HL Deb 17 February 1959 vol 214 cc311-38

5.13 p.m.

LORD AMMON rose to call attention to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Inland Waterways; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in bringing this Motion before your Lordships I am reviving memories of battles long ago, because for over a century this question has been before the House. The present controversy stems largely from the introduction of the railways, when there was a set policy to close up the waterways, and, in fact, they were allowed to fall into decay and disuse. The unfortunate thing about this subject is that, although there have been many inquiries—there have probably been more inquiries into this question than any other which has caused controversy in this House—all the Reports have been either stillborn or stifled at birth and buried in some departmental pigeon-hole. However, it seems as if there is just a faint likelihood that there might be some exception in the present case.

The Bowes Committee, whose Report we are now considering, were appointed in 1955 and reported in July 1958. Their terms of reference, in summary, were to consider and report on the maximum use of the system; the future administration; the conversion of canal sites to other purposes, and the present law relating to the closing of waterways. The Committee have produced a Report of over one hundred pages. It is a valuable and interesting Report, and shows that they have gone into the matter with great thoroughness. However, they do not suggest any clear-cut plan. Ample suggestions and guidance for those willing are there, but no particular suggestion is made, with one exception—there is just a passing reference to the Kennet and Avon Canal, and also the Broads. They are merely referred to, and the suggestion is made that they might be inquired into further.

But the remarkable difference between the present Report and those in the past is that, unlike the others, there seems to have been an extraordinary anxiety to get this Report considered, and one has been rather astonished to find that again and again there have been false alarms as to when the White Paper was going to be produced. Just before we rose for the Christmas Recess there was a statement that the White Paper would be issued in a few days. Soon after that, there was a more startling announcement in another place, when the Minister of Transport said that he intended to make this Report the subject of his holiday homework. Then, only a day or two ago, there was an astonishing notice in the newspapers that the White Paper on the Report was to be issued yesterday. How they were able to "jump the gun" like that, I do not quite know. At any rate, it does indicate that there is an intention to do something.

Considering how late it is, and if the White Paper is to be issued very soon, I think it is as well to short-circuit the matter by simply moving technically that the matter be considered; because if the Minister is in a position to tell us that the White Paper will be issued very shortly, it seems stupid to go through all the bother of traversing the ground twice in so very short a time. Therefore, and because I am bound to say that I am not in the best of trim to-day, I shall content myself with technically moving the Motion. I beg to move for Papers.

5.19 p.m.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but at rather short notice I was asked to say a few words on behalf of industry: however, I assure your Lordships that I will be brief and will not hold up from the House such real experts on water as my noble friend Lord Albemarle. The first point I should like to make is that the Federation of British Industries and the Traders Co-ordinating Committee on Transport support the minority recommendation of the Bowes Committee that British Transport waterways should be transferred to an Inland Waterways Corporation. The reasons for this were set out fully in a letter of December 19, 1958, which was sent to the Minister of Transport, but I should like to touch on one or two of the chief arguments put forward in that letter.

The British Transport Commission are primarily concerned with transport. Their inland waterways commitments are a tiny part of their activities. Also, the financial position of the British Transport Commission, especially of the side dealing with waterways, is serious. We know that the Commission are losing money on maintaining the waterways, and we know how much they are losing—but we do not know whether they are really losing enough. It may be that they should be losing more. If an Inland Waterways Commission were brought into being especially to deal with the waterways, they could advise us on what should be done in regard to the elimination of existing waterways, and on re-development, and then we may get a proper estimate of exactly what subsidy would be needed from Her Majesty's Government.

I would stress the importance of the canals not wanted for navigation, because they are suppliers of water and recipients of trade effluent. Industry is quite prepared to pay fair charges for the services which these canals render. As things have developed, however, in many cases com- panies find themselves entirely without alternative facilities should these canals cease to be available, and they cannot afford to pay the famine prices which sometimes are demanded. As a matter of fact, the Bowes Committee did not underestimate the value to industry of these sections of the waterways. In paragraph 230 of their Report it is recorded that: These supplies"— of water— are quite often irreplaceable and without them many industrial installations would come to a standstill. It is about this irreplaceable factor that industry is worried and asks for adequate safeguards that the charges are proper and reasonable, particularly on waterways maintained by Government subsidy. I should like to see these charges left to individual negotiations between the supplier and user, with the right to appeal either to the Minister or to some independent arbitrator if the supplier were demanding exorbitant charges.

