HC Deb 09 February 1966 vol 724 cc573-82

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Harriet Slater.]

12.4 a.m.

Mr. Walter Alldritt (Liverpool, Scotland)

I am glad to have the opportunity to raise a matter, which is of deep concern not only to my constituents but to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon). The subject is the Liverpool and Leeds Canal, otherwise known locally as "the cut". I wish to draw attention first to the deaths, between May and 2nd October, 1965 of two boys aged three, two aged nine and four respectively and a girl aged six. Four of these deaths were in the Liverpool coroner's area.

In the past few years, at least 19 lives have been lost in the same area. I know that at least 15 of these victims were under 11 years of age. In the same period there have been numerous rescues, most of them unreported, with all the attendant risks to the rescuers. I know of men who have caught pneumonia or serious colds and have not been able to attend to their employment for some weeks afterwards.

Arising out of the tragedies of 1965, a conference was held in Bootle on 19th October which comprised local authorities, the British Waterways Board and Members of Parliament. I thank my hon. Friend's noble Friend for the cooperation which he gave us in this matter. The important point is what that conference resolved. There were two resolutions. The first read: That action being urgently required to reduce the number of fatalities and other incidents in the Leeds and Liverpool Canal in the Merseyside area, this meeting recommends—

  • (a) that the British Waterways Board and the local authorities concerned take immediately all appropriate steps to prevent children from obtaining access to the canal banks and to secure the provision and maintenance of adequate life-saving equipment;
  • (b) that the local authorities concerned approach all owners of land adjoining the canal in the Merseyside area and request them to take such steps as may be necessary to prevent children from obtaining access to the canal banks across such land."
I should like my hon. Friend to take particular note of paragraph (c), which reads: (c) That the British Waterways Board and the local authorities concerned consider the establishment of water-borne and other patrols. (2) That the local authorities concerned and the British Waterways Board be requested to allow their appropriate officers to serve on a Working Party to be convened by the Town Clerk of Bootle with the object of preparing a report on the present use and the future of the canal in the Merseyside area and that such report be submitted as soon as possible to a meeting of two representatives of each local authority concerned and the officers of the Board. What of the implementation of these recommendations? I can speak only of what I know has happened in the County Borough of Liverpool; I know for certain that recommendations 1 (a) and 1 (b) and recommendation (2) have been carried out.

It will be noted that the concentration was purely upon preventing further accidents in the canal as it now exists, but in December, 1965, the British Waterways Board issued a document called "The Facts about the Waterways" which shows quite clearly and conclusively that this stretch of the canal between Liverpool and Wigan has no potential as a cargo carrier and, further, that that stretch which passes through my constituency from the mouth of the canal and through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle not only has no cargo potential but has no amenity potential. It is a fact that it has become more or less a stagnant pool and I and my colleague receive constant complaints about the smells which are emitted from this canal.

it seems to me that the main concern on this stretch would be the cost of filling it, and I want to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the second tunnel crossing is to be provided—indeed, the pilot bore has started—within about 200 yards of a stretch of this canal. It seems to me that the opportunity should be taken by the British Waterways Board to exploit this situation, as spoil from the tunnel should be available on the Liverpool side at perhaps no cost at all. It would also release to industry valuable land which flanks each side of the canal. It might also have the advantage of reducing the cost of the second tunnel crossing.

Having said that, I want my hon. Friend to do two things. First, he should draw the attention of the Liverpool County Borough to recommendation No. 1 (c) of the conference held in Bootle on 19th October and, once again, to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government issued a Circular, No. 52, on 6th July, 1965, clearly indicating that the local authority has power to introduce waterborne or other patrols. Second, my hon. Friend should direct the British Waterways Board to take immediate advantage of the opportunity which is offered by the tunnel works to fill that section of the canal which passes through the two constituencies to which I have referred. Even if the spoil is not available, this section should be closed.

I do not think that the City Council of Liverpool would take objection to its attention being drawn to recommendation 1(c) of that conference. I recall that my good friend, the leader of the City Council, commented in the Press in October that once the ball had been placed at his feet, it would not be kicked around. We cannot continue to allow life to be lost in this way. Our children—the pride of their families, the flower and future backbone of the nation—should not be allowed to lose their lives in this way.

I beg the Minister to recognise the urgency of this problem. I hope that in his reply he will not say, as some misguided people have suggested, that there should be greater parental control, for that would be only begging the question and would show a complete lack of understanding of the conditions which exist in the populated areas alongside this dirty, polluted and useless killer which is a nightmare not only to parents but also to industry.

I also hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not hide behind the answer of non-Ministerial responsibility in this matter, because if action is not taken I certainly intend, if another child's life is lost in this canal, to see to it that either the Ministry or the Board bears the legal responsibility. I am not prepared any longer to allow this state of affairs to continue.

