HC Deb 13 June 1973 vol 857 cc1631-41
Sir Bernard Braine

I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 24. leave out '4' and insert 13'.

Mr. Speaker

Selected for discussion with this amendment is Amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 24, leave out '4' and insert '14'.

Sir Bernard Braine

I am conscious that many hon. Members want to get on with the business but unfortunately so far in the debate the essential interests of my constituents have not been ventilated. The purpose of my amendment is to test the sincerity of the Government when they assure us that Maplin will be developed in accordance with the highest environmental standards. The House will recall that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading: I emphasise for the benefit especially of those hon. Members who I know have constituency interests"— this was directed at myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) and my hon. Friends from Kent constituencies— and have represented them very strongly, that all this development—the airport, seaport, new town and the access—will take place with the highest priority given to its effect upon local people and the local environment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 674.] Within a few weeks of giving that assurance my right hon. and learned Friend severely damaged the amenities at the western end of my constituency by giving planning permission for an oil refinery to be sited next door to a residential area. The only real amenity enjoyed by my constituents at the eastern end of my constituency, which is the area adjacent to Maplin, is sailing in the creeks which lie between the Thames and the Crouch. The Bill originally threatened the closure of the safe passage through what is called Havengore Creek. Our fears on this were conveyed to Ministers and expressed on Second Reading. At the end of the debate we were given a bland assurance by my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping when he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East: I can also assure him that Havengore Creek should now he able to remain open as a result of a decision to increase the height of the bridge".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 779.] There is no doubt that this assurance influenced the vote on that occasion. The House will be able to judge its value from what followed. When the matter was raised in the Select Committee it emerged that the Government were proposing a bridge over Havengore Creek which would give only four metres clearance. If that provision goes through unchallenged it means that the majority of boats using Havengore Creek will be excluded and their owners will be forced to sail in the open seas round the Maplin development. While the distance from Shoeburyness at the mouth of the Thames to the Crouch is about nine nautical miles the outward journey is nearer 28 miles and is accompanied by much greater hazards. Thus if the Bill is unamended it means the virtual destruction of the one established amenity in the area prized by countless numbers of my constituents and by sailing enthusiasts from an even wider area.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I do not wish to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he would want the House to know that the average number of sailing boats which has passed through the creek over the past seven years is three a week, and that, as he knows, the creek is entirely dry for the larger part of the day.

Sir Bernard Braine

That is the most extraordinary statement I have heard. I dispute it at once. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East have received letters from every yacht club and sailing club in the area. I refuse to accept the figures my hon. Friend has just given.

Mr. Griffiths

The figures are those kept by the bridgekeeper on behalf of the Defence Department, which checks every single vessel that goes through that creek. I repeat that the total of sailing craft that have gone through the Havengore Creek in the past seven years that records have been kept is 1,284, an average of just over three a week.

Sir Bernard Braine

Did my hon. Friend give that information to the Select Committee and the Standing Committee?

Mr. Griffiths

I believe that the Select Committee had the information, which is precisely why, having considered the matter, it agreed that the limits should be set as in the Bill, and the petitioners agreed to it as well.

Sir Bernard Braine

All I am prepared to say at this stage is that I am advised completely to the contrary by sailing interests in the area. In any event, what is involved here is not the numbers involved but the principle. If a Minister promises in the House that the bridge will be kept open in order to preserve an amenity, and then a provision is put into the Bill which denies that amenity, I am not sure that the numbers matter very much. [Interruption.] I will explain to my hon. Friend something that he does not seem to understand. Evidence was given to the Select Committee by the Royal Yachting Association, which completely misled the Select Committee. When that was drawn to my hon. Friend's attention, he did nothing about it but swept it completely aside. [Interruption.]

If I may interrupt my hon. Friend's conversation, I will take a little time over the matter, because what is involved here is just one more example of the contempt which has been shown for the interests of my constituents by the Department of the Environment in several instances over recent months. If my hon. Friend does not understand that, he will hear a great deal more from me, so he might as well listen with patience and a little forbearance.