As I have said, industry is not asking for cheap water and is quite prepared to pay a reasonable market price. I think it would be possible, after consultation between officers of the Ministry and representatives of industry, to find some satisfactory formula.

5.24 p.m.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, the history of this Motion has been chequered and I think that my noble friend Lord Ammon is to be congratulated on having persisted in putting it down and carrying it through. He put it down initially shortly after the Report came out, but for one cause or another it was delayed. At one point he was asked by the Government to put it off. The result is that now we are discussing it at this late hour. We are too late to influence Government policy on the Report and too early to criticise it, so I think that in many ways it is unfortunate that the Motion has come forward as it has. Nevertheless, I know that my noble friend has taken a deep interest in this subject for a long time and has studied it closely, and we are very grateful to him for moving this Motion this afternoon.

To start with, I think that we should get the subject in focus. The waterways, with road and rail transport, were placed under the British Transport Commission by the Act of 1947, with the object of providing an integrated and efficient service of inland transport, although it is true that the waterways element was small indeed. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the original Transport Act was that the means of transport should be complementary and not competitive. In actual terms of traffic handled, the 180 million-ton miles carried on inland waterways are a minute fraction of the total. It is about a hundredth part of the traffic carried on the roads and less than a hundredth part of the traffic carried by the railways. But in certain areas it is of considerable importance.

Nobody would deny that the 2 million tons or more carried between the River Lea and London Docks, if there were no waterways and they had to be carried by road, would add enormously to the road congestion in that part of London. In Yorkshire and in the North-East of England the coal trade depends largely for cheap transport to the export ports on the canals managed by the British Transport Commission. It was for that reason, I think, that the Bowes Committee, in dealing with Class A waterways, emphasised the fact that their profits must not be diverted to make good deficits on the other canals, but that they should be ploughed back into the existing waterways to improve the facilities and to modernise and develop them.

Some years ago the British Transport Commission issued a plan for the expenditure of £5½ million on these Class A waterways, to modernise and improve not only the waterways themselves, the locks and water supplies, but also the cargo handling and terminal facilities. In these nearly 400 miles of waterways we have a valuable economic asset. That is the reason why the Bowes Committee unanimously decided that the Class A waterways should be developed to the utmost possible and that their finances should not be burdened by deficits from others. That is why four members of the Committee, the Chairman and three others, were of the opinion that the Transport Commission should continue to manage them. And from what I have said about these Class A canals, to my mind it would be very wrong to put them under any body other than one concerned with transport. They are a transport business and an integral part of the resources available to British industry for conducting their business. To hand them over to a body to which they would be only a minor part of their concern, to a body which would be concerned primarily with amenity, with pleasure and other matters, would be utterly wrong.

The argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, can, of course, be used in reverse: that this proposed Inland Waterways Corporation would, by the nature of things, be mainly concerned with water supply, land drainage, pleasure boating, amenity and all the rest of the valuable functions which waterways can supply; but not with transport. For that reason, I would certainly urge all my noble friends to oppose the alternative suggested by the four members of the Committee.

That was the only matter on which the Committee were not unanimous. I think it is a remarkable thing that this, the last of a long line of inquiries dating from over fifty years ago, has made no startling discoveries. Time and again the Committee have come to conclusions, and expressed them in almost identical phrases to those used by inquiries of five, ten, twenty or thirty years ago: in other words, there is nothing new about this problem of the eighteenth century waterways that does not fit the pattern of twentieth century industry and economics.

There are what the Committee call the Class B canals, over 900 miles of them, which, though once flourishing, have not for many years played any appreciable part in the transport system of the country. The Committee made certain recommendations for dealing with these canals, and some I think we can heartily approve. There is the suggestion, which has been made before now, that the system of tolls charged on ton-mileage should be changed to one of licences. That is really logical. It recognises the undoubted fact that a waterway is essentially no different from a roadway, in that it is a way for traffic to go along. We allow traders and others to use roads if they pay for an annual licence for a vehicle; and once they have paid that they can make as many trips and earn as much money as they like. By applying this to the waterways we should remove one of the deterrents to maximum use; and, moreover, it would offer would-be traders an inducement to go into the carrying trade on those waterways.

The Committee estimate the cost of doing this at about £164,000 a year, on the basis of the traffic that was passing in 1956. That is one of the recommendations that would cost public money. But it seems to me that if we want better use to be made of the waterways system, and some small relief to the congestion on the roads, that would be cheap. If we could do that for £164,000 a year, and at the same time maintain those waterways for the many other functions that they perform, seems quite a good way of encouraging that traffic.

