HC Deb 03 March 1972 vol 832 cc988-98

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Acton)

I wish briefly to raise the question of the commercial development of inland waterways. This subject is not distinct from the general subject which has been discussed throughout most of today. The Under-Secretary of State has said that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not complacent. I hope that is true about this matter, because I feel that there has been some complacency.

We sometimes think of inland waterways as narrow canals or medium canals, but I wish to dwell mainly on the larger water highways which extend along navigable rivers and estuaries deep into well-populated and industrialised areas. In particular on the rivers, concentrating on the Humber in South Yorkshire, connecting the West Riding industrial area with the North Sea and the Continent, the Thames Estuary and the Severn. This debate originated from an answer given by the Minister for Transport Industries to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), who asked: …what consideration is being given to enlarging important waterways in Great Britain to the standards now used, or now under consideration, on the Continent of Europe? The Minister replied: Studies that have been made of the development of inland waterways for commercial purposes in Great Britain have not shown any case on either economic or social grounds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 392.] The reply was a matter of some surprise and concern to people knowledgeable on waterways. It is remarkable that the Department of the Environment should put that view on record.

The Under-Secretary of State who is here this afternoon might perhaps, two or three years ago, have been Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. His position then would have been different from his position today, because his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has told us of the big difference between the Department of the Environment and the old Ministries. Although he did not use this phrase, I think he probably meant that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. These "water fingers" of highways which go up from our coasts can be used for more than commercial navigation—for leisure, for water disposal and, higher up, for water resources. I know that the Under-Secretary is well aware of the wider context of water. This matter is being discussed elsewhere.

I believe that that reply to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) is somewhat inaccurate, although in correspondence with me, the Minister has denied that that is so. I first want to mention some Questions that I have put down, some of the replies I have had, and some of the facts as I understand them.

On 23rd February, I asked about the system called BACAT, Barge-aboard-Catamaran. In reply to my query about …what studies the British Waterways Board have made of the Barge Aboard Catamaran of cargo carrying… the Minister for Transport Industries replied: The Board has I understand studied the feasibility of cost benefit and traffic prospects of this system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 314.] So there is some scope for development here.

In the forthcoming issue of the Bulletin of the Inland Waterways Association, an article by Mr. Charles Hadfield, who is very well-informed in these matters, states: British Waterways Board has initiated, and a Danish firm is building"— present tense— a barge-carrying ship to be operated by a group called Barge Aboard Catamaran (U.K.), registered at Grimsby. Costing £2 million, it will enter into service in 1973. If that is not development, I do not know what is.

There is another system, also known by a set of these curious initials—LASH, Lighter-aboard-Ship. In that article we read: One important reason, therefore, for the establishment of a strong central planning and financing division of the DoE lies in the need to decide, in consultation with LASH Systems Inc., Continental, American and other operators, and representatives of potential British inland ports such as Leeds and Sheffield/Rotherham, whether lock and waterway development should take place to enable such ports to develop alongside similar Continental and American inland ports…". The National Ports Council has recommended the use of this system on short sea routes to Britain, possibly from the Continent.

There are thousands of these barges already in existence and another thousand on order. These lighters are put aboard ship.

We also know that the Waterways Board has carried out, according to this same Bulletin, …an engineering feasibility study which indicates that for £2 million the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation could be developed to 700-ton barge standard to Mexborough, seven miles above Doncaster, and 400-ton craft to Rotherham, fifteen mites above Doncaster. The Board considers that the expansion of the navigation to this standard would be a commercially viable proposition. But when I asked the Minister what studies he had carried out into the availability of craft designed to carry standard-sized containers on major navigable waterways, particularly the Thames, the Trent and waterways in South Yorkshire, he said on 23rd February that he had not carried out any.

On 28th February the same Minister said that the British Waterways Board had made an application for new investment on the Weaver Navigation in the Mersey: I am considering a proposal for the development of a freight handling depot at Winsford at the southern end of the Navigation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 32.] Again, if that is not development, I do not know what is. In both these areas, there appeared to be not only possibilities, but in some ways developments actually going on.