I repeat that evidence given to the Select Committee by the Royal Yachting Association was misleading. I choose my words very carefully. The association represented itself as the voice of all sailing interests, of all sailing folk in the area. My information is that it did not consult a single local yachting or sailing club. It did not consult those that use the creeks. It certainly did not consult the clubs on either side of the creek. That led to evidence being given that bore no relation to the true interests of the people who sail in those waters.

The evidence also suggested that small boat users could lower their masts and that a bridge with a clearance of four metres was adequate. That is dangerous nonsense and I shall tell the House why. First, there is the practical point that many of the boats, whatever the number may be, which use Havengore Creek have considerably higher masts than four metres; some have masts of 10 to 12 metres. Had the Royal Yachting Association consulted the local yachting clubs it would have been told that.

10.30 p.m.

Secondly, it is extremely rare for any small British yacht to be fitted with mast-lowering gear. Thirdly, even if it were possible to lower masts it would be dangerous to attempt to do so at Havengore with its strong winds and tides. No less a person than the Chairman of the Essex County Planning Authority, Alderman Curtis, who presumably has access to the figures of the number of boats using the creek, was reported as saying only recently: Instead of the Government providing the facilities which could give freedom of navigation between the Thames and Havengore and the Roach and Crouch, the suggested height of the bridge would make the link useless for the majority of boat users in the area. It is interesting that the Chairman of the County Planning Authority should take the trouble to make a statement of that kind if the creek is used by only a handful of people.

It can now be seen why so many people in South-East Essex are up in arms. They are going to be inconvenienced by the Maplin project anyway but those who have enjoyed the sport of yachting for many years are going to have that amenity ruthlessly destroyed.

There is the further consideration—this is why I have been concerned with trying to focus attention upon safety considerations—that if the Havengore passage is closed sailing enthusiasts will take the outer passage. That must mean that they will cross the approach lines to the port—that is, if the port ever materialises. That will hardly be welcomed by the P.L.A. or by the masters of vessels using the port.

My amendment would make it safe for practically all sailing craft to continue to use the Havengore passage in safety. What is more—this is a matter which I particularly want to ram home to my hon. Friend—it would ensure that the pledge to the House that the Havengore Creek would be left open would be honoured.

This is only one instance of the many fears and anxieties which some of us feel. I trust that the House will support the amendment.

Sir S. McAdden

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) in the representations which he is making. I do so with perhaps not quite so much heat as seems to have been engendered by the long-drawn-out procedures which we have endured so far.

It is true that when we last discussed the matter a specific assurance was given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping that Havengore Creek would remain open for navigation by small boats so as to preserve—for the benefit of those who do not know what the Havengore Creek is and could not care less—what is known amongst yachtsmen as the inshore route to Burnham. It enables yachtsmen to go by an inshore route into the Crouch, thus avoiding going out to rougher waters which otherwise they have to traverse.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made some play of the fact that only three yachts a week use the passage.

Hon. Members

Over seven years.

Sir S. McAdden

It may not have been brought to my hon. Friend's attention—perhaps the Department of the Environment will catch up with these things—that people do not go sailing every day of the year. The Department must catch up with the fact that the numbers which have been counted by the guardian of the bridge on behalf of the Ministry of Defence must be divided not by 52 but by the smaller number of weeks during which it is possible to sail. I am glad to see that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) is present. He will be able to confirm that it is a very much smaller number. I am able to bring expert knowledge to this matter. I was the commodore of one of the yachting clubs in Thorpe Bay. I am not now. Hon. Members will be interested to know that I am probably the only ex-commodore of a yacht club who has never been sailing in his life. It was thought that it would give some dignity to the club's proceedings if I became commodore. I attended a number of sailing functions at which people indulged in technical jargon that I did not understand. It was only fairly recently that I learned that a spinnaker was not a vegetable. All these problems have now been put right. The yacht club now has a proper commodore and the problems are resolved.

