that, but certainly the intention has been to be joined up with the other NPSs, particularly the ones on energy and national networks, as far as inland connectivity is concerned. Ultimately, where there are differences of language in comparable sections of the NPSs, they should not be there accidentally.

There was certainly no intention to produce the document in a silo. We worked very closely with the other Departments from start to finish on the updated version.

It is reassuring to know that Departments talk to each other. Clearly, we can have a nice, big, shiny port, but the key thing about ports is being able to get stuff in and out by rail or road. In that context, do you feel that the revised ports NPS addresses the risk that the growth in port traffic or use could be constrained by existing road and rail bottlenecks?

That is a very interesting question. Of course, it is incumbent on DfT Ministers, as a group, to ensure that we have a modern and resilient transport network to be able to reconcile ourselves with any potential increase in capacity. The revised NPS makes specific reference to acknowledging the kind of increase in unitised traffic that could affect road networks as a result of port development, and especially its impact on rural areas. There is also a piece of work around communicating the provisions of a revised NPS to local authorities as they seek to engage in the planning process to mitigate some of the impacts. I was on Merseyside yesterday doing extensive engagement with figures from across the maritime industry there, and they very much reinforced to me the importance of the fact that those logistical challenges exist. In terms of the interconnectedness between our rail network and our UK ports, and also through freight aviation, seeing these things as inherently interconnected is incredibly important. Like I said previously, on the overall concept of modal shift, the NPS applies wherever it is related to associated development, so that also includes road and rail.

I have a follow-up question that is perhaps slightly mischievous. It has been noted that, following the reshuffle, there has been a reduction in the total number of Ministers in the Department for Transport. Given some of the complexities you have just outlined, do you think there are any valid concerns about that?

We have a formidable body of work to get on with as an operational Department, whether that is reforming our bus network, making sure that our train infrastructure is where it should be and challenges and opportunities to come on maritime and aviation, which sit within my portfolio. But I have every confidence that we are up to the task of getting on with it.

To press a bit further on that last question, do you think that the NPS is clear enough for improving multi-modal connectivity? A lot of the port towns have real issues with road traffic. Felixstowe has been lobbying for improvements to Ely junction, which is a long way inland. Other stakeholders were disappointed that key rail improvements did not come up through the list at this time. Do you think there is enough emphasis in the NPS on the land-side transport elements?

As it stands, the NPS document does stress that, wherever possible, with increased development you should look for opportunities to improve modal shift. That is with a particular emphasis on the issues raised by Mr Glover about congestion on the road network, so I believe it is sufficiently clear in that regard. That does not mean that, through consultation, we cannot look at what a range of stakeholders have to say. That has become clear to me in the short time that I have been doing stakeholder engagement in this role. Port operators are very keen for us to take those and pay close attention to them.

To add to that, we are very cognisant that certain ports are quite keen to see particular improvements to their road and rail connections, and we are working closely with the sector and our road and rail colleagues to understand how we can fit those schemes into the wider package of road and rail measures.

Of course, it is about the mechanisms for delivery—

Indeed, so it is slightly out of scope of the NPS, but we are listening.

We have to remember that the NPS is about the connectivity that goes with the development under application, so there is a complementarity between what the Department is doing more widely for port connectivity and the obligations that should fall upon an applicant to, for instance, achieve a certain rail share if it is a container terminal, or something like that. They are distinct, but complementary.

Welcome to the Committee this afternoon. Last week, we spoke about not only transport connections but general developments around ports and whether they could ultimately be constraints for ports. Do you feel there is sufficient protection within the draft NPS to protect ports from development?

That is an incredibly important question, and I did hear it come up in the first panel of witnesses. The first thing I would say—this reverts to the question of what sits within the NPS and what does not, and how you keep a document focused—is that the first line of defence for port operators on this front is making the best use of the land holdings they currently have within their portfolios while also acquiring strategic land. Port operational land is usually zoned appropriately in local plans. There is often recognition that harbourside land is scarce and once converted it cannot easily be turned back for port operational use. But the NPS can be used to show planning authorities the national importance of future port development, whether that is for growth through the operations that exist directly or into new markets to do with the energy transition; it is a clear sign of intent in relation to that. One thing we would always do is encourage ports to develop masterplans to help local authorities see their future land-use needs. That is why I was very pleased to see that you had a voice from the masterplanning side of the policy equation present on the panel the other day. However, it is a question of balancing land use and the most appropriate use of land. As the Chair mentioned in the previous session, there has been a transformation in certain communities that used to have proud ports and shipyard traditions, where now the best use of that land is either for commercial or residential uses. You see that in my constituency—along the River Ouse there has been a lot of change towards residential. What you do not want to do through the NP is to ossify land where there could be a dynamic use for it outside port capacity. At the same time, on the original point you raised about harbourside land being scarce, making sure that such land is used for ports, if that is required, is reflected in the revised document.