On 11th February, I asked a number of Questions. One was how many million tons of cargo on the Thames passed this Palace. The answer was three million tons annually—rather more than 200,000 lorries would carry. I do not suggest that they would all go through Parliament Square, but many might. So we have potential on the Thames which is being used a lot already. Light continental traffic goes upstream to Isle-worth and a lot from the docks goes direct to Brentford and Brimsdown. According to the answers that I had on 11th February, no less than 200,000 tons of cargo goes upstream of Kew Bridge. That is quite a long way up the river. One would assume that the Thames has some potential.

When I asked the Department what studies it had made of the need and likely use of a West London Thames-side container terminal linked to Tilbury and other container depots by river or canal transport, the Minister said, "None". He went on: The Port of London Authority carried out a preliminary examination, but in the absence of support from likely users did not feel able to take the matter further."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1972; Vol. 830, c. 463.] I have checked that matter with the Port of London Authority, and in a letter to me dated 24th February the Director of Finance and Commerce stated: At a number of meetings I myself, as Director of Finance and Commerce, proposed this idea; unfortunately neither the lighterage trade or freight forwarders have taken up this suggestion. When we were discussing the closure of Surrey Dock the idea of a West London Container Terminal was again discussed with the lighterage trade. Again there was no response. I do not know whether he put it to them in writing or whether it was an off the cuff remark at a conference. But even if they did not, this was not exactly the sort of development which might be expected.

Under Section 5(1)(a) of the Port of London Authority Act, 1968, the Authority is required by this House …to provide, maintain, operate and improve such port and harbour services and facilities in, or in the vicinity of, the Thames as they consider necessary or desirable ". It is clear from the letter that I have quoted that the P.L.A. thinks this development desirable, but it has done nothing about it.

The Department of the Environment has a responsibility for the P.L.A. It appoints its members. We read in Section 8 of the Act: The Port Authority shall as soon as possible after the end of each financial year report to the Minister on the exercise and performance of their functions… I do not think that the Authority has exercised its functions in respect of desirable developments, especially in this matter. I do not prejudge the issue, but the Authority does not seem to have done much about this. Nor has the Minister made any inquiries of his own.

That might not be too bad. The answer given to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was that there were no economic or social grounds for development. I believe that I have shown that not only is development going on but there is a considerable potential for further studies.

What worries me most is the reply to a further question which I then asked. The answer given to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield indicated clearly that studies had been made. I asked a Question to which an answer should have appeared on 11th February, but which did not. I asked the Secretary of State to: …state the names and origins of studies used by him that show that development of inland waterways for commercial purposes cannot be justified on either social or economic grounds. I repeated the words that the Minister for Transport industries used in his reply of 25th January. I wanted to know what was the basis of that answer and whether it was the responsibility of the Department. The reply was: The question has been the subject of more or less continuous study."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 115.] That answer came three days late. If the studies have been made, there was no need for delay in the reply. It should have come with all the other answers about 3 million tons on the river and about Isleworth. It was delayed for three days. I do not know why.

This reveals a very unfortunate position in the Department of the Environment, to say the least. Here we have a number of studies going on showing that there is at least a case for the development of certain waterways. I do not say that this affects the old narrow canals. But obviously there is scope. The Minister says that there is no case for development, as studies have shown. When asked what those studies are, he cannot give chapter and verse and pretends that some sort of study has gone on. This is not a responsible way to treat the House. I do not think it is a very responsible way to treat the public. This is not a very responsible way for a virile new Department to behave. It does not tie up at all.

It is particularly undesirable that we should get this discrepancy at a time when water, water use, the use of water space, the financing of water services and the use of rivers for many different purposes is under national discussion. If one tries to isolate each of the financial elements in the use of a river, one gets into very deep financial and accounting water.

