6.2 The Government has noted the significance of the Finch judgment, which bears on ‘Scope 3’ downstream emissions. We agree with the Committee’s view that the NPSP should include specific guidance in this regard and are providing further guidance in the final revised text. 6.3 It is important to bear in mind that the characteristics of port development are, in the great majority of cases, very different from the fossil fuel production case that was the subject-matter of Finch. Ports do not themselves produce such fuels, and any responsibilities for assessing Scope 3 emissions in the case of new energy sources would normally lie with the producers themselves. 6.4 In most cases, the Scope 3 impacts of new port facilities are likely to be both very complex and uncertain to estimate, and at the same time minimal in terms of global impact. It is therefore appropriate to consider the matter carefully at screening and scoping stages, but without an automatic presumption that a full Scope 3 analysis will necessarily be required. 6.5 The Department for Transport’s Maritime Decarbonisation Strategy intends the expansion of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to encompass offshore National Policy Statement for Ports: shipping by 2027, subject to certain exemptions. In this sense, the downstream emissions impacts resulting from changes to voyage patterns attributable to UK port development will be addressed by measures bearing directly on ship operators, information available to applicants when considering their internal business case. 6.6 We note that the Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025 has addressed the issue of Finch in the context of nuclear and other low-carbon infrastructure (see recommendation 15). The Government will consider the Review in due course and our response here, and in the revised wording in the NPSP itself, is without prejudice to assessment of that recommendation. Regulatory frameworks for ports 6.7 The Committee rightly points to the complexities of sometimes-overlapping national and supra-national environmental regulations. One function of the NPSP is to bring together references to these regulations in the special context of the ports sector, characterised by spanning the inland, intertidal and estuarial/marine zones. 6.8 Regulations must be complied with, but where possible we have sought to attribute weight to environmental considerations that are not regulatory absolutes. 6.9 The Committee notes evidence it received recommending that environmental regulation should, in essence, be more of a ‘one-stop shop’, and cites recommendation 14 of the Corry Review (published 2 April 2025) in this regard. 6.10 The Government has welcomed the Corry Review and has already begun to implement several of its recommendations. For example, the Port of Falmouth is one of the first applicants to engage with a lead environmental regulator, and we expect this practice to become more widespread, as those involved learn from experience in implementation. 6.11 This will require regulatory agencies to work more closely in order to deliver efficiencies in the sequencing of work and avoidance of duplication. It will also require applicants themselves to contribute by responding promptly when the regulators revert to them with points for clarification or other requests for additional relevant information. Prior engagement with regulators through a master-planning or other pre-application process can help, especially in following through the mitigation hierarchy from the early stages of project development. 6.12 While this programme of work does not require substantive amendment to the draft revised NPSP itself, the Government hopes that it will complement clearer and more up-to-date guidance in the NPSP to the benefit of everyone engaged in the Planning and consenting systems for ports. Deemed marine licences 6.13 We note the points relayed by the Committee in relation to the co-ordination of marine licences with harbour revision and empowerment orders. National Policy Statement for Ports: 6.14 We agree that every effort should be made to avoid duplication of effort in the production of environmental statements for marine licences and harbour orders, or deemed marine licences and development consent orders. In practice, this is to a large extent within the control of the applicant and its advisers, and in the case of harbour orders is facilitated by the dual role of the Marine Management Organisation as examining body for both. 6.15 The suggestion of adopting the deemed (rather than separate) marine licence approach for harbour orders as well as for DCOs is also noted, as a point separate (at least for the time being) from the drafting of the NPSP. 6.16 This is a matter for DEFRA to consider further, but in the meantime we do again note that the dual role of the MMO in harbour order casework renders this proposal perhaps less compelling or pressing than it might otherwise have been. 6.17 DEFRA is currently considering