HC Deb 09 April 1968 vol 762 cc1215-22

(1) A local planning authority whose area consists of, or includes the whole or any part of a National Park, may make regulations for the control of vessels on any waterway in the National Park where, as respects such waterway, it appears to the authority that it is expedient so to do—

  1. (a) for avoiding danger to persons or vessels using the waterway;
  2. (b) for facilitating the passage of vessels on the waterway;
  3. (c) for preventing or limiting the use of the waterway by vessels of a description which, or used for a purpose which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the waterway and its surrounding area;
  4. (d) for the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the waterway and its surrounding area;
  5. (e) for the purpose of affording better opportunities for the public to enjoy the waterway or the surrounding area for recreation or the study of nature;
  6. (f) for the purpose of preventing interference with the quiet enjoyment of the waterway or the surrounding area by the public.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this section, regulations made under this section may—

  1. (a) prohibit, restrict or regulate the use of a waterway, either generally or in any manner specified in the regulations, by vessels of any description so specified or used for any purpose so specified;
  2. (b) be made so as to relate either to the whole or to any part of the waterway, and may make different provisions for different parts thereof;
  3. (c) prohibit the use of the waterway by vessels of any description specified in the regulation, or used for any purpose so specified, which are not for the time being registered with the authority in such manner as the regulations may provide;
  4. (d) authorise the making of reasonable charges in respect of the registration of vessels in pursuance of the regulations.

(3) Regulations made under this section shall not provide for any prohibition, restriction or regulations, and if he thinks fit may cause a sistent with any rules for the time being in force in relation to that waterway by virtue of any provision of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and shall not interfere with any authority having under any enactment functions relating to that waterway.

(4) Regulations made under this section shall not have effect unless confirmed by the Minister.

(5) The Minister, if he confirms any such regulations, may confirm them either without modification, or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit, but he shall not confirm any regulations until at least one month has elapsed since the making of the regulations and, before confirming them, shall consider any objections which may have been made to him against the regulations, and if he thinks fit may cause a public inquiry to be held.

(6) Any such regulations as aforesaid may be revoked, varied or amended by the authority subject to the like confirmation given subject to the like provisions as the first-mentioned regulations, or may be revoked, varied or amended by order made by the Minister after giving notice to the authority and holding, if he thinks fit, a public inquiry.

(7) Before an authority makes regulations under this section the authority shall consult the Commission.

(8) Regulations made under this section shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Minister, or as the Minister may, in any particular case, direct.

(9) The Minister may make regulations for prescribing the procedure to be followed in connection with the making by authorities of regulations under this section, the confirmation of regulations so made, and the holding of inquiries.

(10) Any person who contravenes a regulation made under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, in the case of a first offence under this section to a fine not exceeding £20, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence, thereunder, to a fine not exceeding £50.

(11) A local planning authority having power under this section to make regulations shall have power to enforce regulations made by them.

(12) In this section 'vessel' includes any ship, boat, lighter and craft of every kind, however navigated, propelled or moved, and any seaplane, flying boat, hydroplane, hovercraft and any other aircraft or cushioncraft designed to manoeuvre on or immediately over the water.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Brought and, and read the First time.

Mr. Jopling

I beg to move, That the Clause he read a Second time.

This is exactly the same as a Clause which was debated in Committee. On that occasion the workings of the Committee and of an all-party approach to a problem showed themselves at their best. The Government were unwilling to meet the principle embodied in that new Clause and were overwhelmed by the sensible feelings of back benchers on both sides. If that Clause had not been withdrawn, I think that the Government would have been beaten on a Division. We were given certain assurances on the question of the control of vessels on waterways in National Parks which led us to believe that it would be reasonable to withdraw that Clause, on the assurance that the Government would table a Clause either on Report or in another place. I am disappointed that the promised Clause has not appeared on the Notice Paper. However, I quite understand that the question raises important matters, and due consideration and consultation with the interested authorities must take place before it is brought in.

The background to the new Clause is the great boom in boating and water sport in this country. Many of our lakes, particularly in the Lake District, have become overcrowded with boats and water sport activities of one sort and another. This is becoming a serious matter in the Lake District because of the boats which are permanently kept in the area—the larger yachts and houseboats—and it is exacerbated by the boats which are brought on the tops of cars or on trailers for the weekend and launched at same of the public and private landing places around the lakes. The situation will become infinitely worse as the M6 motorway comes nearer to the Lakes themselves.

The greatest problem arises in the Lake District, and various difficulties must be faced. First, there is the problem of noise. Many people go to the Lakes for peace and quiet. Noisy forms of water sport have not yet intruded on to some of our lakes, and I hope—I am sure that this hope is shared on both sides—that noisy forms of motor water sport will never intrude on certain lakes. For instance, it would be intolerable if there were water skiing or motor boating on lakes such as Grasmere or Rydal Water. Noise can be controlled to an extent under the Local Government Act, 1933, but the power there is limited. More powers are needed. The new Clause would enable the local planning board to control noise.

Second, congestion is a growing problem. At present, a dangerous state of affairs is developing on some of our lakes. I think of Windermere in particular, where there ise terrible congestion by various types of boat, and where the standard of boatmanship—if that is the right word—is very varied. There has been power to control speed under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, so that the of accident can be much reduced, though it is a wonder to me and many people that far more serious accidents have not so far occurred. A much easier form of control over speed and congestion must be found and given to local authorities than is available under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.

Next, there is the problem of interference by one set of users with another. On the lakes, there are the interests of people who go to sail, people who go to row, those who like water skiing and the faster and more adventurous motor water sports, those who go to paddle and to swim, and those who go just to fish. They all have different interests and different approaches to the use of the lakes, and, unfortunately, they often interfere seriously with one another. For instance, water skiiers are potentially a great danger to swimmers, and all forms of boating are potentially disadvantageous to fishermen. More powers are needed so that local authorities may control water sports in our National Parks.

Powers must be given in the interests of safety. There must be power to insist that all those who drive fast speedboats shall have third-party insurance.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp (Oldham, East)

In the Clause there is exclusive reference to waterways. The hon. Gentleman has been arguing about lakes and has now introduced the word "watercourses". Does he mean that lakes will come under the word "waterways", which has a very limited meaning?

Mr. Jopling

I am advised that the word "waterway" covers lakes, and I believe that this point has been put to the Ministry by the Lakes Planning Board. We shall probably hear from the Minister about this later.

It is important to be able to zone the lake for secondary purposes, so that one can have speedboat racing in one part and swimming in another. It is essential that the local authorities have powers to register boats of certain types. I imagine that it would not be necessary to use them for all sorts of boats, but the powers could be held in reserve. Powers are also needed to inspect boats.

Finally, but not least important, there is a need for power to control the sanitary arrangements for the effluent from houseboats. This point was made to me very forcibly since the Committee stage by someone who is interested in setting up an establishment on the side of the lake for young people to go for holidays. He is particularly perturbed about the prospect of setting up the establishment in a certain bay where he wants to do so because of the effluent from the many houseboats permanently moored there.

This is how the Clause was left at the Committee stage. The Government promised to do something. Since then, so far as I can gather, all that has happened is that a letter has gone round from the Ministry to a number of interested people, saying what the Government intend to do. I understand that they intend to introduce a new Clause in another place giving byelaw powers to control vessels navigating on lakes in national parks and covering many of the things about which I have been talking. They are intended to:

  1. "(a) ensuring the safety of persons resorting to the lakes;
  2. (b) regulating all forms of water-based sport;
  3. (c) conserving the amenity and natural beauty of the lakes and surrounding areas;
  4. (d) controlling nuisance and damage."
What has worried me and people in the Lake District most is another part of that letter, which says that there will be a general saving for public rights of way, which means that the byelaws will not affect those lakes which are public rights of way. Public rights of way exist on certain lakes known in the Lake District as the highway lakes. There are four—Windermere, Ullswater, Derwentwater and Coniston. We must know what that saving over public rights of way means. If it means that on any one of those lakes the byelaws and regulations will not apply to anyone who claims a right of way, the byelaws and that new Clause will be useless on those four lakes where the powers are most needed. I hope that my fears are unfounded, because it is essential that the regulations are introduced. If it means that, why has it been necessary to exclude the lakes on which there are public rights of way? Could it be, as I have been told, that compensation would have to be paid to people who might lose their rights of way? What is the difference between a right of way on land and a right of way on water? It is possible on land to prohibit certain traffic from using rights of way.