If the Department of the Environment is not even aware of the studies which are going on, if it pretends that it has made studies, when patently it has not, on tangible and easily assessable economic matters, such as transport, how much more are we to question its expertise and ability to deal with much more speculative and hypothetical matters concerning the finance and organisation of the total water cycle on which it is engaged at the moment?

This is a matter of great public importance which not only affects the development of inland waterways for commercial traffic (but calls into question the ability of the Department to deal with it, particularly as in the past it has admitted that no consultations have taken place regarding the wider study now under way.

I look forward to the Under-Secretary's reply. I do not put this matter necessarily at his door—he has many other matters with which to deal, as he indicated in the previous debate—but it is a charge on the Government to reply. I know that, apart from myself, many other organisations and people in this country will look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply to the points I have made.

4.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) for giving me the opportunity of speaking about the commercial development of the inland waterways, since there seems to be, not least in his mind, some misunderstanding of the Government's attitude on this subject and, indeed, some lack of appreciation of the basic realities of the situation.

I must make my remarks in the context of the Government's general water policy, and perhaps I may state at the outset what we are trying to do.

There are four main aspects. First, we have to secure an ample supply of clean water to meet the growing needs of our people. This will not be easy, and it will be very expensive.

Secondly, we have to provide adequate sewering arrangements to cope with the rising demand of new housing estates and new industrial and agricultural developments. These are very complicated and expensive, not least because the effluents produced by modern industry require much more sophisticated plant.

Thirdly, we intend massively to clean up our rivers by the early 1980s for reaons of drinking water and of amenity.

Those are the first three aspects—to provide enough water, to deal with sewering, and to clean up the rivers.

However, there is now, for the first time, a fourth dimension. The Government have accepted that the water space in this country should be used not only for water supply, for sewerage and for drainage, but as an environmental asset that ought to be, can be, and will be made more fully available to the British public as a whole. That includes sport and recreation, amenity and commerce.

Mr. Spearing

rose—

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. Gentleman is taking up my time.

Mr. Spearing

I will save the hon. Gentleman time. I appreciate what he has said. However, will he bear in mind that this debate is about commercial navigation in existence and that the points which I have raised are not concerned with a much wider issue which I do not believe to be appropriate to this debate?

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. Gentleman has made his speech and he must allow me to make mine.

I have said that the fourth dimension of our water policy is to develop all the water space in the canals, in the rivers, and elsewhere, for amenity and recreation, for conservation and, wherever appropriate, for commerce. It is our intention to make this a statutory duty of the new regional water authorities.

I should like to refer to the canals, because they touch upon the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech. It is alleged that the canals will be fragmented, making commercial navigation more difficult. It will not happen. There is no question of breaking up the waterways.

It is suggested that there will not be any money for commercial navigation or cruising. But this is nonsense. The overall prospect of the Government's proposals is that there will be more money for the waterways, not less, though it will come in different ways.

Thirdly—and this is the hon. Gentleman's concern—there is no question of the Government writing down or writing off the commercial use of the waterways. Indeed, early in December my right hon. Friend and I sought and held a meeting with representatives of the major inland waterway carriers—the first such meeting which any Government have initiated for some years. This was intended as the first round in a process of consultation designed to enable the commercial carriers to put before the Government their views on the future of the commercial function of the waterways. The carriers were invited to, and attended, a national conference, which took place the other day.

They have now submitted to my Department a most useful report on the future of inland waterway carriage, and I shall be meeting them again to discuss this matter.

It is our intention to secure that nothing should prevent commercial development of the waterways where it can be shown to be economically and socially justified It is our view that the proposed regional water authorities will provide a suitable framework for such development. The Government's judgment is that the inland waterways are in the main of regional or local significance, and this is particularly true of commercial use. A mere glance at the map demonstrates that, unfortunately the commercial waterways do not form anything like a national network. In some parts of the country these waterways, particularly, those in Yorkshire, perform a useful rôle, but it is my duty today to be completely realistic.

The first point I must make is that, regrettably, the waterways have long ceased to fulfil a major transport function in the national context. There has been a remarkable decline in the use of the waterways, which now carry less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the total ton-milage of inland trade carried in this country. The decline continues, and many factors regrettably militate against the arrest of its decline. This is a small country, so that most parts of the interior of Britain are only short distances from the sea and there are plenty of ports. Coastal shipping now accounts for 17 per cent. of the total inland transport. Indeed, the coastal waters are our only "inland" waterway of any major significance. I wish we had the continental advantage of long, deep, natural waterways. There are only 340 miles of commercial waterways compared with 12,000 miles of railways and 200,000 miles of roads.

On our old and mainly artificial waterways maintenance costs are high, as would be the capital costs of improving them and extending them. Of the three industries providing the most traffic on the waterways, coal is declining; steel is growing, but slowly, and is tending to concentrate on coastal sites; and oil, though growing, can choose between several alternative modes of transport—rail, coastal shipping, pipeline and inland waterway. It is sad but true that even maximum transfer from road to canal would offer no significant relief to road congestion. The waterways are best suited to the carriage of bulk commodities, for which the alternative is more often rail than road.

The Government entirely agree that the social benefit from relief of road traffic congestion should be taken into account when considering canal development projects. But the realisation of such benefit depends on the ability of the waterways to attract traffic from the roads no less than it depends on the realisation of a financial return for so doing.

The Government do not rule out the possibility of local or regional situations favourable to a waterway development or improvement scheme which could both show an acceptable financial return and also worthwhile social benefits. It is our wish, in the course of the consultations now proceeding on the water services reorganisation, to work out arrangements whereby such schemes will stand at least as good a chance—and I hope better—of being implemented under the new organisation than they do at present.

I am well aware that the British Waterways Board is studying a number of schemes of significance. There are technical developments—the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the LASH and BACAT schemes, with which I am familiar. The Department has recently received from the board a proposal to develop an import-export depot at Wins-ford, at the southern end of the Weaver Navigation, and this is being carefully considered. Not long ago I had the great pleasure, with Sir Frank Price, chairman of the board, of travelling down the Weaver to the Mersey and seeing something of the possibilities of improvement which exist in some areas of the country.

I am interested in the suggestions that have been made that in some areas—I must stress that I mean some local areas—the waterways might be of assistance in increasing our waterborne trade to Europe, and any other waterway development proposals which the board may submit will be considered with an open and sympathetic mind.

I want to say something about a specific project which is well known to the hon. Member—the possibility of improving the canal from Brentford, where it joins the Thames, to some point north of London within easy reach of the M1. I gather that the idea is to develop an inland terminal at that point, where exports and imports could be trans-shipped between barges and road vehicles. My Department knows well that the board has had discussions with the Association of London Borough Planning Officers, but I want to put it on record clearly that no scheme in any detail has been submitted to the Department by the Board or by the London boroughs or by anyone else. We are aware of the discussions; we have no scheme before us. Only the board and the London boroughs can possibly carry out the detailed and reliable study necessary before the project can be considered by my Department. I assure the hon. Member that the Department, far from being indifferent to the prospects of success of such a scheme would welcome any proposal that was put before it and would certainly look at it constructively. But I repeat that no such proposal is before us to look at.

The hon. Member made a number of points about the replies by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries to questions. The heart of what he was saying was that my Department was less interested in this matter than it should be, that if it was carrying out studies they were inadequate, and that more studies should be undertaken and more interest displayed. He is not correct in the suggestion. I repeat that we visualise the waterways integrated with the rest of the hydrological system being developed for the benefit of recreation and amenity and conservation and, wherever appropriate, for commerce.

But it is important, when one has the custody of public funds, to make sure that we do not start up particular avenues unless we have ascertained in advance that there is likely to be a satisfactory financial and social return, and therefore the burden of proof is on those who hold the dream of the canals taking over from the motorways. If a costed and sensible scheme for commercial navigation in some part of the country can be put forward we will look at it, but we will want to know that it is financially sound before we support its development.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock.