FORTH AND CLYDE CANAL (Hansard, 1 July 1976)

§ Mr. J. M. Craigen (Glasgow, Mary-hill)

I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the subject of revitalising the Forth and Clyde Canal. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State, Department of the Environment is to reply to the debate.

The Forth and Clyde Canal is a remarkable piece of engineering. Some 200 years after its construction it is no longer being commercially used, nor is it a cruising waterway. Under the 1968 Transport Act, the Forth and Clyde Canal qualified as a remainder waterway. I wonder what the engineers and navvies who constructed the canal at the end of the eighteenth century would think of the multitude of public authorities which are now involved in overseeing this 35-mile water link, especially since 785 the canal has been closed to traffic for the past 15 years.

There are about a dozen public bodies involved with the planning or management of the canal. At times, it is almost easier to shake hands with an octopus than to identify one body which actually makes and carries out decisions regarding this waterway.

My concern tonight is to secure far greater interest by the Department of the Environment in improvements to the canal and its surroundings and in promoting maximum safety measures. Only within the past 24 hours there was a tragic drowning of a young lad in part of the canal. I gather the matter is being treated as a fatal accident and is presently in the hands of the procurator fiscal. However, reports suggest that the rescuers were hampered by the amount of weeds in the area where the boy was drowned. I trust the Minister will agree that this gives added emphasis to the continuing need to strengthen the safety factors surrounding the canal and particularly to do something more to clear the weeds that have grown up.

I would also wish to see the Department co-operate more closely with the local authorities in the area in developing this waterway as a local amenity for residents. I believe this would fit in closely with the City of Glasgow District Council's plans for open space and recreational development for the northwest of the city there is a great need for additional recreational facilities. Coincident with these improvements would be the attraction of industry.

Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to clarify responsibilities for the canal in respect of future policies. The public expenditure situation at the moment effectively rules out filling in the canal as some people would suggest. The last count that I have is that it would cost about £1 million per mile to fill it in. In any case, such a simplistic solution ignores the problem of land drainage and piping difficulties, and the requirements of a few remaining industrial concerns.

The other prospect is the complete reopening to navigation. However, I believe this is very much in the hazy distance. In time it may be that we shall come to recognise the potential of a coast-to-coast water route between the Firth of 786 Clyde and the Firth of Forth. I know, however, that the British Waterways Board does not see navigation as a serious option in the foreseeable future.

All I am suggesting tonight is that the Department of the Environment, in its consultations with the local authorities, should not entirely close this long-term option. Indeed, I would point out that the Department has not given a particularly favourable response to the representations from Glasgow District Council and Strathclyde Regional Council regarding the setting up of a study team to take a long-term look at the potential of the canal.

Tonight it would be more profitable if I concentrated on the more immediate future. There is a danger of ending up doing nothing anywhere rather than trying to do something somewhere along this stretch of canal. I would ask the Minister, in particular, to tackle the problem, through the British Waterways Board, of clearing up the weed-ridden parts of the canal from a safety point of view, to encourage the board to undertake more repairs to parts of the stone retaining walls which are badly damaged, and to seek improvements to the towpaths so that they would become more suitable for walking as well as safer. I would ask him to make use of gabions and adjust the level of the water on certain stretches, which would improve the safety factors surrounding the canal.

These were points which I had the opportunity of taking up at the end of March with the Chairman of the British Waterways Board in London. He gave every indication of good will on his part to try to do something along these lines. Further features which could be attended to would be the clearance of much of the flotsam on the surface of the canal and special attention to the Maryhill locks, a remarkable historical centrepiece, but in need of certain repairs including, for example, the re-erection of handrails which I understand were taken down some time ago because they became defective. It would be a step towards better safety if they were to be re-erected at appropriate distance from the locks.

I am not thinking in terms of millons of pounds because I know the money is not available these days. The steps I should like to be taken require more 787 imagination than has perhaps been evidenced in the past. During the Glasgow spring holiday this year there was a remarkable turnout at a Canal Rally in Maryhill, which was part of the Clyde Fair organised by Radio Clyde. About £800 has been raised and used by many of the volunteers who have done a great deal of work to improve the facilities on the canal.

As a matter of policy the British Waterways Board does not encourage job creation schemes undertaken by voluntary bodies. I hope that perhaps we shall be able to make use of the Scottish Development Agency in facilitating such work. The agency indicated earlier this year that it was prepared to sponsor suitable job creation schemes.

In passing I would say that in my experience that other major landowner, British Rail, which comes under the Department of the Environment, is the slowest moving body on wheels in relation to making improvements. The experience of Wyndford Community Council in dealing with the board over a job creation scheme for the improvement of the site of the former Maryhill Central Station has been very disappointing.