Time is short so I will conclude my remarks by making a comparison which my hon. Friend could clearly say he is not prepared to countenance. It is, nevertheless, worth while making. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary could tell me of any stretch of road of equal length to this canal on which the same number of deaths involving child pedestrians had occurred, I would perhaps not be so emphatic. However, if such a comparison could be made and the death rate were the same, the Order Paper would be full of Questions from hon. Members. In such circumstances, I am sure that the Minister, whether or not he had Ministerial responsibility, would direct the responsible authorities to eliminate the problem completely.

12.14 a.m.

Mr. John Smith (Cities of London and Westminster)

The Leeds and Liverpool Canal is far from my constituency and the fact that I rise to speak about it emphasises, I hope, that this is a matter of national as well as local concern.

To close a small part of a canal means, in the end, to close it all. The Leeds and Liverpool Canal is, since the closure of the Rochdale and Huddersfield Narrow Canals, the last water route across the Pennines. Liverpool has always been orientated westwards, but the Common Market and the North Sea gas have changed all that. The Humber is the Mersey of tomorrow, and Liverpool would be most unwise, as Manchester has been unwise, to cut herself off from it. Does Liverpool want to be like Manchester?

All deplore the deaths of 11 children in 10 years. They drowned because this canal was disused; but if it is to be filled in—and I happen to have great experience of this because I served for three years on the Ministry of Transport's Inland Waterways Redevelopment Committee—there will be a long period of dereliction which will be far more attractive to children, and far more dangerous. In addition, whatever is done on a short stretch, it will mean abandoning 30 miles of the canal from Liverpool North Docks to near Parbold, and it may reach a cost of £100,000 a mile.

Mr. Alldritt

Nonsense.

Mr. Smith

This can be compared with the cost of doing exactly the same thing in Nottingham. The site cannot be used for a road, because bridges over the canal make it impracticable, and the money would be better spent—

Mr. Alldritt

I have never suggested that it should be used for a road and if the hon. Member had read the Report, he would know that his costing is quite a bit out.

Mr. Smith

On the Committee to which I have referred we received many estimates. They were always made in good faith, but they were often exceeded. As I was saying, the money would be better spent on safety measures to save more lives. For example, there are more children killed in Stanley Road, Bootle, and indeed the money could be better used on playgrounds to take children away from the canal.

British Waterways have prepared, after great labour, a Report which includes this canal. This Report is to be debated in this House in a few days' time, and surely this matter should wait until that debate has taken place and the Government have taken decisions in the light of it for the system as a whole, and for this canal in particular. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not commit themselves tonight to any hasty and piecemeal action.

12.19 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris)

I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Alldritt) and the remarks of the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith). I am grateful, too, for the restraint which my hon. Friend showed in putting his case, although he put it so forcibly.

I have read most carefully the correspondence which has taken place between my hon. Friend and my predecessor, and I can tell him that never have I been so horrified as I was when I read of the grim tragedy at this particular spot as it unfolded itself. It is a horrifying picture which words cannot fully convey, and, while it is easy to me to express sympathy from a distance to all connected in any way with this grim series of tragedies, that is of no help to them now.

I want to make abundantly clear at the outset that if, in the course of what I say I seem to set up legal and physical problems, I do not want to give the impression that I am merely putting up obstacles. My intention—I say this as sincerely as I can—is to be as helpful as possible, and anything that I can do by way of encouragement or persuasion I will do. If at the end of the debate we can think of a way to avoid a repetition of the ghastly spectacle which has taken place over the years at this spot, we must ensure that it is done. I invite my hon. Friend to have a further talk with me after the debate, and perhaps we may then go into this in detail and wrack our brains to find a way by which, be it by persuasion, be it by encouragement, we can ensure that the good work which has been started in recent months, in the conference arranged through the good offices of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) and my noble Friend, does not remain where it is but continues. I wanted to say that before. I began the other matters to which I wish to refer because I think that our aims should be the same, and while there are undoubtedly very great difficulties which I should deal with in fairness to my hon. Friend, we must seek some way to avoid a repetition of these tragedies.

I should like to divide what I have to say into three parts. First, I want to try to define the responsibilities of the British Waterways Board and the Minister in the matter. I should then like to deal with the question of what immediate remedial measures can be, and have been, taken to safeguard against further loss of life. Thirdly, I should like to say something about the long-term future of the canal. It is in the last part that I can best deal with the very real difficulties of closing even a small section of the canal.

There is no need for me to repeat the details of the description of the canal. We are now dealing, on the specific matter which has been raised by my hon. Friend, with a rather small portion of it, not the whole length extending to 127 miles. The ownership of the canal has been vested since January, 1962, in the British Waterways Board. The canal was originally constructed under a private Act of 1770, which was followed by amending Acts. I must tell the House that the only legal liability on the owners of the property is to fence against cattle and sheep, and even then only on the towpath side, and the Board has no responsibility for fencing the other side of the canal, which for the most part is not in its ownership. Having said all this, I must make it clear that the Board has never stood on its statutory position. It has already gone a long way beyond what is demanded of it in law, and is prepared to go a great deal further where it is satisfied that fencing can serve some useful purpose.

Where does my right hon. Friend the Minister stand in all this? It might be suggested that she might give a direction to the Board as to the exercise and performance of its functions in relation to matters which affect the national interest. We have been advised that the Minister's powers to give such general directions would not enable her to direct the Board to fence particular lengths of the canal. As I understand it, it has to be a direction to fence all the Board's canals or none of them. This is the position in law, and this is what makes a general direction so impractical. There are other problems connected with the riparian owners and their rights of access to the canal.

All these problems are familiar, I know, to my hon. Friend, but I wanted to set out the Minister's position and the difficulties of tackling the problem in that way. What my hon. Friend would far prefer to know, I am sure, is what immediate remedial measures can be, and have been, taken. At both management and operational levels the British Waterways Board has maintained a humane and practical attitude towards the problems created by this largely disused stretch of water running through a densely popu- lated area. We all know that children are always fascinated by water. I was born and bred on the edge of a river and as a child was fascinated by water.

Fencing in itself is not always a solution. We see fences round property which is disused and that in itself creates a challenge for children. My hon. Friend has long experience in local government and knows a great deal about this problem. I want to set out the difficulties about fencing but I do not deny altogether the merits of fencing and perhaps it is the best solution on many stretches of our canals.

Last year, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents promoted a national water safety campaign with the theme "Watch your child—where there's water there's danger." The object was to prevent drowning accidents, especially those involving young children. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government at the same time circulated local authorities asking them to review their areas and make sure that everything possible had been done to deal with existing sources of danger and drawing their attention to the statutory powers of local authorities to deal with dangerous places and promote water safety.

My hon. Friend invited me to draw the attention of the local authorities to the results of the conference called last year. Perhaps we might wait for the report of the working party, which has not come to my hand as yet, but at the same time I am sure that what he and I have said in the debate will be heard in the right places.

With this object in mind, I am particularly pleased that the local authorities in the Liverpool and Bootle areas have formed this working party, on which the various local authorities and police authorities concerned, together with the British Waterways Board, are represented, to see what can be done to minimise the danger in the "black areas" of the canal. I am told that the report of the working party has not yet been finalised, but that it is expected shortly. Meanwhile, action to restrict access at danger points has already been taken as a direct result of the deliberations of this group. For example, I understand that Liverpool Corporation has started work at Lightbody Street and that the Bootle Corporation has completed work at Ceres Street. The British Waterways Board is taking action at Litherland Bridge and Ranelagh Avenue and work at these two points is about to start.

I know that all hon. Members will join with me in welcoming both the initiative of the local and police authorities in the area in tackling this problem so energetically and the willing co-operation of the Board. This is essentially a local problem which can best be solved by people with an intimate knowledge of the area and its needs and I am confident that, if necessary, owners of private property abutting the canal will co-operate with the local authorities in carrying out any recommendations made by the working party.

I turn now to the question of the long-term future of the canal. The British Waterways Board Report was referred to by my hon. Friend. It is a factual Report and contains a number of individual studies. The problems of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal are dealt with very fully. The Government are studying the Report carefully with a view to formulating a sound waterways policy and my right hon. Friend hopes to say something about waterways in the White Paper on Transport which she hopes to put before the House shortly.

My hon. Friend dealt with the issue of the beginning of the construction of the tunnel. I understand that it was begun in January. This is a very useful sugges- tion. I do not know what difficulties might arise, but this is something which my hon. Friend might discuss with me in order to consider the practical possibilities.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland and my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle have concerned themselves with this problem. I assure the House that what has been said in this debate will be brought to the attention of the British Waterways Board which, as I have explained, is working in the closest co-operation with the local authorities to do everything possible which can make for safety along this stretch of water between Bootle and Liverpool. I sincerely hope that adequate steps will be taken in time to ensure that danger is minimised in this terrible stretch of water. I am sure that it will take time to provide a proper solution but that everything must be done to minimise the danger of a recurrence of the grim series of tragedies which we have experienced in this part of the world.

Mr. Alldritt

It is not a matter of minimising. We want to eliminate and we are determined to do that one way or the other.

Mr. Morris

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; there has been a grim series of tragedies and I agree with everything he has said.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to One o'clock.