Last week we heard examples of where ports had been converted to residential, and there was a feeling that “river-based facilities”—in the phrase the Chair used last week to describe them—were lost. Earlier you said that you like that we have a market-led ports sector, although it is perhaps a little fragmented. Would you intervene if you thought that a port was going too far in converting to residential—perhaps for short-term gain, rather than thinking about the longer-term benefits that the country needs from ports?

It is an interesting question about how proposed port development intersects with the responsibilities of local authorities, but I think that this document is here to offer a very clear signal to the sector that an increase in port capacity, which will very often mean a concurrent increase in the usage of land, is required to make sure that the sector—a marketised sector; we have discussed the strengths of that, and why it is the case—can continue to grow, remain resilient and have that flexibility. The port operators themselves have the ambition to see the increase in capacity. I understand the point that you make about a potential shooting-in-the-foot situation. Actually, I have every confidence that ports are ambitious to grow. I see a strategic but measured process of land acquisition as a key part of how that development happens.

In the evidence from stakeholders there were some concerns about friction with the NPS where a port was near another nationally significant infrastructure project. Do you feel that there is sufficient protection and guidance in the NPS to take account of those interactions or do you think that more guidance is required?

We work very closely with other Departments to have conversations about where NPS documents could affect port operations. Where needed, those other NPSs can refer to the relevance of the NPS as part of their work. I would point to a different legislative mechanism addressing this issue. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will introduce a new review cycle that will allow for more current referencing between documents. That can stress where ports are an integral consideration to other developments that might be happening, to avoid some of the potential adverse impacts that were raised in the previous session. To revert to an earlier point, having a fully co-ordinated marine spatial prioritisation system and measures will also be really helpful, especially when we think about the interlinked nature of the offshore sector and our ports network. But your point is a relevant consideration, and something that we are certainly bearing in mind in developing this document.

I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I think you are saying that in some instances it will case by case, where Departments have to work together to make sure that we have the right solution. However, you hope that, overall, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will set the right framework for those discussions to take place.

By putting in that new review cycle, you will have more current referencing of the documents against one another. That can stress where ports need to be absolutely integral to considerations of other large-scale projects. An interesting philosophical question has been raised by some of the Committee’s discussion today: the tension between allowing the great pent-up ambition in the private sector to go for growth, especially in the green energy and decarb sectors, while making sure not only that that happens in a joined-up strategic way through stakeholder engagement between the Government and the private sector, and on an interdepartmental basis, but that we have a synchronised approach between those different regimes. That is something that we have strived to achieve through this document, and it will be at the forefront of our minds, moving forward.

As with the River Ouse, at our part of the Thames there is concern about the loss of river-related sites, and about the agents of change. I do not know whether that is relevant for inclusion in NPSs, but it may be relevant, particularly for specific very small sites where high-value housing is likely to be approved nearby, which can subsequently put the industrial operation out of action.

Historically, safeguarding has been more of an issue in London than anywhere else. That has been reflected in what the Mayor has historically done in that regard for the upstream wharfs in particular, because the economic incentives are comparatively high and therefore potentially more volatile. That is reflected in the way these things are handled in London.

If it remains just a London problem, London can deal with it. But where waterside residential developments have a higher and higher premium, there is a risk that that could spread beyond the upper Thames.

Good afternoon. We had a lengthy discussion with the last panel about critical national priority status, and a number of respondents have made the argument that ports should have the same critical national priority status for planning applications as that afforded to low-carbon energy infrastructure. Are you sympathetic to those arguments?

Ports are clearly an absolutely integral part of the supply chain in the construction, operation and maintenance of offshore wind. In earlier questions, we have covered how our ambitions for those things need to dovetail with one another and sit within a unified strategic programme. The revised NPS makes it clear that high weight should be given to ports, as supporters of critical national priority development, when it comes to offshore wind. In that sense, the best way to think about it is that ports act as a significant enabler of allowing that national priority to be met. That not only makes good strategic sense but aids the UK Government’s resilience objectives. I think it is evident from the port operators themselves that they see this as a key area of potential growth, and as an emergent sector that they wish to move to. Looking at it through the lens of CNP status, we are obviously happy to engage in this consultation and take these issues on board, but I see ports more as an enabler of those national priorities rather than as sitting at the core, if that makes sense.

A secondary argument was made to us in the previous session that CNP status would not just help to get new development through; it would also help to resist some of the encroachment issues that have already been raised in this session. Do you think that is accurate?

We are already putting a very high weight in the NPS on the importance of ports supporting CNP development, so it is already strong in that respect. This is something we will keep an eye on, because it is early days to know exactly what effect critical national priority status has had, and will have, on the planning system for energy developments. I think there has only been one development—the Mona wind farm—that has gone through completely since CNP has existed, and I do not think it was referenced explicitly there. In other cases, it might well be. We will keep in touch with DESNZ and others to see how that evolves and how the relationship between ports, as part of the supply chain, feeds into that.

There is a broader point around the Government’s growth ambitions, whereby designation of offshore wind as a CNP shows support for that form of primary development. That calls for development of the requisite port infrastructure to support it, so, in a sense, these two things dovetail together already.

And if it proves not to be the case as the new energy CNP status is introduced, the Department may look at it again—I think that is what we take from that contribution.

indicated assent.

Thank you. On the other side of the equation, we have heard concerns that community engagement in the planning of port developments may prove to be a tick-box exercise. How are you ensuring that that will not be the case?

What I would say is that, through port masterplanning, you get the opportunity to do genuine community engagement from the very earliest stages. It means that you can work through the mitigation hierarchy from the outset, pre-empt justified objections and work through them in relation to different projects. There is a broader point in that local authorities do not always see the importance of the ports sector in development, or the relevance of the NPS as part of their work. This is something that the Department will be actively trying to stress more broadly in communication, but the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will remove some of the special consultation requirements regarding NSIPs overall. In a sense, by its nature, that will remove what some people say is a tick-box exercise. I would say that there are already mechanisms in place to facilitate meaningful engagement, and we would just encourage everybody to make full use of them, but it is certainly something that we will consider moving forward.

On port freight demand forecasts, we have been told that within the investment decision-making structures of the various private entities that operate in the sector, the forecast may actually prove to be a limitation because of how they are assessed. The way I took it was that people up the chain were perhaps taking them as deterministic—I think the phrase used was that they should be treated as indicative rather than predictive. The sector has said that it would be helpful if the draft NPS itself could include clearer caveats about the limitations of those forecasts. Is that something that you would be willing to look at?

I heard the extensive debate yesterday on the question of forecasts. I found it quite interesting. On the question of granularity, it is a very difficult balance to strike, because the forecasts implicitly account for realistic modal shares. They do not show major shifts, because the data shows that they are not likely, but it is based on projected evolution as opposed to a pre-emptive judgment of competitive outcomes within the sector, if that makes sense. A granular example would be the competition between containers and ro-ro. We will not prejudge how different ports want to take market-based decisions on freight movements, so it is quite hard to map that forward in a forecast. I believe that the representative from the BPA yesterday said that the forecasts—

When you say yesterday, do you mean last Wednesday? You might have watched it yesterday, but it was last Wednesday.

Last week, forgive me—it feels like only yesterday. The representative from the BPA said that the forecasts serve as a statement of direction and intent as regards the Government’s view that having greater resilience and flexibility through the boosting of port capacity is incredibly important. But there is a valid point about making it clearer what the data itself indicates, so I will happily take that away and have a look.

Yes, and what it does or doesn’t do, particularly where investment may or may not go ahead, depending on the wording. That is potentially quite important. We also heard that there is a discontinuity between freight and non-freight forecasts. Has any work been done on whether non-freight can be taken into account?

I can say something about that. There are different interpretations of the term non-freight, but I think it is being used to include offshore wind construction, for example, which is not freight in the sense of imports and exports. It still involves commodities across a quay and ports being paid for that, but they do not tend to add up to 5 million tonnes per annum to get across the section 24 threshold. Whether you call it freight or not, that is the issue. The problem with forecasting it is that there is not such a base to work from; I think we have acknowledged that as an issue. The reason we do not have passenger forecasts in there is primarily that we have not seen passengers as a prime driver of the need for development. Where there are cruise ferry terminals, the ferry element is often carried on ro-pax vessels that are carrying freight as well, and freight is the prime driver of the main capacity need. That is something that we can look at, because there is a forecasting base for that. It is going to be significant, and when the NPS comes for review, there will certainly be lot more experience of how the market and the need have evolved. At the moment, it is very specific to particular customers and the range of ports—not only in England, but in Scotland and elsewhere—that can support them. You quickly get into the particularities.

That is helpful; thank you.

How does the revised national policy statement demonstrate alignment with the Government’s decarbonisation commitments?

The overall ambition for the UK to become a clean energy superpower can really only occur through the ports sector being able to increase its operational capacity, while also leaning into meeting the decarb commitments through its interaction with emergent markets in relation to offshore wind and alternative fuels. It should also be seen in the context of yesterday’s announcement from the UK Government of £448 million for UK SHORE, which is a programme designed to meet our decarbonisation goals within the marine sector. This is not to say that it may not be possible to underline the point even more, but the draft already notes the importance of UK Government targets and the clean energy mission. That does not mean that we cannot take that steer and see what we can do more broadly in the document.

What has changed since the 2012 version in relation to achieving those aims?

It has made it very clear that you have to take the issue of increasing operational port capacity and developing offshore wind together. The two things dovetail. On modal shift, the greater recognition of the need for an interconnected freight transport system, with rail playing its full role, is crucial. More broadly across the sector, people can see the potential positive impact of the green transition not only in terms of growth and boosting port capacity, but on the national resilience piece. The fact that we have a document that better incentivises port operators to be first movers on issues such as onshore electrification—at Cammell Laird yesterday, I saw for myself the impact that that can make to operational processes at ports—offers a very clear signal that the Government want to support port operators. That is a signal difference in tone, in terms of how we want to meet our ambition to make the UK a clean energy superpower.

Some of the evidence we have received suggests that some stakeholders feel that the revised NPS does not articulate sufficiently clearly how it supports the meeting of our carbon targets, including by supporting ports’ readiness to help shipping to decarbonise. Would you agree with that? If so, what more could have been done to promote that in the document?

It is an interesting point of view, which we are certainly happy to take on board. If you take the NPS as part of a broader range of Government action, I would say that yesterday the Government announced the largest ever investment in the maritime sector, with £448 million to decarbonise shipping. In that sense, the Government’s statement of intent is clear. The NPS goes a long way to taking account of changes since 2012, both in environmental regulation and in the Government’s wider aims—the broad decarbonisation agenda, ports as part of the overall target, low-carbon shipping and promoting biodiversity net gain. On updating references, examining bodies and applications to meet requirements more quickly, I feel that that is integrated within the NPS, but we are always happy to have conversations about how we can go further. That is exactly why we do consultations of this nature, so I am very happy to hear from anybody who has any points that they want to add in that space.

I have a small point to add to what the Minister said. The presumption in favour of port development, which we have outlined in the draft NPS, is a recognition of ports’ role in decarbonisation, for example as future green fuel hubs, as well as the key role that they will play in offshore wind development, which again is green energy. We are very cognisant of the role that ports can play. If we can look at amending some of the text to reflect those opinions, we will certainly consider that, as the Minister says.

Good. I think people will be pleased to hear that. A general challenge with regulation is the need to regulate today versus the future need to regulate things that may or may not exist yet. How will the ports NPS balance regulatory certainty today with the need for flexibility to support the deployment of technologies that are currently emerging across our ports?

I think the NPS makes reference to emerging technology, whether that be alternative fuels or shoreside electrification. That is a clear statement of intent about our willingness to work with port operators to pursue that work, but there is a balance to be struck. That was ably teased out in last week’s panel discussion, where you had a debate about what does and does not go into the NPS and about how you can make sure that you have sufficient ability to interpret it to allow you to pursue novel and innovative markets, while offering certainty that the Government stand behind the principle of decarb as a whole. That is something that we have worked hard to achieve. One issue that came out in the testimony given last week related specifically to SAF. It is an interesting question: the Government are committed to creating a domestic market for sustainable aviation fuel, but how it is referred to in documents such as this one is a delicate balance to strike. Fundamentally, the overall aim, which is stated in the document, is that ports are absolutely critical to the UK meeting its clean energy objectives and we will have to work in conjunction with other operators to make sure that we expand into the space of offshore wind and innovative green technologies. The statement of desire is there, but we also want to make sure that the document is sufficiently clear, streamlined and purposeful to allow people to interpret it to go for growth in the decarb space.

On decarbonising ports, we have been told that if UK ports are to get off diesel, they will need 30 times as much power as they currently have. Does that scare you a bit?

Scare me? It is certainly a challenge. The broader point around grid connectivity and energy generation is extremely important. In my few days in the role, I have been able to hear from quite a broad range of stakeholders with some interesting ideas about how to facilitate shoreside power generation through renewable sources. That is certainly a debate that I am happy to engage in. It also depends on the type of vessel that you have. Providing maintenance to a cruise ship with 4,000 passengers on board—basically a town—is a very different thing from having a container ship or cargo ship in for maintenance. The demands are different across the piece, but the focus on shoreside electrification is present in the document and is certainly of importance to me.

The offshore wind target for 2030 has been reduced from 60 GW to between 43 GW and 50 GW. Given the urgency and the scale of the challenge to increase offshore wind energy, should the development of port capacity to support that target not be formally described as a critical national priority?

The document acknowledges that port capacity and offshore renewables manufacturing are fundamentally linked. In combination with the overall importance and weight that the document places on meeting the Government’s clean energy mission, I believe that that is a clear sign of intent as to how the Government wish progress to develop in that space.

How confident are we that we can hit the revised targets?

I do not think that is really a question for us. It is probably a question for DESNZ. Ports are certainly out there competing for the business, where they can get viable contracts to undertake it. We have already noted that a lot of the market is in Scotland, so it is outside the scope of this NPS, although it certainly applies in England as well. But ports are definitely hungry for the business.

Thank you. We have a couple of questions on the wider environmental obligations.

We have also received consultation responses on both sides of this debate, and my view is that assessments should be both proportionate and realistic as to the projected carbon impact that port development will bring. It is the case that most of those developments will not affect carbon budgets as a whole, but that is not to say that interest in the overall principle of mitigating the impact of greenhouse gas emissions has not increased enormously in salience since 2012. It has now become a core part of the Government’s missions, which are restated within the NPS itself. On that one, I think it is best to reflect on the range of consultations we have received.

We are certainly aware of the Finch judgment, which related to an oil development in Surrey.

Save your answer!

Okay. Since people have made that point, we will look at the way in which that is expressed. As the Minister said, the fundamentals are not so very different.

We probably need to look again at the language in the light of the points that people have made in the consultation and, indeed, to you. But I would say that the situation of port development is very different from the situation that gave rise to the Finch judgment, and that judgment was also qualified in certain ways. We need to look thoroughly at the judgment to see how it does or does not alter what we should be saying in the NPS.

On the whole, that is something that is bound up with wider discussions about greenhouse gas emissions and a calculation thereof. It is not something for the NPS to lead on but, again, we will look at the consultation responses on it to see whether we ought to be saying any more than we already do. But the push on those issues is elsewhere.

The appraisal of sustainability that was undertaken to assess the environmental impacts of the NPS showed that there would be, long term, only minor positive effects in some areas. The UK Chamber of Shipping seemed quite happy with that, because there are not serious adverse effects—I think that is what they were concerned about. They seemed quite happy that there are only minor benefits. But both Unite the union and the RMT think we can do much better than just having a minor positive impact. Who do you agree with—the UK Chamber of Shipping or the unions?

I think the findings—

I am enjoying this.

I can tell! The findings of the appraisal of sustainability are proportionate to the impact that the NPS can be expected to have in its own right, seeing as it is largely dependent on a wider policy context that it has to reflect. That being said, we can actively consider how editorial change in response to the consultation could boost benefits in that space. So maybe my answer is that it is good so far, but we can always try to do better. We will engage with that consultation process and see what we can do.

There are always opportunities to improve, I guess. One of the debates last week when it came to sustainability was around dredging. The Chair did not let me ask a follow-up question then, which I feel a little bit hard done about—I’m just joking. The debate seemed to boil down to whether the material that is dredged should be disposed of at sea or landfilled, but it did not address whether ports could do more to ensure that dredged material does not become contaminated with things like heavy metals and so on. Do you think that is part of the solution? Rather than having this binary debate about landfill or not, should we not be looking to reduce the pollutants that are moving from our ports into the material?

There is a well-established system, called action levels, which determines when arisings are above the level at which it is safe to dispose of them in standard sea disposal areas. That will be picked up in the marine licensing process and alternatives will need to be found. The alternatives are much more expensive, so the whole system needs to be proportionate—I think it is proportionate at the moment.

But it should be stopping the material being contaminated to start with? Or is that more complex than it sounds?

It is, especially because the contamination is often not the responsibility of the port as such, but comes from things like historical mine workings upstream that have leached downstream and continue to do so for very long periods. It is very often not the fault of the port—or typically not—and there are strict controls over emissions from ships that prevent normal port activity. There are also controls over process activities by port tenants, which should prevent serious new contamination of sediment from occurring. The importance of dredging was raised with us within Government as something we should highlight more in the NPS.

I sensed a nervousness on this issue from the people who gave evidence last week, and I sense a nervousness from you as well. Is this a really challenging issue, for which it is just difficult to get the balance right between cost and environmental protection?

It is complicated, because it depends on some quite complicated science about the concentrations and what happens with sediment and so forth when dredging takes place. The technicalities of it are complicated, and they are in the sphere of DEFRA and its agencies. That is true, but on the other hand, there are well-established protocols for dealing with maintenance dredging and capital dredging to ensure it is done safely and disposed of safely, and that the marine licensing system run by the Marine Management Organisation addresses that as it must.

Thank you.

The evidence we have heard is that the risk of dredging, which you spoke about in the last question, has been overstated in the revised NPS, in the light of there already being lots of tight regulations and its importance for port operations being so high. Do you agree that the risk is overstated?

It may have been. I certainly think it is a heavily regulated activity already, and a well-established one. To that extent, it is possible that some concerns have been overstated, but it is something where eternal vigilance is needed to make sure that arisings continue to be disposed of safely, whether at sea or otherwise.

In the context of aligning the issues of port development and environmental commitments, which are sometimes conflicting, how does the current draft of the NPS improve on the 2012 version?

It improves on it primarily by updating references for the improvement and strengthening of regulation since that time, and especially under the current Administration, and implementing legislation that has occurred since 2012 and referencing that. It is a bit of a moveable feast in the sense that new regulations are constantly coming through in this general area. We have tried to get the draft up to date as far as it possibly can be. We know that there will be further changes to and, no doubt, strengthening of environmental regulation to come, and that is something we look at when we come to review again. It is definitely a stronger document because it is a more up-to-date document, and the fact that it is up to date reflects stronger regulation.

On streamlining the consents, what work have you done with colleagues at DEFRA to ensure that the revised NPS meets the strategic requirements of both DEFRA and DfT?

We have worked with DEFRA closely and collaborated quite extensively to ensure that the NPS is consistent with our joint strategic requirements. We have received several detailed comments from DEFRA agencies, which we will actively consider as part of the process, but that conversation is ongoing. It will not only inform the consultation and development of this work, but it is of course crucial to a range of issues that we take on in relation to ports’ operational capacity, whether that be biodiversity net gain, the meeting of carbon targets or issues to do with dredging. It is fundamental that we ensure close collaboration with our partners at DEFRA to make sure we get this right.

Okay. You will be aware, as you have watched last week’s session, that we had a series of questions on deemed marine licences. There was an argument that including a deemed marine licence in consent should be a default rather than an exception. What is the Department’s view of the merits of that argument?

For a development consent order, where a deemed marine license is usually required, it will be issued on the advice of the Marine Management Organisation as part of an overall single consent. For a harbour order, a separate license is issued, but both order and licence are processed in parallel by the MMO, so in practice the work entailed for the MMO is very similar. Switching to a deemed licence from a works harbour order would not materially affect the work needed to process both. I do not know whether you want to build on that, Philip.

That is certainly right. From the applicant’s point of view, the applicant has to submit different documents, but the documents will contain essentially the same information in terms of the environmental statement supporting either a deemed or an actual marine licence. Either way, the same environmental issues have to be addressed, and the same body will assess how well they have been addressed and whether they need to be sent back—“Could do better; please try harder.” There could be a neater administrative way but I think, in practice, that the difference it would make is secondary to the real issue of making sure that the MMO has the right tools for the job.

Those points were made by the sector. The Government say they are trying to reduce red tape, so there is an opportunity. We have come to the end of our questions. Thank you very much for coming to give evidence to the Committee. Please feel free to write in with anything additional that you have not been able to cover in your answers this afternoon. We are going to consider our findings. We will make our report to the House on the draft revised NPS in November. Thank you for being prepared to come before recess, because otherwise we would have had to ask for an extension on the parliamentary timeline for our response. That concludes today’s meeting.