The British Waterways Board owns the Firhill Basin which is next to Firhill Park, which my hon. Friend will know as the grounds of the Partick Thistle Football Club. The basin and grounds are not in the Maryhill constituency but in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael). I have had a word with him and he is in agreement with me that the ideas put forward by Partick Thistle Football Club in the last few months for the development of its ground and social club facilities should be encouraged.

The club hopes to combine with the local authorities over establishing leisure developments which would include a leisure pool, sports hall, pleasure grounds, cycle track and something of a neighbourhood park. This could have a major and beneficial impact on the North Kelvin area and in the Wester Common area which is part of my constituency.

I hope, therefore, that the British Waterways Board will respond as favourably as possible to any representations 788 that Glasgow District Council and Strathclyde Regional Council may make on this subject. I understand the board has a duty to assist local authorities wherever possible.

Perhaps I have intruded into areas that are not the concern of my hon. Friend because, although he is Minister of State with responsibility for sport and recreation, he is not Scotland's Minister of State for Sport and Recreation. Therefore, his White Paper on sport and recreation, which was published last August, does not apply to Scotland. Even so, I hope that where the Department of the Environment has a responsibility, it will act in conjunction with the local authority, particularly Glasgow District Council which I know is anxious to combine the waterway link with its own development plans for open space and recreation in the north-west of the city.

It was Mr. Arthur Oldham, the then director of parks for the former Glasgow Corporation, who was particuarly anxious to see a fresh look taken at the potential of the canal. Two reports were published by the corporation on the work undertaken by William Gillespie and Associates into the character and future use of the canal. Both reports identified the canal as an amenity rather than a liability. In respect of the British Waterways Board joint working party with local authorities and other interested bodies, perhaps the Minister would indicate whether he would encourage the board to permit some participation by voluntary bodies, a number of which have shown great interest in recent years and have participated in activities connected with the canal.

There is the Scottish Inland Waterways Association, for example, whose restoration convener, Mr. Richard Davies, has been particularly active. Then there is the New Glasgow Society in which Mr. Gordon Borthwick, in his year as chairman, has shown a keen interest. There is the new Maryhill Association and its secretary, Mr. David Forrester. All those persons and countless others have shown an interest. It is not simply a question of money. It is also a matter of trying to tap their enthusiasm and the effort they have been prepared to put into these matters.

I have been talking largely about the main section of the canal which flows 789 from firth to firth, with one or two obstacles. But the short Glasgow branch which goes into the city centre is an eyesore in parts. Originally, it was intended that much of that section should be filled in for the Maryhill motorway. However, the uncertainties over the future growth of the private motor car apart, public expenditure has effectively squeezed out motorway development and we now have a situation where the proposed Maryhill motorway is no more than a ghost track. I hope, therefore, that the board will encourage a number of improvements to that section of the canal, which is not particularly pleasant for the people who have to live nearby.

There are a great many uncertainties surrounding the future of the canal. First, we have the consultative document which the Minister published recently—the Review of the Water Industry in England and Wales. But that document affects Scotland as well. It proposes merging the British Waterways Board into a new national water authority. It also questions the future of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council.

The headquarters of the British Waterways Board in Scotland lies just within my constituency and, although the board has only four canals in Scotland to look after, it will be placed in a peculiar position over the Scottish dimension. Mr. Brian Davenport, the engineer, and his staff, do a good job. I believe that the Convention of Local Authorities has made representations to the Department of the Environment on this very part of the consultative document.

Then the White Paper on devolution proposes to transfer to a Scottish Assembly the responsibilities for Scottish inland waterways. No doubt having heard me this evening, the Minister will be glad to get rid of the responsibilities which his Department has in Scotland. However, I think that he will agree with me that there is considerable confusion over the control of the canal, because apart from the Minister, the district councils and the Strathclyde and the Central Regional authorities, the Scottish Office has an important responsibility as the Department of State with the planning oversight on land development matters and it has certain powers to grant-aid local authorities in respect of derelict sites. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend 790 will be passing on to the Scottish Office some of the comments which are more pertinent to it.

There is the feeling among some of my English colleagues that the civil servants at the Department of the Environment are not all that keen on canals. I hope that that is an unfair slander and that the Minister will give the lie to that and to any suggestion that he himself is not interested in the future development of canals.

§ The Minister of State for Sport and Recreation (Mr. Denis Howell)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for raising the question of the Forth and Clyde Canal. First, I join him in saying how sad it is that on the eve of this Adjournment debate one of his young constituents should die in the canal. On behalf of the Government, I extend to my hon. Friend's constituents our considerable sympathy in the matter. 'That highlights many of the problems on which my hon. Friend has had correspondence and discussions with me.

I shall deal with the immediate past history of the canal. It is a remainder waterway. It is administered by the British Waterways Board. It was legally closed to navigation in 1962. The Transport Act 1968 classified certain of the board's waterways for commercial use and cruising. It left the Forth and Clyde as a remainder waterway.