The other suggestion the Committee make is that the deficit on the Class B canals, which has been running at about £250,000 for some years, should not be borne by the Transport Commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Jessel has said, charging these deficits on the canals that are no longer used for transport against the Transport Commission's finances makes for confusion and also makes it impossible to determine how efficiently the system is being run and how much subsidy is needed.

There are other suggestions that I personally think are questionable. One is that these waterways should be reinstated to their original condition, size and capacity, at an estimated capital cost of at least £3½ million. A further suggestion was that a guarantee should be given that they should be kept in that state for twenty-five years. That is a big thing to swallow. Admittedly, it would give potential traders an inducement to invest capital in building boats and the rest; but I cannot believe that as long a guarantee as that would be necessary. In any case, the Committee did not give the evidence that would seem to be necessary before public money is spent on that scale for that purpose.

The earlier part of the Committee's Report, when they examined a number of common fallacies that are often referred to in the arguments about this subject, contained some useful findings, and I would remind your Lordships of what they are. In the first place, the Committee said that any question of comparing canals in this country with those in Western Europe is quite irrelevant that, for a number of reasons, both geographical and economic, it would not be comparing like with like. Secondly, there is the statement often made, that water transport is the cheapest form of transport, and that therefore waterways must be cheaper than road or rail. That, the Committee found, could not be accepted as a generalisation. Although the actual tractive effort to move a given weight through water is much less than on land, and therefore much cheaper, the proportion that that tractive effort bears to the whole cost of transport is; so small that the question is not really relevant. Many of us have genuinely thought that an expansion in waterway traffic would make a considerable difference to the roads. The Committee examined this matter. They inquired from experts what would be the effect on road traffic of a 50 per cent. increase in water traffic. The answer was that 300 5-ton lorries would do the work, and that is a great deal less than the normal annual increase of commercial vehicles on the roads. So I am afraid that we have nothing to hope for in that direction,.

Having examined these considerations the Committee came definitely to the conclusion that the waterways system in general over the whole country could never hope to pay its way. That is paraphrasing briefly the conclusion to which they came. Individual traffics, and so on, might be profitable and useful, and might compete on equal terms with other forms of transport; but in general, over the whole country, the pattern just does not fit. It is not the means of transport which meets the needs of industry for the present day.

I need quote only one figure to show the inflexibility of water transport. The idea, of course, is to take goods from door to door. Yet there are only 2,000 miles of waterway in the whole country, and there are 200,000 miles or thereabouts of roadway. When you think of the flexibility that is possible when the whole of the road system is used, you get an idea why people do not want to send their goods by water. Within my own experience, I can think of the River Thames of my youth, fifty years ago, when there was a considerable amount of commercial traffic, at least up to Staines, if not higher. Now, I believe, there is not a single commercial vehicle trading above Kingston. That is the case on this waterway, which has been independent of railway companies; it has nothing to do with the stifling by the railway companies of the Canal Commission. It has been under the Thames Conservancy, and still the commercial traffic has left it for good. That is an indication of the futility of any hopes of a widespread reversal of the trend away from waterways.

I must say a few words about the proposals of the Committee on the second of their terms of reference—that is, what to do with the Class C Canals, those 700 or 800 miles of canal that are no use at all for transport, many of which, in fact, have not been navigable, or have known no commercial craft on them, for many years. Generally speaking, both sides of the Committee were agreed on the method. They disagreed, of course, on the administration, in that one half of the Committee thought that the Group C's, as well as the A's and B's, should be put under a waterways corporation. The Chairman and the other three members advocated setting up a statutory body called the Waterways Redevelopment Board, which should take each canal in turn, review it, assess its value to the community, and then arrange by negotiation for the canal to be dealt with in the most suitable way. In some cases it might be possible to find some local authority who would be willing to take over a canal. In some cases some voluntary body, possibly the National Trust, might be willing to take them over. Some might be dealt with perhaps under other legislation. Some might be taken piecemeal; some might be maintained for boating, where there were no locks, and others left with just sufficient water for the needs of the locality.

All this would need an immense amount of detailed study and negotiation, and this Redevelopment Board which would be set up by the Ministry of Transport would be charged with just that duty: to work out schemes, possibly in association with the Transport Commission, and then to carry those schemes through. If, finally, it proved impossible to find any satisfactory solution to the future of these canals, then the Transport Commission would have to retain them. They would have to continue under the Transport Commission, but the cost of their maintenance would not fall on transport finances.

That, of course, is the point on which public opinion has been acutely sensitive, because the proposals that canals should be abandoned are always referred to in rather emotional terms, such as, "A canal will be killed by the Transport Commission," and that sort of thing. Nothing of the sort has ever been contemplated. In most cases, canals serve functions to agriculture and industry, which mean that they cannot be abandoned without substituting some other method which would probably be more expensive in any event.

As the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, said, there is the question of water supply; and I am glad that he said that industry would be willing to pay a fair price for water. Your Lordships will be glad to know that the Transport Commission have been actively trying to improve their water sales for a long time—and with some success. I even heard of one instance where a canal-side factory had been getting water for £5 a year. When they were approached in a perfectly friendly way they agreed, also in a perfectly friendly way, that £2,000 a year would be a much better price. That is the sort of indication of the scope there is, and that is one of the main points that the Bowes Committee brought out—that there is very great scope for increasing revenue from that source. There is also the question of the reception of industrial effluent, which many factories at present enjoy, no doubt, free of charge. It is only reasonable that a service like that, provided by a canal, should be paid for. There are many ways in which this sort of revenue—revenue from non-transport purposes—could be increased.

The Committee, however, unfortunately pricked another bubble when they dealt with the revenue to be expected from pleasure boating and fishing. Not long ago a newspaper gave currency to a report. It merely said, "It has been said that revenue from fishing rights might be expanded to £300,000 a year." There was no evidence as to who had said it, or on what authority. When we consider that the existing revenue from fishing is something under £10,000 a year, and in many cases the charges could not be increased without legislation, I think a figure like that is quite out of reality. The same applies to pleasure boating. The Committee found that the pleasure boat revenue is about £20,000 a year. They doubt very much whether that could be increased by more than about 50 per cent.

I welcome these proposals of the Committee which I think will really contribute to a solution: the establishment of a Waterways Redevelopment Board for disposing of (and that does not mean abandoning or drying out) the unwanted canals; the relieving of the finances of tie Transport Commission of the quite unreal deficits belonging to these other canals; the fostering of the non-transport uses, such as water supply, land drainage, pleasure boating and so on, by every possible means. All these things we can welcome, and we hope that the Government will decide—or perhaps one should say have decided—to accept them. I think one could even say that the idea of licences instead of tolls would be a good thing. I should not think it justifiable to spend a lot of money on the Class B waterways. I think it would be utterly wrong and very damaging to the whole transport conception of this country to remove the Class A waterways from the Transport Commission to a Waterways Corporation.

Finally, I should like just to remind the Government that this talk of negotiation with a view to redeveloping waterways is not a new thing. If we look at the Reports of the Transport Commission over the last eight or nine years we see that they have been doing just that; they have been trying to negotiate with the different authorities concerned, in order to get them to take over the canals that are unwanted for transport purposes. Those negotiations came to nothing. Any Redevelopment Board that is set up will need pretty powerful Government support if it is to get anywhere in these matters.

5.53 p.m.

LORD METHUEN

My Lords, I should like to express thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, for giving us an opportunity of discussing this very interesting matter. The last occasion of importance was, as we know, the publication last July of the so-called Bowes Committee Report, in which it was clearly stated which canals the Government considered should be fully exploited. Among those inland waterways which were not included—except for the short stretch from Bath to Bristol—was the Kennet and Avon Canal, which has received, as your Lordships probably know, a certain amount of publicity during the last few years. Later I should like to make some special mention of it; this is, after all, a golden opportunity.

It is good to know that the Government realise the possibilities of our inland waterways, and have during the last two or three years made enormous strides in putting selected ones to full use, modernising the equipment and, generally speaking, making them into serious economic assets. It is heartening to know that they show a profit on the non-carrying operations. It is quite natural that any Government should look to the commercial side of these means of transport; after all, they were built and made for commercial purposes. There is, however, another side to the picture, which the noble Earl has just mentioned and which, to my mind, is becoming increasingly important to-day, and that is the amenities side. This is where I firmly believe many inland waterways, including some of the canals not prescribed as part of the navigable system, should have special consideration. Some of the canals in this category are by no means derelict, even though they may have gone into disuse. If put in order many could still provide those wishing to enjoy a holiday on the water with ample opportunities, in a country where the population is increasing, where the seaside resorts, as well as the roads, are over-crowded, quite obviously, and where, to my mind, every possible use should be made of existing waterways.