I mentioned that to restore the even temperature, which seemed to be slipping away.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can give a satisfactory explanation why the specific pledge to keep Havengore Creek open to sailors will not be maintained. It will not be maintained by the provision of a bridge only 4 metres in height. It is no use saying that the creek will be kept open for sailors if it is to be made impossible to sail through. It is an empty promise.

The Royal Yachting Association did not preserve the interests of local yachtsmen in its attitude before the Select Committee. I echo what my hon. Friend said in an earlier speech, which I should like to confirm today: I was never so impressed by my colleagues in the House of Commons as I was when I attended the proceedings of the Select Committee and saw the diligence and care with which my colleagues were applying their minds to the subject under discussion. Over a field which is probably quite new to them they asked searching and intelligent questions and made recommendations to the Government as to how they should proceed which I am sure have improved the Bill—if, in fact, it ever goes any further, which I doubt. But they did their best to improve it in order to help it on its way. I support my hon. Friend's amendment. I hope that we have an explanation at some stage why the promise has not been maintained.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester)

I disagree with the amendment. Of my two hon. Friends who have spoken on the amendment, one is too angry and one is too ignorant. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine), although not exactly coherent in his rage, tried to make a point about the Royal Yachting Association. I declare an interest. I am a member of the association. My hon. Friend said that the association was not consulting the local yachtsmen about their interests. The association has a detailed technical knowledge of what yachtsmen throughout the country require and it understands the situation.

I have had a brief, although I do not have it with me. The association has agreed to the height of the bridge being 4 metres. As that is so, I nail my colours to the mast, because the association is not wrong.

Sir Bernard Braine

Can my hon. and gallant Friend recall whether the brief, which he does not have with him, said whether the Royal Yachting Association had consulted all the yachting and sailing clubs on the Southend shore, or whether it merely consulted the large yacht clubs in the area which never use Haven gore Creek?

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

That is not germane. The Royal Yachting Association's opinion is the best opinion one can get on yachting matters at all levels.

On a further practical point, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to consider what sort of craft would need a clearance of 13 metres. Its mast would he too high and its keel too big to get through the blasted creek anyway. A height of 4 metres is admirably suited to the type of boat which could reasonably use Havengore Creek. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but how can there be a great mast without a big keel to balance it. That is fundamental. Even an angry man can understand that. If a bridge over Havengore Creek were to have a clearance of 13 metres it would not only be vastly expensive—again my missing brief has a huge figure in millions as to what it would cost—but it would be a complete eyesore and I am sure that would be contrary to the interests of my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mr. Brian Harrison

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Sir Morgan-Giles) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braille) was inarticulate and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) was ignorant. I wish to cross swords with him and say that I do not think that he knows very much what he is talking about.

I took the opportunity over the recess of looking at Havengore Creek, partly because I had been advised by certain people who took the trouble to attend the Committee debates and follow this matter in the House and who sail in the Creek, and partly to find out for myself what the situation was.

Neither the amendment nor some of the things that have been said about it are quite accurate. Regrettably the Royal Yachting Association did not consult the small local clubs. This was possibly due to the shortage of time which it had to make the consultations. Certainly it did not call on the small clubs which use this creek. Its evidence to the Select Committee was possibly not quite what it would have been had it been in consultation with the people who actually use the creek.

However, I must say that my hon. and gallant Friend is quite right in saying that if we had a bridge 13 metres above sea level we would need to dredge the creek considerably to take yachts of the size envisaged. It seems that there is room for a slight increase, possibly to six metres, which would enable most of the yachts which use this creek to get under the bridge when there was a reasonable amount of water in the creek.

I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will remember the assurance he gave in Committee about seeing whether it would be possible to have a shallow tunnel under the creek to enable the corridor to be put through so that, irrespective of the height of the masts, vessels would not be affected by any corridor necessary to carry any of the communications equipment from the airport. I hope my hon. Friend will look again to see if he could not marginally increase the height of the bridge, after consultation with the owners of the smaller craft which use the creek. I hope, too, that he will look at the possibility of using a tunnel.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

It might be helpful if I set out some of the facts about Havengore Creek which are not in dispute. Throughout most of the time the creek is entirely dry. It is impossible to sail or to have any water in it because of the sand bar across which the water cannot pass. It is only navigable for a short period of time—about half an hour on either side of high water—and then only by very small craft drawing four feet or less of water. For the rest of the time it is not navigable and for much of the time it is dry.