The board is required, under Section 107 of the Act, to deal with the canal in the most economical manner possible, whether by retaining and managing it, consistent with the requirements of public health and the preservation of amenity and safety, by developing or eliminating it, or by disposing of it. I emphasise that the board has no duty to provide for navigation unless that is the most economical treatment, which, I am advised, seems unlikely. That is the legal and immediate historical background.

I shall now say a word on the physical condition of the canal. Numerous crossings of the waterway have been fixed, which form obstruction to navigation. Some lengths of the canal have been filled in. In addition, the water level has had to be reduced to stop erosion of the banks 791 at critical points where breaches could occur. The House will therefore realise the great difficulty that exists with the canal.

Various bodies such as the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council have contemplated the restoration of through navigation. The council suggested that in its October 1974 report. But even that body had to accept the knowledge of numerous obstructions to true navigation which had been identified and which I now mention. My Department's order-of-cost assessment at that time—October 1974—to deal with the canal was in the region of £20 million. Therefore, my hon. Friend will immediately see the extent of the difficulty.

My Department, the Scottish Development Department, the British Waterways Board and the Scottish regional authorities and district council, which must foot most of the restoration bill, recognise that through navigation is no longer feasible. Waterways, even without through navigation, may be put to good use for other forms of recreation and amenity. I am confident that the British Waterways Board would want to do all it can in that respect.

I thought that my hon. Friend's outline of the scheme, of which I had no previous knowledge and which seemed to involve Partick Thistle and the general leisure complex, was exactly the kind of scheme which I tried to encourage in my White Paper—although that does not apply to Scotland. As my White Paper on sport and recreation and my consultation document on the future of the waterways have the support of the British Waterways Board, I am sure that within its financial constraints the hoard would wish to be positive in its approach to any scheme. I shall convey my hon. Friend's thoughts to those bodies and to the Scottish Office, which already has responsibility for local government and regional matters in Scotland.

As we have few canals in the national network system, responsibility for the entire canal system rests with my Department. I am glad to report that we work in close co-operation with our Scottish colleagues.

I know that my hon. Friend has been in touch with the Chairman of the British 792 Waterways Board. He has also been in touch with the riparian owners, with the regional and local authorities and with the Scottish Countryside Commission, in the hope of preparing an overall plan.

My colleagues in the Scottish Office agree with me that these matters are best worked out initially between the authorities concerned and the British Waterways Board. I hope that we shall soon have a clear picture of how the waterway could be brought back so far as possible into use for recreation and amenity. These are attractive objectives which I fully support. I believe that our canal system, which was created in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution to provide cheap transportation, now has attractive recreation and leisure possibilities.

Therefore, I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend ask about job creation schemes. I recently had the pleasure of opening two stretches of canal in England in which I think job creation programmes played a part. Certainly, the harnessing of the tremendous enthusiasm of volunteers has been of major significance. It is very heartening to find tens of thousands of people who will give up part of their weekends and holidays over the year to clear canals and open them up for navigation, in co-operation with the local authorities, put the towpaths in good order, put a few chairs there and make them become an agreeable part of the local environment.

My hon. Friend told the House about the unfortunate fatality in the canal. It has been part of our experience that the more we can open up canals, put them in good order, have them used and encourage people to take a walk along them, the better from a safety point of view. I have recently seen an example in Lancashire and Cheshire where a pub has been provided and people are encouraged to take the air and look at the water, which the British like to do. It is an interesting sidelight that this seems to increase public safety, because more people are there and are able to intervene immediately when an occasional accident occur.

My hon. Friend talked about the need to raise the water level in the canal. I know that he has had conversations with the Chairman of the British Waterways Board. I understand that the level had 793 to be lowered to prevent the risk of a breach through a serious deterioration of the canal system.

I think my hon. Friend said that my civil servants and I had enthusiasm for canals. The reason why the Government propose in their consultation document that the British Waterways Board network should go into the water industry as a whole and become part of the National Water Authority is exactly that we have that enthusiasm. There is no division among Ministers, and I do not think that there is any division among my advisers, on that point.

There is a backlog of maintenance on our waterways amounting to many millions of pounds. One of the reasons for our recommendations is that we must find the money to put the situation right. Otherwise, the canals will continue to decay. Moreover, people want to sail through the country on our canal system and want a national navigation authority.

794 We want to keep the canals a national entity. They are part of our national heritage and should be seen in that light. But we must face the facts of life. I have just seen the report of the consultants on the backlog of maintenance. I have no doubt that the results of their thinking will see the light of day relatively soon. The problem can be dealt with properly only by integrating the canal system into the water industry as a whole.

This has been a very useful debate. I thank my hon. Friend for raising these matters.