| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
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 imitating 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.
2.30 pm
Lord Bradshaw: Like the two noble Lords who have spoken, I do not quarrel with the idea of having a national policy statement on ports. In so far as it is
4 Mar 2010 : Column GC409
As both the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, have said, we are very interested in the inland effects of developing the ports. The port can be contained within an area and you can judge the effect of that development on the relatively immediate environs. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, that birds will move. They can fly; a thing like that has to be borne in mind. Birds will go elsewhere provided that somewhere reasonably suitable is provided for them. However, that is not the same for the removal of what comes through the port to where it is required, whether it is moved by road or rail. No doubt we shall return to that when the Government or successor Government come back and talk about high-speed rail. You have to spend a lot of money on more or less concealing the effect. If you drive the route through fragile countryside, you will lose something forever, not just a few years. Those things have to be considered.
I now come to my major quarrel with the Minister. Several references are made in the draft policy statement to the fact that the environmental effects of things-the amount of money that will be spent on the roads, particularly-will be judged using the new approach to transport appraisal known as NATA and the WebTAG arrangements. In two meetings with his noble friend, the Secretary of State, I have debated whether NATA is actually a suitable method in the long term of measuring the environmental effects. I will not delay the Committee for long, but I will say that the perverse effects of NATA are huge. I am an economist not an econometrician, but I know the effects of NATA. If you have 100,000 vehicles using a road and each saves 30 seconds by some piece of work that is done, that 100,000 is multiplied by the 30 seconds, even though the road users do not discern any difference to them. In fact, if congestion rises, there will be no difference. The Government should give up trying to measure the minutiae of the detail that is the preserve of econometricians, of whom the department has plenty and lots of firms of consultants have plenty more. They should give that up and start measuring the
4 Mar 2010 : Column GC410
Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, to the fact that the ways in and out of ports on the continent are provided by the state. If you go to places such as Rotterdam or Amsterdam, the way out is provided by the state. We know that the rail routes out of some of our ports, such as Felixstowe, are hopelessly compromised by the lack of gauge clearance and the fact that the diversionary routes available are awful. Also, the Government are still quarrelling with the Mayor of London about who should pay for the electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking railway line, which will form a natural route to bring freight trains around and away from congested areas.
I assure noble Lords that there are multitudes of other areas in the country where we need to improve the way in which the railway operates. I do not believe that Network Rail is in any way efficient. It is a hopeless organisation and the Government have contrived to make that organisation outside anyone's control-there is no public or private control. I could take the Minister to show him places where it has wasted large sums that should have been spent on gauge clearance, only it did not have proper forward planning to know where the gauge clearance should be.
We are not talking about life up to 2030, but life for a century. When you invest in ports-all right, so the cranes may need to be modified-you are putting down infrastructure that will last for a very long time. It is not a temporary fix, but a permanent fix. We must make sure that those facilities are provided in places where the traffic they generate can be taken away with the least possible environmental impact.
I have said enough, but I should like a definitive answer from the Minister's noble friend the Secretary of State about what will happen to NATA. It is a very flawed system, and I know I have the support of a lot of economists in saying that. It attempts to reduce to very small sections of time, that are quite unpredictable and unforecastable. Most road users value reliability rather than the off-chance that they might save a minute and a half, if they are lucky, but the next day they will be a traffic jam and lose five minutes. They always have to take into account whether the network is reliable. That sort of thing is not embraced in the appraisal techniques that the Government use.
I wish this national policy statement well. It is setting out on the right track, but it needs a lot of work to develop the other things that depend upon it.
2.41 pm
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: 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
4 Mar 2010 : Column GC411
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
4 Mar 2010 : Column GC412
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
4 Mar 2010 : Column GC413
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
4 Mar 2010 : Column GC414
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.
Lord Bradshaw: The Minister mentioned that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is not here. However, I know that one thing he would have said about gauge clearance-although I do not know whether the Minister can influence Network Rail-is that Network Rail has not produced a statement of the capability of the infrastructure. Having told people that the gauge of a piece of railway is X, when a new wagon is produced which conforms to that, Network Rail demands that it is gauged again. That wastes lots of money and puts off investors. We want a proper appraisal by Network Rail of the state of the gauge or what the track will bear, and it should not be allowed to change its mind immediately afterwards.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I thank the noble Lord. The best I can do is to ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of Network Rail and I am sure that it will get in touch with him with a response. I have heard the noble Lord make these points before, but it does no harm for him to repeat them this afternoon.
I undertake that we shall continue to study the consultation responses and the report of the Transport committee.
Earl Attlee: The Minister has been extremely helpful to the Committee and has advanced our knowledge of the subject. However, I am still concerned about my assertion that the NPS is just a list of factors to be taken into consideration. Perhaps the Minister could
4 Mar 2010 : Column GC415
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I can certainly give the noble Earl an example and that is the switch in emphasis which, to my great delight, my noble friend has made in relation to the role of rail and coastal shipping. That is an area where a policy decision has been taken by the Secretary of State, and we shall hear further evidence of his commitment to the railway network in the next few days. I hope that that is an adequate response. There may well be other examples but that is certainly one to which I can draw the Committee's attention this afternoon.
As I was saying, we intend to continue to study the consultation responses and the report from the Transport Select Committee in the other place and we will reconsider the detailed drafting of the NPS in the light of those comments.
4 Mar 2010 : Column GC416
I am generally reassured by our debate this afternoon that the Committee's view is that we are broadly on the right lines. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their time and attention in studying-
Lord Bradshaw: Perhaps I may intervene. One thing that in my opinion was very unsatisfactory in the Minister's answer was what he said about NATA. It is obvious that the specialists in the department and the large number of people who work for consultants who have done the refresh would argue for it to be continued, because it is virtually their meal ticket. However, it does not address the salient issues in this statement. I draw his attention to the fact that I am quite dissatisfied with his answer and that, when the opportunity comes to raise the matter with the Secretary of State, I shall certainly do so.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am disappointed that the noble Lord is dissatisfied with my answer. I think the best I am able to do this afternoon is to promise that we shall keep this matter carefully under review. However, I am sure that my noble friend will look forward to the opportunity to debate it with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, at the appropriate time.
Committee adjourned at 3.02 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |