Moved by Lord Berkeley That this House regrets the Government's
decision to lay the National Networks National Policy Statement,
laid before the House on 6 March, without carrying out the
systematic review of road projects recommended by the Climate
Change Committee; addressing the risk of insufficient environmental
action by the Department for Transport highlighted by the National
Audit Office; or joining up their policies with the missions
presented to Parliament...Request free
trial
Moved by
That this House regrets the Government's decision to lay the
National Networks National Policy Statement, laid before the
House on 6 March, without carrying out the systematic review of
road projects recommended by the Climate Change Committee;
addressing the risk of insufficient environmental action by the
Department for Transport highlighted by the National Audit
Office; or joining up their policies with the missions presented
to Parliament under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act
2023.
(Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this short
Motion tonight. I think the text of the Motion is pretty clear to
noble Lords: in simple terms, I believe that the Government have
introduced the latest national networks national policy statement
without proper consultation and I fear that it will end in
tears.
These NNNPSs have been around since they were set up with the
Planning Act 2008 and are supposed to be produced every five
years or so. They can be debated in both Houses. The present one
was debated in the other place. I think there were 10 Members of
Parliament present, and everybody had the feeling that it was
being pushed through by the Government. The same legislation
basically requires any debate in the Lords to take place within
what they call a “relevant period”, otherwise you do not get the
benefit of a response from the Minister. I was only told about
this particular need for a debate quite recently by the Transport
Action Network, for which I am very grateful, but we are actually
out of time already.
The Government have not actually designated this NNNPS yet, and I
hope to get comments from the Minister in this debate to explore
what they are going to do next. Last week, the Government lost a
case in the High Court on climate change issues. The case was led
by Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and the Good Law Project.
They took legal action over the targets that the Government had
put in the NNNPSs, having successfully challenged the previous
budgets. The High Court ruled that Britain had breached
legislation designed to help reach the 2015 Paris Agreement goal
of keeping temperatures within 1.5 degrees Celsius of
pre-industrial levels, which required a new plan. The court
effectively ruled that the NNNPS was illegal.
So my question to the Minister is: what next? Given that surface
transport caused over 29% of UK emissions last year, it would be
pretty foolish if the Government were to designate—in other words
continue with—the NNNPS now. A lawful climate plan will
inevitably require a fundamental and radical shift in transport
policy, and we have not seen it yet. There is no sign of it.
There are many examples that I could go through, but I will not,
because a number of colleagues wish to speak. I have noted
examples from organisations such as the Institution of Civil
Engineers, the House of Commons Transport Committee and a lot of
the other organisations that have submitted evidence. They are
name-checked in the NNNPS, but just mentioning their names does
not actually mean that the Government will do what the particular
organisation says that they should do.
The Climate Change Committee's report to Parliament stressed the
importance of a
“systematic review of all current and proposed road schemes”.
That was in 2023. I am wondering where they are; maybe the
Minister will be able to tell us. Many things in the Environment
Act 2021 have not been translated into the NNNPS. Policy issues
on cycling, wheeling, walking et cetera—particular interests of
mine—are totally missing.
I have come to the conclusion, as I expect other noble Lords may
have, that the Government have got a rather unsavoury record of
ignoring any climate change documents or reports—even their own
report—if they conflict with other policies. The two that I have
come across govern oil production and building more roads. A
couple of weeks ago, we had a debate in your Lordships' House in
Committee on the offshore oil and gas Bill. The Minister
completely ignored the strong recommendations from the
Environment Agency's Joint Nature Conservation Committee—a
statutory maritime advisory committee—not to drill oil in marine
protected areas. The Minister totally ignored it, and the
Government are going to go ahead. The same comment applies to the
Department for Transport and the Climate Change Committee.
So I ask the Minister: what next? I could have divided the House
on a Motion to Regret, but I am afraid that that does not solve
the problem. If the Minister does nothing and the Government
eventually designate this NNNPS, they will end up with multiple
court cases and judicial reviews, which will likely stop them in
their tracks because they have been defeated in the courts and
they have to accept that. The presumption in favour of road
building will also have to be looked at and obviously there will
need to be changes to some of the planning laws.
The most important thing is for there to be an in-depth review of
how the NNNPSs are actually created, and the role of other
organisations who have an input, within government and outside.
Some debate on them is a necessary part of NNNPSs being produced
and they should be debated in both Houses in a proper, structured
way.
I shall stop there. I beg to move and look forward to the
Minister's response.
(GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the regret Motion of the
noble Lord, , even though I think that
regret Motions are pathetic, frankly. At least it means a
debate.
(Lab)
It is better than nothing.
(GP)
It is better than nothing. As somebody who has watched this
Government for a long time now, I cannot believe that they have
backtracked on so many of their plans. Actually, they had very
few plans to start with, but they seem to have backtracked on all
of them about delivering net zero. They seem to not even
understand what net zero means.
As the noble Lord, , said, the Government were
taken to court because it is obvious that the UK is going to fail
to do its bit to save the planet—and they lost in court because
they no longer believe in doing the right thing. They are now
fighting another court case because they cut £200 million from
the promotion of walking and cycling, a key part of delivering
net zero.
I almost think that I—or someone else, possibly on this
Bench—ought to write the Ladybird Book of Transport Policy for
Climate Change Deniers, because, really, you do need to
understand what we are going to see in the future. As has been
said, transport accounts for nearly a third of emissions and,
despite a million electric vehicles on our roads, those emissions
have hardly changed in a decade. All the road building has led to
extra cars and longer traffic jams. Instead of switching people
away from their cars by creating places to live that are within
easy, 15-minute walks of shops and services, this Government have
run down bus services and built sprawling suburbs that actually
increase the use of cars.
One big reason for the Government doing the wrong thing, rather
than the right thing, is the millions that the Conservatives have
received in donations from the oil and gas industry. Gas and oil
people want drivers to spend longer driving to the shops and to
fill up at petrol stations, because that means more money for
them. Gas and oil do not really like people cycling or
walking—all those cheap, easy things—because those people are not
making them money. The big polluters finance Tufton Street think
tanks and social media bots, because they want to squeeze as much
money out of their planet-killing business as they possibly
can.
The noble Lord, , said that the Government
have an unsavoury reputation on climate change. I do not think
that it is unsavoury; it is ignorant. I do not understand how you
can go through the last few years of hearing what is happening on
climate change and still be so ignorant about it.
8.00pm
I do not expect this Government to change their mind. I expect
them to lose the general election and then have nothing to do
with transport policy and not be a political force worth talking
about for the next—
(Lab)
For a few years.
(GP)
How many years in Government does the noble Lord want? Maybe a
couple of terms. As such, I will focus my next few remarks to
those in the next Government, because these national policy
statements were Labour's idea—and they are a really good idea. To
make them work, we have to make sure that the Treasury listens
and that the next Government get the funding to deliver real
change.
When I was the Deputy Mayor of London to Ken Livingstone, I told
him that, if we were to be serious about creating more cycling
routes, we were going to need hundreds of millions a year. There
was a huge shudder of shock around his whole office. It was
eventually accepted that, if you want to change things and to get
people more safely walking and cycling, you need the sort of
money that we might spend on a new road. The truth is, if you
build those opportunities, people will take them. We need to
imagine a future that is better than what we have now and spend
the money building that future.
(Con)
My Lords, I have two interests to declare. First, I am a
practising Silk. At the planning and environment Bar, I act for a
range of parties affected by national policy statements.
Secondly, in February this year, I was appointed by the Prime
Minister to undertake a review of the processes relating to legal
challenges to development consent orders for nationally
significant infrastructure projects.
In the course of that review, which is still to report, I have
engaged on NSIPs with various stakeholders from all sides of the
spectrum, including environmental NGOs, the public sector and the
private sector. Obviously, I will not comment on matters within
the remit of the review, but I want to draw the House's attention
to one point on which there is broad consensus among the
stakeholders. It is not directly relevant to my remit, but it has
some relevance to this debate. There is broad consensus that
national policy statements need to be kept up to date, and that
there have been shortcomings in that respect in recent years. The
NPS that we are debating tonight replaces one from 2014. That is
the status quo; it is 10 years old. The disbenefits of a national
policy statement being out of date include, first, that the
function of an NPS—to set the framework for development consent
and streamline the consenting process—is undermined if it has
been overtaken by events. Secondly, the propensity for and risk
of legal challenges is greater if people can point to a mismatch
between current circumstances and an out-of-date NPS.
Voltaire probably did not have in mind nationally significant
infrastructure projects when he said that the perfect is the
enemy of the good, but he might very well have done, because the
adage is no less applicable, and possibly more so, in this
context than it is in any other. Even if the national networks
NPS could be improved with further reviews of the nature the
noble Lord, , suggests, the status quo
during the time when it was subject to that review would be the
10 year-old and even further ageing 2014 NPS. I suggest that it
may well be better to have a 2024 NPS—which on any view is more
up to date than its decade-old predecessor—complete with a
commitment to be reviewed within five years or earlier, as the
new NPS commits that it should be. That review would be in light
of any further environmental policy developments that took place
in that five-year period. Is that not better than maintaining the
status quo of 2014 while we conduct further reviews in the
meantime?
(Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Woodland Trust
and president, patron or vice-president of a range of
environmental organisations. I support the Motion to Regret
tabled by my noble friend . He got to the Table Office
about 30 seconds before I did with my version of the Motion. He
will pay for that in future.
I want to challenge the previous statements, with all respect to
Voltaire. This is not a question of it not being necessary to
update the previous policy statement. It is very overdue to
update the previous policy statement, but, alas, this version is
badly out of kilter with a whole suite of other policy
commitments that the Government have already made, including
environmental and other targets. Voltaire might have said that
the best is the enemy of the good, but this is far from being
“the best”—and it is not even “the good”. Let us press on.
It is amazing how many respectable bodies have criticised this
policy, because this revised version has significant implications
for the delivery of the key objectives of the UK Government on
climate and the environment. The Government have missed many of
their targets for years. In its most recent assessment of the
Department for Transport, the National Audit Office gave a
“black” rating—the worst possible rating—to the likelihood and
impact of the risk that the Department for Transport would
“not deliver sufficient action in the transport sector to provide
carbon savings, meet air quality and biodiversity targets, and
adapt to climate change”.
That is pretty forthright. We have to remind ourselves that these
targets are, for the most part, enshrined in law.
The Transport Select Committee had a go at this. It was highly
critical of the draft NNNPS, but the Government rejected the vast
majority of its findings. The Climate Change Committee's 2023
progress report to Parliament stressed the need for
“a systematic review of all current and proposed road
schemes”,
with only those that
“meaningfully support cost-effective delivery of Net Zero and
climate adaptation”
to be taken forward. But that did not seem to be picked up by the
Government. In fact, the Department for Transport flatly refused
to undertake any assessment of schemes, and the revised NNNPS
would now permit an increase in emissions, when we are already
not on track to meet our future carbon budgets. As the noble
Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, road transport
emissions are almost one-third of the UK's total greenhouse gas
emissions. We must take action in transport if we are to meet
these overall binding targets.
The NNNPS is not just failing on net-zero targets; it does next
to nothing to reduce the significant impact on key habitats, such
as ancient woodlands, of the strategic road and rail programmes.
So far, HS2 has caused the greatest ever destruction of and
damage to irreplaceable ancient woodlands of any major infra-
structure project. The successive stages that have emerged since
the early part have not shown any improvement whatever—and
neither has East West Rail in its planning process. The most
valuable fragments of ancient woodland often occur in the open
spaces between areas of built development. New roads and railways
make a kind of beeline for those open spaces, since they provide
a green field route with nothing getting in the way—except
irreplaceable habitats. In fact, it often looks like roads and
rail routes simply join up the dots of the ancient woodland
fragments that should be protected.
The Woodland Trust ran an assessment of the impacts of the
schemes in the Department for Transport's road investment
strategies 1 and 2, which cover the last 10 years. Some 29% of
the schemes have resulted in a confirmed impact on ancient
woodlands and ancient trees.
There is one small crumb of comfort in the proposed NNNPS. It
adopts the wording of the National Planning Policy Framework that
loss or damage to these key habitats should be allowed only where
there are “wholly exceptional reasons”. However, the DfT then
goes on to argue that nationally significant infrastructure
project roads are wholly exceptional due to national needs—so a
fat lot of good the slightly tougher wording turns out to be.
The noble Lord, , talked about the debate in
the other place on the NNNPS. It was a bit desultory—to use the
kindest phrase I can think of. It was scheduled as virtually the
last business before the Easter Recess: sort of the equivalent of
a wet Tuesday night at the Aberdeen Empire. That is not a great
way to deal with such an important policy statement. Although
several Members made compelling points, the Minister barely
noticed that they had happened. This development since the debate
in the other place is crucial: the High Court's judgment last
week declaring the Government's climate change action plan
unlawful is absolutely fundamental.
In the light of that, it seems unwise for the Government to seek
to designate the NNNPS now. A lawful plan will inevitably require
a fundamental shift in government approach to transport planning,
since transport policy represents 70% of the gap in delivery
policies across all economic sectors. Therefore, a lack of
progress to decarbonise transport, in effect, kicks the legs out
from under the whole net-zero agenda.
There is an elegant way for the Government to get out from under
the car crash in which they find themselves as a result of the
High Court ruling. In February 2022, the energy national policy
statements were withdrawn for further review in light of the BEIS
Committee calling for stronger emphasis on net zero, so there is
a precedent. In my book, the DfT should gracefully do the same,
and commission an independent review of the NNNPS and of the
projects that are beneath its overarching framework to make sure
that transport policy can deliver what is needed for the
Government to achieve their statutory targets, both in climate
change and in the broader environment.
Can the Minister confirm that he will, in fact, gracefully
withdraw the NNNPS? If he is not prepared to do that, why not,
and how are the Government planning to meet their statutory
climate and environment commitments and to respond to the verdict
of the High Court?
The Lord
My Lords, as it seems compulsory in this short debate to quote
Voltaire, perhaps I might take us to his wonderful creation, Dr
Pangloss, who continues to assert:
“All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds”
even while the horrors are descending around him. I feel there is
something of that in the statement; it is a bit Panglossian. As
noble Lords have already said, we face a climate emergency and
crisis, and this statement is not adequate to the seriousness of
the situation that we are in.
In Greater Manchester, we have made a commitment through our
combined authority to become a net-zero city by 2038. It is no
good us doing that if everybody else is going the opposite way.
My wife is a priest in a parish underneath a motorway
interchange. Motorways are, of course, exempt from all the clean
air regulations that apply to many other roads. We desperately
need every policy to be thoroughly tested to ensure that it will
get us to net zero in the time and at the pace that we need, and
at the moment, this is not good enough.
(LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, , is quite right to highlight
the Government's failure to carry out the systematic review of
road projects recommended by the Climate Change Committee, and
addressing the risk of insufficient environmental action by the
Department for Transport that was highlighted. I just want to
speak about the effect that has on the levelling-up agenda, which
it links to. All these actions are interactions, and the noble
Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Young of Old Scone, are quite
right to highlight the environmental impacts of these decisions.
However, there are even bigger and more important issues, which I
will highlight to the House.
As an aside, my need to stay for two nights in London to take
part in this debate tonight is also relevant, as well as the
thousands of people who were going to come London today but who
cannot do so because of a national rail strike. That is not
directly connected to this but it is symptomatic of how the
Government are dealing with the people who deal with that
infrastructure. After two years, ASLEF has still not resolved a
pay dispute, but it is not all its fault. This is on the record:
I am not having a go at Avanti trains tonight. The
infrastructure—Network Rail—is to blame along the way as well.
Trains are blocked and lines are down and not working. I can tell
you where they are; people need to know where they are. If you go
to Milton Keynes or Watford, lines are down. It affects the
travel anywhere around that area and affects everything coming
into London, including people.
8.15pm
It is the failure of joined-up thinking that is causing me angst
and making me want to stand here tonight in this short debate and
just try to explain why. The draft statement says:
“The government's Levelling Up the United Kingdom White Paper
recognises the role that transport can play in boosting
productivity, by connecting people to jobs, and businesses to
each other, and sets out an ambition to level up transport
connectivity. It recognises the role that specific projects on
national networks can play in improving connectivity between
towns and cities”.
That is what we are trying to do. The difficulty with that
well-intentioned statement is that it is not happening. They are
not connecting up the towns and cities of the north, the Midlands
or the far north, such as Newcastle. Someone seems unable to
deliver these NNNPS policies.
On transport, the Government say:
“By 2030, local public transport connectivity across the country
will be significantly closer to the standards of London, with
improved services, simpler fares and integrated ticketing”.
If your Lordships know of a town or city in this country that has
anything like the simplified ticketing system of London, please
tell me about it. Greater Manchester is doing its best, with the
mayor bringing the buses back into public ownership, and we are
now going to try to get our own mini-Oyster scheme going, but to
try to connect that with the trains is like pulling teeth. These
people do not talk to each other. Although the national
Government cannot be responsible for everything, surely they are
responsible for connecting up people. They give devolved powers
to regions and then they do not allow those regions to connect up
the policies that enable the facilities to deliver, and that is
all that we are looking for. We are looking for the Government to
actually enact these great things. I have highlighted these
statements, which are all very worthy, but there is nothing
behind them.
If you compare our transport system and infrastructure with
Europe, we are lamentable. We fall behind France, Germany and
Italy and every other country, and you dare not go any further,
to Japan, and get on that bullet train, or to China, where in the
time we have been debating one more runway at Heathrow Airport,
they have built 21 airports. The whole thing is holistic.
My question to the Minister is: will anybody grasp this situation
and try to pull it together? Everybody knows what we need to do
but nobody seems to want to do it. Paragraph 2.1 of the National
Networks National Policy Statement says:
“As recognised through the government's economic growth and
levelling up agenda, improved connectivity and accessibility,
both locally and inter-regionally, facilitates deeper labour
markets giving individuals better access to jobs, and education,
and businesses better access to skills. Improved connectivity can
increase the economic density of an area, leading to increased
productivity”.
That is surely what the Government want: fewer people claiming
benefits and more people in work, paying taxes, contributing to
society and being part of society. The metro mayors are getting
it and are trying to do it. We have now seen the local elections
and the mayoral elections. I just hope that the Government can
step back and look again.
Finally, this is the most important part of what the Government
themselves have said:
“By 2030, the number of people successfully completing
high-quality skills training will have significantly increased in
every area of the UK … this will lead to 200,000 more people
successfully completing high-quality skills training annually,
driven by 80,000 more people completing courses in the lowest
skilled areas”.
That is what we need, and that is what is at risk. We need those
80,000 low-skilled workers and those 200,000 people getting
high-quality jobs, because that in itself is what creates the
wealth and prosperity of this country.
On projects, I will briefly touch on HS2—I was on the Select
Committee for it. We have a saying up north: “A blind man on a
galloping horse could see what was coming”. It was quite clear
what was coming: the cost, the cost, the cost. As a principle, I
get it; it is a statement of intent about connecting the north
and the south—I understand that—but nobody thought it through. If
there is one thing this Government must be held accountable for,
it is that they do not think it through. Come the next general
election, whatever the result may be, it will be because they
never thought it through.
Lord (Lab)
My Lords, I often end up in this situation, with four or five
people in the Chamber battling through statutory instruments with
the Minister. I do not know how I got into this mess, but I have.
Tonight, though, is different, and it has become more different
as I have listened to this debate.
I was born in 1943, and I would claim to be in one of history's
most favoured generations. In my life, nobody has shot at me in
anger; I have never known hunger; broadly speaking, longevity has
grown in that period; general levels of health have improved;
and, broadly speaking, affluence improved until, say, 2015. I
remember the Cuban missile crisis and thinking, and even arguing,
that all these sensible people who had been through the Second
World War would not do anything silly. As I become closer to
power in my old age, I realise by what a narrow margin that
proved to be—just—true.
The situation we now face is worse. We have a number of wars; we
have a war in the Middle East, and a war in Ukraine. Never, in
decades, has the possibility of a war approaching our shores been
greater. But even that pales into insignificance compared with
the climate crisis. I have to get my stuff from the radio, but I
believe that every day in the last year was the warmest on
record, worldwide. I cannot go that far, but I have a horrible
feeling that we will fail the climate crisis. We are a nation
that can make our contribution, and we are backing off it; we
were a leader on this whole issue, and now we are backing off it.
This is just an example of how we are incrementally backing off
our commitments.
I may be being unfair, so let us look at the Motion from the
noble Lord, . I will read it into the
record, because the more I read it, the more powerful I think it
is. The key wording is,
“without carrying out the systematic review of road projects
recommended by the Climate Change Committee; addressing the risk
of insufficient environmental action by the Department for
Transport highlighted by the National Audit Office; or joining up
their policies with the missions presented to Parliament under
the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.
I want the Minister to address all three charges, because if he
cannot refute them, he ought to apologise. It seems to me that
those commitments were made to Parliament, and Parliament has a
right to expect commitments made by Ministers to be honoured.
We have no vehicle to discuss the planning statement other than
this debate, so I will finish by saying a few words about it. The
issues with building transport infrastructure go deeper than the
NNNPS. The question is whether this update will improve transport
infrastructure delivery. While this version provides some
important improvements on the 2014 version, it falls well short
of providing what is needed and poses significant questions as to
whether it is compatible with our climate change commitments.
This risks further slowing down the planning process for major
projects; the system is already moving at a glacial pace, when we
should be pushing the accelerator. One of the concerns raised
about the plan is that it is clearly not meeting our net-zero
obligation. It contains decarbonisation promises that we already
know the Government are behind on, such as the charge point
target. How does the Minister plan to ensure that we still meet
our 2015 net-zero target when these policies seemingly do the
opposite? Does the Minister think his draft National Networks
National Policy Statement is compatible with the 2021 transport
decarbonisation plan?
An additional concern is the lack of roles for the subnational
transport bodies. These bodies have strategic plans for their
regions to both reduce carbon output and support economic growth.
What further work will the Government do to ensure regional
bodies are brought into transport planning? I am glad the
Government accepted the Transport Committee's recommendation that
these plans be placed on a five-yearly review.
One piece of good news is that noble Lords should not have to
wait long to see improvements in this policy statement, if the
local election results are anything to go by. As part of its
commitment to overhauling the country's approach to planning and
infrastructure, Labour has committed to updating all national
policy statements within six months—and I thank the noble
Baroness, Lady Jones, for pointing out that, conceptually, they
are a sound idea. This sits alongside Labour's review of
Britain's rail infrastructure, which would explore how it can not
only recover from over a decade of managed decline but help us
boost jobs, improve value for money and drive investment and
economic growth across the country. This policy statement, thanks
to the input of the Transport Select Committee and those who
provided evidence, does improve on the one drafted by the
Government. However, what our planning and transport systems need
is a Government who are committed to delivering a system that
works and is compatible with our net-zero promises.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords for their
consideration of the National Networks National Policy Statement.
I would particularly like to thank the noble Lord, , for securing the debate; he
is well known for his contribution to transport policy, not least
in the area of rail freight.
Our road and rail networks are essential parts of our transport
system. They connect people and communities and enable the
effective movement of freight. They are fundamental to our
economy and our way of life. Therefore, we need to maintain and
enhance these national networks. The Government set out their
ambition in the 2020 national infrastructure strategy to make the
infrastructure consenting process better, faster and greener. The
cross-government action plan for nationally significant
infrastructure projects sets out the reforms to the planning
regime that will ensure the system can support our future
infrastructure needs. The action plan underlines the importance
of having clear and up-to-date national policy statements in
order to set the strategic direction for future infrastructure
schemes.
The National Networks National Policy Statement—or NNNPS, as I
will abbreviate it—sets out the planning framework for taking
decisions on large-scale road, rail and strategic rail freight
interchange projects in England. It sets out the need for
development of infra- structure, and the impacts that the
proposed development must address. The NNNPS provides planning
guidance for promoters of schemes on the national road and rail
networks, and is the basis for the examination by the examining
authority and decisions by the Secretary of State. The current
NNNPS was designated in 2015; at that point there was no net-zero
target, transport decarbonisation plan or biodiversity net gain
requirement. The NNNPS has been reviewed to bring it up to date,
so that it properly reflects the legislative requirements and
policy context of today.
8.30pm
Having an up-to-date planning policy framework is essential. It
is helpful for communities to know the standards that
applications will be held to. It means that applicants know what
information they need to provide with their application. This can
prevent the need for further information later in the process,
which can cause delay. It also gives the Secretary of State
clearer guidance on the approach to impacts and reduces the need
to interpret and balance sometimes competing policy
positions.
In undertaking the review, we have sought to ensure that the
infrastructure we deliver is compatible with our environmental
targets—not just net zero but areas such as air quality and
biodiversity. We think the revised NNNPS strikes the right
balance.
On net zero, the steps we are taking through the transport
decarbonisation plan mean that we can continue to invest in the
road network. While the transition to net zero will bring changes
to the way we travel, the road network will remain at the heart
of our transport system and a major enabler of growth. The
revised NNNPS provides a clearer framework for assessing carbon
impacts, so that decision-makers can more readily consider
nationally significant infrastructure project schemes within the
context of the Government's legally binding carbon targets and
net zero.
With that, I will turn my attention to points raised during the
debate. The noble Lord, , and the noble Baronesses,
Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Young of Old Scone, raised
issues regarding the transport decarbonisation plan, which we
published in 2021. This sets out how we will achieve net zero
across all modes of transport by 2050; the plan covers all modes
of transport and was the first of its kind in the world. Since
then, significant delivery progress has been made, with some
actions exceeding the plan's commitments. Successive
publications, including the net zero strategy in October 2021 and
the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan in March 2023, build on the
commitments made in the plan.
We are considering the recent judgment against the CBDP
carefully. However, it is important to note that the judgment
contains no criticism about the Government's policies to meet the
ambitious carbon budgets we have set in law. We do not believe
that completion of the NNNPS review needs to be paused as a
consequence of the judgment. The NNNPS itself is not an
investment strategy and does not list specific schemes; it sets
out the planning framework for consenting major schemes, but not
the quantum of schemes coming forward. We are currently working
to prepare the third road investment strategy. At the point that
decisions are made on the final balance of the scheme portfolio,
Ministers will consider all impacts of those schemes, including
carbon.
The noble Lords, Lord , and , raised the
Climate Change Committee report. This Government do not believe
that it is necessary to review or pause the roads programme in
light of environmental goals, as recommended by the Climate
Change Committee. It is also important to remember that carbon
emissions from construction and operation of the strategic road
network represent a small proportion of overall UK domestic
emissions. However, emissions from the transport sector were
responsible for 28% of domestic emissions in 2022, with 90% of
those coming from road vehicles. The right way to tackle
decarbonisation of the road network is not to nibble away at the
edges by blocking new schemes but to decarbonise the vehicle
fleet, which we are getting on with.
The noble Lord, , raised issues regarding the
NNNPS and the natural environment. All nationally significant
infrastructure projects need to consider environmental
commitments. Legislation is part of the process of seeking
development consent. The NNNPS sets out the principles on which
individual projects should be assessed, including the
environmental impacts of a proposed scheme. The revised NNNPS has
been updated to reflect recent environmental policy and
legislation, such as biodiversity net gain requirements and other
Environment Act 2021 targets and policies.
On air quality, which the noble Lord, , raised, air pollution has
reduced significantly since 2010, with nitrogen oxides falling by
32%—they are at their lowest level since records began. The
Government have legally binding targets to reduce emissions of
five key air pollutants.
Biodiversity was alluded to by the noble Lord, , and the noble Baroness, Lady
Jones of Moulsecoomb. The environmental improvement plan,
published in January 2023, is the central pillar of government
policy to help nature thrive in England. It is based on a
framework of long-term and interim targets, including to increase
species abundance and tree cover. The landmark Environment Act
2021 put in place targets and requirements to help us restore
natural habitats and increase biodiversity across the nation. It
introduced a requirement for nationally significant
infrastructure projects seeking consent to deliver a minimum of
10% biodiversity net gain from November 2025.
On an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the NNNPS
is not a transport strategy; it sets the framework for consenting
nationally significant infrastructure projects. This is a
category of very large projects, defined under the Planning Act
2008. It does not include walking and cycling projects, or public
transport other than some rail schemes. That is not illustrative
of their relative importance; it simply reflects the different
planning regimes in place for different sizes of scheme. The
NNNPS should not be considered as a statement of the Government's
entire transport policy; that is not what it is for.
My noble friend talked of reform of the
planning process for nationally significant infra- structure
projects. We must have a planning system fit to deliver them
while keeping communities and the environment at the heart of our
decision-making. My department is contributing to an active
government reform programme to improve the planning system for
major infrastructure. It includes reviewing national policy
statements and ensuring that transport infra- structure
consenting routes are proportionate. The NNNPS review was
undertaken in line with the existing NPS guidance owned by the
Department for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities and is
consistent with the structure and process adopted in existing
national policy statements.
On decarbonisation in general, which was raised by the noble
Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Young of Old Scone, the UK has
decarbonised faster than any other major economy, more than
halving emissions since 1990. Our credible cross-cutting plan to
decarbonise all transport is at the heart of our ambition, a plan
that works for transport users, the economy and the climate,
leading the charge internationally. Domestic transport emissions
are down 11% from 2019, and growth is up. Our zero-emission
vehicle mandate delivers the most ambitious national-level
regulation of its kind, supporting decarbonising our roads in
line with net zero by 2050 while unlocking billions in investment
across our automotive and charge point sectors.
On the NNNPS and net zero, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones
and Lady Young of Old Scone, raised, the NNNPS provides a clear
framework for assessing carbon impacts so that decision-makers
can more readily consider nationally significant infrastructure
project schemes within the context of the Government's legally
binding carbon targets and net zero. The NNNPS makes clearer the
requirements on scheme promoters and decision-making Ministers in
respect of net zero. Applicants are expected to provide a carbon
management plan for new schemes coming forward under the NNNPS.
These carbon management plans have to include a whole-life carbon
assessment of the project setting out the expected greenhouse gas
emissions at every stage of the proposed development and must
show that emissions have been reduced as much as possible.
The noble Lord, , raised the
NNNPS and the Levelling- up and Regeneration Act. The
Levelling-up and Regeneration Act received Royal Assent in
October 2023 after the completion of the public consultation into
the draft revised NNNPS. We worked with all relevant government
departments during the process of the review to ensure that the
revised NNNPS is as future-proofed as possible. While we were
unable to signpost legislation that had not completed its
parliamentary process, we have sought to reflect the emerging
direction of travel in the NNNPS, where appropriate. Emerging
changes to environmental assessment are one example. The NNNPS
includes provision for review at least every five years.
The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, talked about government investment
in rail. The Government are redirecting £36 billion of funding
from HS2 into hundreds of transport projects across the country
to drive better connectivity across the north and the Midlands
with faster journey times, increased capacity and more frequent,
reliable services across rail, buses and roads: £19.8 billion
will go to the north, £9.6 billion will go to the Midlands, and
£6.5 billion will go to other national projects and schemes. They
will be delivered at various times over the next decade and
beyond with some already under way, such as improved support for
bus services and pothole repairs.
The noble Lord, , also posed the
question, “Who is going to get a grip on it?”. I can tell the
noble Lord that we have a clear plan for the transport system
that we have articulated in a range of publications covering
specific modes of transport and cross-cutting policy areas. These
are backed up with clear aims and objectives and are guided by
our strategic aims to grow and level up the economy, improve
transport for the user and reduce environmental impacts. We
engage closely with a range of stakeholders in developing these
policies and strategies.
The Government recognise the need for timely infrastructure
delivery and an updated NNNPS is a critical element in ensuring
our consenting regime for nationally significant infrastructure
projects functions as effectively as possible. The NNNPS has been
subject to a thorough review process. We are very grateful to all
those who provided comments during the public consultation and to
the Transport Select Committee for its careful consideration of
the issues. The revised NNNPS reflects the latest legislation and
policy. It strikes the right balance between enabling the
delivery of infrastructure and protecting the environment and
provides much clearer guidance to all those involved in the
consenting process. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that
the revised NNNPS delivers on its purpose.
(Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken
part in this short debate and to the Minister for his
comprehensive response. He said that he felt that the NNNPS
brought the right balance between the need for transport and the
need for the environment and zero carbon, but all I can say is
that most noble Lords who have spoken tonight probably do not
agree with it. We shall watch what happens in future.
The one thing the Minister did not tell the House was whether the
NNNPS has actually been designated. He said we should all support
it and that it is the most wonderful thing probably since sliced
bread or whatever. We will have to read very carefully what he
said, but I did not hear the word “designation”. We will wait for
that. We have been here a long time. I thank all noble Lords for
their contributions, which were really helpful. I apologise to my
noble friend for getting in before her when it came to putting
the name of the debate down, but in the meantime, I beg leave to
withdraw my Motion.
Motion withdrawn.
|
