HC Deb 05 May 1948 vol 450 cc1410-8

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Sparks (Acton)

I am very glad this evening to have the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to the position of our canals and inland waterways systems, and to make some suggestions for their more effective use in the transport organisation of our country. First, I think it is important to realise that there was a time in our history when canal transport was the supreme form of traffic operations. Between the period 1761 to 1838—roughly 80 years—transport by canal was the most effective if not the only means of transport in the country. During this period the country was covered by a network of waterways, and, in fact, the canal system of our country really gave birth to and created the transport conditions in which the Industrial Revolution was born and subsequently developed.

With the coming of the railways, round about 1830, a period then commenced of intense competition between the canals and the new railway system and, as a consequence of that intense competition, a more efficient transport system—that is, railway transport—became supreme and canal transport receded very much into the background. The inland waterways of our country gradually became derelict. The navigational channels became choked and obstructed, and the exceptionally low standard of maintenance and wharfage facilities drove a considerable volume of traffic away from the canals. It is estimated that 75 per cent. of our canal mileage today suffers from an acute lack of dredging. When the railway companies superseded the canals, they not only bought up quite a number of them, but they pursued a deliberate policy of diverting traffic from the canals to the railway system. They increased very considerably the toll charges, in order to divert traffic from the canals to the railways.

At the present time the railways own about 760 miles of canals. A quite considerable mileage in canals has already been abandoned by them and sold. We are unable at the present time to say exactly what amount they have abandoned and sold, but we do know that since 1938 more than 200 miles of canals were abandoned by the railway companies. Despite this, the remainder of the canals owned by the railway companies are in a very bad condition. There has been no improvement whatsoever in their canal system for over a hundred years. The standard of maintenance is exceptionally low and wharfage facilities are almost non-existent in some places and totally inadequate in other parts. Warehouses have fallen to ruin and buildings have been either sold or pulled down.

I am rather anxious to gather from my right hon. Friend what is now the position of the railway-owned canals in relation to the new Docks and Inland Waterways Executive which has already been set up under the Transport Act. It will be remembered that for the time being the railway canals are being retained by the railway system and are not yet being transferred to the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive. I should like to know the reason for that, because I think it is most important that the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive should have charge of the railway canals at the earliest possible date; first, because I fear that if they are not transferred at an early date the railways, if they pursue the policy of their predecessors—the private companies—will want to divert more traffic to the railway system and abandon more canals.

Despite the long period of neglect the inland waterways system of this country has an important part to play in the transport system of the nation. At the present time the existing canal system links up England diagonally by through water routes from London to Liverpool, London to Bristol, Bristol to Hull, and the centre of this diagonal system of waterways is located in Birmingham, which is the hub of our canal transport system.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)

What about Scotland?

Mr. Sparks

Then, of course, we have in Scotland the famous Caledonian Canal, and the Firth to Forth Canal which links the country from east and west. At the moment there are 2,400 miles of canals, which could be put in workable condition, having 40,000 persons living upon them, and 7,237 craft of all types in use. This seems to me to be an organisation which we ought not to neglect, but which should be placed very definitely inside our transport system under the control and unified management of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive.

There is one point I want to mention in connection with this subject, and that is the present structure of levying canal tolls and charges. The present system is quite out of date and unrealistic. It is not based upon the capacity of the canals to handle traffic but upon a very restrictive capacity. The present structure contains a variety of lock charges and toll fees on the same canals, to say nothing by way of comparison with others. In the case of railway canals in particular, many of the charges imposed upon traffic are uncompetitive and made deliberately high in order that the canals should not compete with the traffic on the railways. My right hon. Friend some months ago increased by 50 per cent. the tolls and charges on canal traffic. That was rather a serious step to take because I do not think it is going to have the result which he hopes it will have. He is anxious that the canals shall pay their way, but I am very much afraid that the result will be to drive traffic off the canals and reduce the volume of traffic passing, which in turn must increase costs and put a considerable mileage of the canal system out of operation.

I would like my right hon. Friend to make some inquiries about this because I am told that one important firm, Messrs. Guinness, who have a large depot in the Greater London area, and who have been accustomed to send a fair amount of traffic from London to Birmingham on the Grand Union Canal, have now taken this traffic off the canal. I am told they have bought a fleet of lorries, which they operate on "C" licences, and are taking that traffic by road, thus helping to congest the roads when there are ample facilities on the Grand Union Canal to convey the traffic. Apparently it is more economical for them to take this traffic off the canal and use their own transport by road.

There is another important factor. A not inconsiderable amount of coal is brought into Birmingham by canal transport. I have here a copy of the maximum retail coal prices operative from 5th April, 1948, issued by the local fuel overseer of the City of Birmingham, and in it are a number of entries showing the cost of canal borne coal to the people of Birmingham. For example, house cobbles, coal from Cannock Chase, is 4s. a ton more than house cobbles conveyed by other routes. Kitchen cobbles are 4s. 2d. a ton more, and house nuts 5s. 9d. a ton more than similar coal conveyed by other means. So I could go on, illustrating a large number of cases in which the cost of canal borne coal into Birmingham varies from 4s. to 6s. a ton more, largely as a result of the increased tolls which my right hon. Friend has put on canal charges. The net result is that much of the coal now brought into Birmingham by water is going to congest the railway system, and increase the demand on the locomotives and wagons, which we are told are very short.

I am wondering whether the result of this policy will not be to defeat the object of the Transport Commission and the principles of the Transport Act itself. The chairman of the Transport Commission, in a statement on 22nd December last year, pointed out that the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive had been requested to give special attention to measures to increase the carriage of coal and other goods on the canals, and that to get one million more tons of traffic on the canals would be a great help. But my right hon. Friend will find that traffic is leaving the canals in greater quantities than it has been doing for some time. The tonnage carried over the canals in 1946 was 20 per cent. lower than that in 1938, and I think he will find the figures for 1947 and 1948 are still lower than they were in 1946.

It is important that we should realise that the canals must be integrated with our roads and rail systems. They have a large capacity for moving heavy loads where a steady flow is more important than speed. Coal, bricks, cement, grain, timber and flour are a few of the many commodities that can be conveyed by water. If we treat the canals as separate and competing entities, as a collection of turnpike roads, we are going to fail in our policy. My right hon. Friend says they must be made to pay. I agree, but the point is how are we going to make them pay? The only way is by attracting more traffic to them, by opening up through routes, and by proper maintenance of the system. I do not think increased tolls and charges will make them more financially sound; rather will that tend to make them less solvent. It will tend to precipitate abandonment instead of development. I hope he will look into the effect of this policy. It is most important that we should retain existing traffic on the canals, and do what we can to meet the wish of the chairman of the Transport Commission to relieve congestion elsewhere.

I want to make a reference to the Kennet and Avon Canal. The old G.W.R. had sought to abandon this canal, and they were unsuccessful largely because it provides an important water conservation system in an area subject to flood and drought. This canal cannot be abandoned for that reason. Therefore, it is important that it should be put into a navigable condition. This canal links the Thames with the Bristol Channel and is the direct water route between the Port of London, Avonmouth, the South Wales ports and the Severn basin. It is of great commercial value. It has wide locks and high head room. It is a great engineering work besides; and it passes through country of great beauty. At the moment it is navigable only in parts. Locks and swing bridges are unworkable. Channels are impassable because of weeds in summer. The wharfage facilities have been sold, or leased, or are derelict. The commercial possibilities of the canal are very considerable. It is suitable for power driven commercial craft, which were prohibited by the late railway company, and, I understand are still prohibited. There is great difficulty in getting consent to use the canal. I understand that the firms along its banks have been canvassed to know if they would use the canal if it were made navigable, and that, with one exception, they are prepared to use it, because it would save time, expense and transhipment of goods.

I should like to refer, too, to the London traffic problem, although I have not time to emphasise that tonight. There are two canals which serve the London area. There is the Grand Union, which connects the London docks with the Midlands at Birmingham, and which provides an alternative water route to Liverpool, Hull and Bristol. Then there is the Kennet and Avon Canal linking the Pool of London with Bristol. These should be developed as an essential part of the decentralisation of London.

Again, there is an enormous potential demand for the use of our canals and waterways for holiday cruising. My right hon. Friend has done a good thing in providing water buses on the Thames. But why not have holiday cruises along our inland waterways? Canals provide a link between areas of dense population and the countryside, and, if they were properly developed, many people would use them for holiday and travel purposes. The railway authorities have been rather opposed to the use of the canals for this purpose.

I come to the question of the canal boatmen. Their wages are very low and they work long hours. On the prosperity of the canals depends the prosperity of these men. If traffic leaves the canals the times may be more difficult for them. There will then be a tendency to reduce costs to hold traffic, and we know what that tendency usually means in relation to wage standards. So I hope my right hon. Friend will look at this matter very closely. The canal systems are not at present in a position, in their present moribund condition, to compete with the railways and the roads. We must first make them navigable, and develop through routes, so that they can compete with other means of transport.

I realise I have not left my right hon. Friend much time to reply, but I hope that, as a result of my having drawn attention to this matter tonight, something will be done to improve our canals and inland waterways. I hope it will be very closely watched to see that the canal system shall be more fully utilised and that canal transport shall be integrated with rail and road so that we may have a comprehensive system using the maximum capacity of all forms of transport.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)

We are grateful to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) for raising on the opportunity afforded by the Adjournment of the House the question of our inland waterways. I am sorry I cannot agree, with the best will in the world, with the hon. Member in a great deal of what he said. He started off by saying, if I heard him aright, and if I misrepresent him, he will quickly interrupt me, that the development of our inland waterways had led to the Industrial Revolution. That is a sentiment from which I dissent.

Mr. Sparks

I rather thought I said that the development of canal transport created conditions under which the Industrial Revolution developed.

Mr. McKie

We all know that the great canal which the hon. Member has in mind, the Bridgwater Canal, was constructed about 1760, just before the Industrial Revolution developed in those alarming proportions with which, no doubt, the hon. Member is in great sympathy. While I am at one with him in desiring that the whole of our inland waterways should be overhauled and integrated—I think that was the word the hon. Member used—in connection with the national system of transport we are now about to enjoy—and I hope we enjoy it as much as hon. Members on the opposite benches think we shall—I cannot agree there is very much future for our inland waterways.

The hon. Gentleman said, and he should speak with great knowledge of our railway system under the old regime—the "bad old regime" as I expect he will call it—that the inception of the railway system led at once to discouraging the use of the canal system. It must have done so. It was the inevitable corollary of railway development. Just as the construction of railways did away with the road transport of those days, the coaching system, so it inevitably supplanted the canal system. The transport afforded by the railways, even in those early days, was more speedy and more efficient—I am sure that is the kind of word the hon. Gentleman would enjoy—than the canals offered, even with the facilities for dredging which were available at that time. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be in a mood tonight to agree to everything which his hon. Friend has suggested.

I entirely agree with the idea of an integrated system which the hon. Gentleman wants. The canal system should enjoy its proper place, but I do not think that in these days of the increasing rapidity of transport, we are likely to see the canals occupying the position from which they have departed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the dredging system leaves much to be desired. Nearly all my life I have known the great canal linking Edinburgh with Glasgow—the Union Canal—and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the dredging system of 40 years ago was very nearly as bad as it is today because, of course, the railways were supplanting it then. I make the hon. Gentleman a present of that.

With regard to the suggestion about Sunday trips or weekend trips on the inland waterways of Britain, I would agree had the hon. Member mentioned the Edinburgh and Glasgow Canal, because of the great scenic beauty of that part of the country; but so far as the canals and waterways of the Midland counties of England are concerned, I would not wish to go up and down boating on those waterways. I can see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. I have no animus against the canals, as he seems still to have against the railway system. I can quite imagine that what is animating the hon. Gentleman is his spite against private enterprise. I only hope that under the nationalised system of railway transport the hon. Gentleman will be more satisfied in the future than he has been in the past. The raising of canal rates is an inevitable accompaniment of the general discomfort we shall all have to endure through the nationalisation of transport in this country. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He has been a great advocate of nationalisation. He must now realise that there must inevitably be a general levelling down, or, in this case, a levelling up, so far as canal rates are concerned.

11.22 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes)

My two hon. Friends have left me only two or three minutes in which to reply on this very interesting subject. Therefore they will excuse me if I do not attempt to get into the argumentative side of the problem. It is quite impossible for me to do that now. I do assure the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) that everyone who is interested in this difficult problem of canal traffic will be indebted to him for having ventilated the matter here this evening. I can assure him that if I am unable to deal fully with it tonight, the British Transport Commission will read what he has said with great interest and care.

I will content myself by stating that the steps which were taken in the Transport Bill indicate my own general interest in this problem. The establishment of a Port and Inland Waterways Executive specially charged with looking after this form of traffic is, I feel, a development and encouragement which the canals have not had hitherto. The hon. Member said, that the railway canals have not yet been transferred to the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, but I can assure him that the process will eventually take place. We must remember that the railways were very large, extensive, ramified and intricate organisations, and it would not be good business, in my view, to split or to break that organisation to pieces before new machinery has been created to take over its task. The Port and Inland Waterways Executive, it will be remembered, took over the rest of the canals—that is, the greater part of the canals of this country. The canals which are in the possession of the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive carry approximately 10 million tons of canal traffic, whereas the railway-owned canals take less than half a million tons.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.