I will now deal with the traffic through the creek. At present craft wishing to make the passage must apply to the Ministry of Defence for the bridge to be lifted. The bridgekeeper keeps a record of all the liftings. That is why we know precisely how many vessels going along the creek with sails require the bascule bridge, which is very low, to be raised. During 1966 149 sailing craft used it and 144 motor craft. In following years the number fell. There was an increase in sailing in 1972, but it is surprising that the number of motor craft is up to 271 for the whole year and there are 261 sailing craft. Over the seven years that the bridgekeeper has kept, on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, the record, the average number of sailing vessels has been three a week, and it may have reached in the last year of frenzied activity nearly five a week.

10.45 p.m.

I consider that the concession which my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping made on Second Reading that, in spite of these very low figures, we would nevertheless ensure that the creek was kept open was, in all the circumstances, very generous. I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) that the cost of providing a bridge of sufficient height to meet the requirements of the Select Committee may be as high as £1 million. But if we accept his amendment and go up to the much greater height proposed, without the extra depth of water which would be required to get the keels through, I am advised that the cost of providing the bridge would go up to a minimum of over £6 million and might well be £9 million.

But there is another disadvantage, namely, that in raising the bridge to the proposed height, the road and railway would have to be run over that portion of Essex and perhaps over the Crouch and other rivers at a height which would be a gross visual intrusion on the environment of the area, and the Essex local authorities are rightly opposed to any such thing being done.

My hon. Friends on the Select Committee gave the greatest attention to what is a small, though not unimportant, matter. I have read the evidence and I have read the report. They came to the conclusion that it was a reasonable arrangement that the creek should be kept open at the suggested height. I understand that the Royal Yachting Association, the Southend Borough Council—which has an interest, for it keeps a boat yard in the area—and the Rochford Rural District Council were perfectly content with the amendments made by the Select Committee.

I accept from my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) that it may be better to have a shallow tunnel, and I give him the assurance that, following my promise to him in Committee, my Department has started technical studies to see whether it is possible. I am not in a position to say now whether it is possible or what it would cost, but we are looking into the question.

Mr. Brian Harrison

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. He has kindly said that he will meet some of the yachtsmen in my constituency at a date to be arranged. That was mostly for people on the north side of the Crouch. Will he be willing to meet representatives of the smaller clubs on the other side of the Crouch who use Havengore Creek?

Mr. Griffiths

I shall be glad to meet anyone to whom my hon. Friend introduces me, but I cannot go beyond what I have said. It would be an unrealistic use of public money to increase by such magnitude the expenditure to meet the point of an interested and significant group of people who will in fact end up with better arrangements than they have now because of the agreement of the Port of London Authority that, in the event of the port being built, it will provide better haven and shelter for boats seeking to go to the Crouch.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles

Now that the temperature has been lowered, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government plan to incorporate in the seaport a sheltered basin for yachts in passage that can be used at all states of the tide? From a practical point of view that is what is wanted rather than an expensive bridge.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

Yes. That is precisely what the Select Committee recommended, and the Port of London Authority accepts that this should be done.

Sir Bernard Braine

My hon. Friend has used exactly the same argument tonight as he used in Standing Committee when discussing figures. The House may be very impressed to learn that the cost of preserving this amenity by raising the bridge may run into millions of pounds. Will my hon. Friend say to which bridge he is referring? I am on sure ground when I say he is talking about two bridges. He refers to the cost of about £1 million for raising one bridge from 4 metres to 10 metres, and his other high figure referred to the bridge carrying the proposed motorway, the line of which has not yet been decided. My hon. Friend has given the Standing Committee and the House a figure in respect of a road the line of which he does not yet know. Does he know where the motorway will run?

Amendment negatived

Forward to