It is possible to prohibit all wheeled vehicles under the same Clauses and even under Clause 25, powers are given to control vehicles on land highways in National Parks. Over the last two or three months, the Minister has blown rather hot and cold on this matter and we must know what he means by the phrase, "There is to be a general saving for public rights of way".

We have gone a long way and I congratulate the Government on having gone as far as they have, but it is essential that these powers are made applicable to the highway lakes, so that the good which would come from my new Clause is not marred.

Mrs. White

We are indebted to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) for emphasising a matter of considerable and, we believe, of growing importance in amenity and recreation matters. Those of us who were on the Standing Committee will recall that when the hon. Member introduced a new Clause with precisely the same wording as this, he said that he did not mind whether we accepted it or not, provided that the Government did something, and I presume that tonight his attitude is the same. It would therefore be convenient if I explained the Government's position. At the conclusion of our Committee debate, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), acknowledging that this was a complex problem, needing considerable consideration, said: I think that hon. Members consider this issue to be of such importance that they would not mind if it was introduced in the Lords."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 15th February, 1968; c. 1025.] That is what we propose. We have given undertakings and are consulting the local authorities, the Parks Commission and various sporting and land-owning interests. The consultations are still proceeding and we firmly intend to put down, in another place, a new Clause which will deal with the points made. I am not yet in a position to discuss the new Clause which has not been formalised, nor appeared on the Order Paper, and it would be most undesirable if we debated this today at half-cock, before knowing the specific implications of the Government's undertaking.

The hon. Member for Westmorland raised a matter which is troubling him, and which he referred to in Committee, that of the highway lakes. As I understand it, the intention is that the right of way should not be extinguished but the manner of its use should be regulated. 'That can be made plain when we come to The new Clause which we have undertaken to introduce. It is best to leave it with this firm declaration of intent. We appreciate the importance of the points the hon. Member raised. They have been mentioned in Committee by hon. Members on both sides. While I gave a general undertaking in Committee that legislation would be introduced, we thought that there would be considerable pressure of opinion that we should bring it in in this Bill, and we intend to abide by our undertakings.

Dr. Reginald Bennett (Gosport and Fareham)

Not having served on the Standing Committee but appreciating what the hon. Lady has said, may I ask whether it is the Government's intention to do something in the nature of zoning between these various incompatible occupations which take place in water, such as separating swimming from water-skiing? Will this be the nature of the provision the Government intend to introduce in another place? I see that the hon. Lady is being briefed, so perhaps I can now give her the opportunity to reply.

Mrs. White

My hon. Friend was reminding me that this is a matter in which the Sports Council takes a keen interest. I do not think we should go into details now, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right. One of the problems is the incompatibility of certain recreations, each o' which is desirable in itself but which cannot be carried on at the same time and at the same place as certain others. We hope to make provision in such a way that something sensible will be done.

Mr. Channon

It is true that in Standing Committee I said that we would have no objection if a provision on this matter had to be introduced in another place, because we were more anxious to get it done than to stick to our rights and insist that it be introduced here first. I hope that, when the Minister of State is considering this point, she will bear in mind not only the debates in Committee but the points made tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who speaks with tremendous experience of this problem and has done the House a service by drawing attention to it, for it is a vital problem which is in some ways the most urgent aspect of the Bill.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to withdraw the Clause. I know she will not want to discuss them now but I am sure that we can take it from the hon. Lady that his remarks tonight and in relation to the letter she referred to earlier will be considered before the final decision is taken. With these remarks, I hope we can now leave this new Clause in the hope that we shall see a satisfactory conclusion in another place.

Mrs. White

I willingly give the undertaking the hon. Gentleman asks for.

Mr. Jopling

I shall seek leave to withdraw the new Clause but I am a little disappointed that the hon. Lady has not been able to allay my doubts and fears and those of many people in the Lake District about the saving for highway lakes. I plead with her to ensure, between now and when the Bill reaches another place, that everything will be done to make sure that the byelaws and powers are available on the highway lakes, because I cannot stress too strongly how important it is that such powers should be given. Otherwise, we shall have the most terrible accident in that part of England. The matter rests on her shoulders in the next few weeks to see that these powers are written into the Bill and that the highway lakes are not excluded.

Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave withdrawn.