Take the case of the Kennet and Avon Canal. It consists of three sections: a very picturesque part leading from Reading to a little west of Hungerford, where the Kennet was canalised somewhere about 1725; then that part of the canal which rises on to the Downs and meanders in a leisurely way across them, to drop down by a flight of twenty continuous locks from Devizes into the Avon Valley; then, passing through such historic towns as Bradford-on-Avon and Bath, it continues its course as a navigable river and a prescribed waterway as far as Bristol. This fine waterway was built originally as a wide canal, with wide bridge-holes suitable for taking barges measuring 14 feet by 72 feet; and it would be a feasible task—though admittedly rather an expensive one—to put it back into its original state, in spite of what the noble Earl has just told us; I know he takes a different view.

I would make an earnest plea to the Government not to jettison this canal; nor—and I think this is particularly important—to consider its fate in a piecemeal manner. I was a little alarmed to read in the Report which has been referred to that it is stated that this canal, the Kennet and Avon, is preeminently a case for redevelopment, and that it might well be decided that different treatment should be applied to the various sections. I am glad at least to see that the Report admits that redevelopment procedure should give due weight to amenity and recreational uses.

My association, the Kennet and Avon Canal Association, of which I happen to be President, does not wish the various parts to be treated differently. We do not want to see a series of disconnected duckponds. This would not be a practical solution, nor would it benefit or help anybody. What my Association particularly would like to see is a gradual rehabilitation of this canal. And in this matter I should like to admit frankly that we have had much sympathetic treatment by British Waterways, who have allowed us to co-operate with them in putting some of the locks in order between Reading and Newbury. It is remarkable how much local enthusiasm there is for the reopening of this canal and how much voluntary labour we can count on to help clear the watercourse and keep it clean and to do work which is not of a technical kind, which naturally only the engineers of British Waterways should do. I make no claim whatever for the commercial possibilities of this canal, but it is important to remember that it is a wide canal and, from the commercial point of view, that is most important. If properly rehabilitated, it will take barges; and even to-day with the fast road service of heavy 16-ton lorries the barge, with its butty, can compete successfully. I do not know whether the noble Earl will agree with me on that.

This is a most controversial subject and I am purposely trying to refrain from being controversial. May I point out to the Government, when I mention Reading, that it is extremely desirable to hasten the instalment of the new bridge over the Kennet at Bridge Street in Reading. At present there is an obstruction which prevents boats from going up. Though we have started a regular service from Reading upstream, we have to start on the other side of the bridge, which is extremely inconvenient. I think that if the Reading to Newbury part of the canal could be put in order we could then all see for ourselves its value from an amenity and a commercial point of view, and I have no hesitation in saying that we should not be disappointed. I believe that the National Trust have been having conversations with British Waterways over the possibility of taking over some of the unwanted inland waterways and canals, purely from an amenity point of view. In this connection, I think it only right to emphasise that the National Trust is unlikely to be interested in a derelict or half-derelict waterway, and in the case of the Kennet and Avon Canal I hope that they will insist, if they consider taking this waterway over, on taking over a system which is in proper operational order. It might even be cheaper to put it in order than to continue along the present lines, with the consequent deterioration.

Only last Sunday a number of us, including our Chairman and Secretary, made a special examination of what we consider the weakest spots in the canal—namely, the flight of locks at Devizes, and that part of the canal which has been drained between Bradford and Limpley Stoke, and the Bath flight of locks. We hope that the time is not far off when British Waterways will realise the objections to leaving these three parts of the waterway in their present alarming condition and take effective steps to put them in order.

My Association proposes making special recommendations to the Government on these particular matters, but I think I should mention here that, by the lowering of the water level below the normal, much of the stonework in the locks is exposed to the air. It is of Bath stone and subject to disintegration if it is exposed in this way. It is usually kept well below water level, but now that it is exposed to the air it is suffering severely from frosts such as we have recently experienced. The lock gates, owing to the suicidal policy in recent years of fitting them with softwood instead of hardwood, are showing signs of rapid deterioration, aided here and there by fairly obvious sabotage. One particular flight of locks we found on fire. This could be nothing but sabotage. We were, however, on the whole sanguine that the damage done during the neglect of the last few years could easily be put right. It would mean the protection of much of the stonework now being damaged by frosts and the renewal of lock gates as at the Devizes and Bath flights, with the resultant filling with water, and not with silt. of the pounds which are nearly all dry and will soon become overgrown if not properly kept in order.

I understand that the fine aqueduct at Limpley Stoke has been scheduled by the Ministry of Works as an ancient monument, but I fancy that the equally beautiful one at Avoncliffe has not been so scheduled. I would suggest to the Minister that it is certainly worthy of the proper protection and maintenance that scheduling would ensure it. Its repair with various coloured bricks to replace the original Bath stone is deplorable; but this can be made good. There is also a very interesting ram near Limpley Stoke which was put in, I suppose, at the time of the building of the original canal and which used to lift water up to the canal. I think that this should be scheduled by the Minister of Works as an outstanding piece of engineering. We were not very impressed by the excuse given for keeping the part of the canal between Avoncliffe and Limpley Stoke dry—namely, that if it filled with water, the southern bank might crash on to the railway. Only about a quarter of a mile of the canal runs sufficiently near the railway in any case. We feel that this should be carefully examined and rendered safe; and this part of the canal then filled. If it is not, there is no saying how much real damage could result from keeping the canal bed dry for a long time, with consequent cracking and deteriorating of the clay bottom.

However, all these points and some others are the subject of a memorandum to the Minister of Transport, who I trust will give the matter his real and earnest consideration. I know of no waterway in this country which is more beautiful, more attractive and more fitting to spend a holiday on. There are other waterways which must be equally attractive for the same purpose, such as the one at Stratford-on-Avon, where the amenity value should be recognised, and where voluntary labour can often be found to help in the reinstatement of parts of the waterway and thus save British Transport a certain amount of expenditure. I should like to pay a tribute to the general manager of British Waterways, Sir Reginald Kerr, for the sympathetic way in which he has allowed us to co-operate with him in this matter of the Kennet and Avon canal. I look forward to the time when this waterway will be accessible to boats from Reading as far as Newbury. Already we have a regular service for part of the way, and we have ample evidence that plenty of commercial craft are ready to ply for hire as soon as this part of the canal is opened.

Finally, I would appeal to the Government to consider the enormous potential in our inland waterways for holidaymakers and for anglers. There must be several thousands daily to be seen, in more propitious months, with their patient eye on the uncertain motions of the float, enjoying the fresh air arid I suppose, an occasional bite. The purely commercial side of waterways is naturally paramount; but the capital has been sunk in their survey and construction, and many of those waterways that may not at present seem to rank as profitable ventures, if put into shape should, in my humble opinion, certainly be considered and treated as one of our most valuable and irreplaceable holiday assets. There are already fleets of so-called inland waterway cruisers that take thousands of passengers along our waterways during the spring, summer and autumn. Evidently this is a profitable concern both to the promoters and to British Waterways. I personally wish them the best of luck.

I apologise to your Lordships for having taken up rather a long time on the special subject of this particular canal. There was, I believe, some consideration given to its preservation just after the war, but afterwards it was not so considered. It is on the borderline, and I hope that the Government will decide that it should be kept, certainly for amenity purposes and possibly even for commercial purposes.

6.8 p.m.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ammon, in introducing this Motion with commendable brevity, having regard to the timetable, pointed out that we were dealing with a problem of many days before yesterday, the solution of which has been for the last fifty years postponed until to-morrow. The first inquiry referred to in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry was as far back as 1909. There have been other inquiries in 1914, in 1931, and then this inquiry, the Report of which we are now considering, in 1955. The curse, as it were, of the waterways in this country was that they were so soon overtaken and passed by steam locomotion, and the competition which arose on the railways was such that the canals never had any real chance of becoming a commercially profitable part of the transport pattern of this country.

I believe it is the case that when the British Transport Commission took over the railways, the railways owned something in the nature of one-third of the canal system. I do not think it can be contended that the canals of this country any longer form a significant part of the transport system. Only 380 miles out of 2,100 miles of inland waterway are really navigable at the present time. Those stretches of waterway, as my noble friend Lord Lucan has said, are classified as Class A; but although, notionally, that section shows (or at least it did in 1956) a surplus of £292,000, one must remember that, having regard to the capital which has been sunk, that is a pretty exiguous surplus which can disappear very rapidly. I should say that that surplus is arrived at before charging any of the central charges or anything in respect of the service of the debt arising from capital expenditure.

I believe it is no good our pretending, in the year 1959, that the waterways system of this country is, except for certain particular and special areas, an important or significant element in our transport. It is uneconomic, and both physically and financially it gets worse every day. As I have said, we have had a succession of Reports, but nothing has been done. The Report of the last Committee of Inquiry was published in July of last year, but nothing has happened since, except that I understand that a White Paper has been promised. In the meantime the waterways, apart from the 380 miles of Class A waterways, are in a state of gathering deterioration and dilapidation, moving into decay; and the 785 miles which are not navigable, and which, as my noble friend Lord Lucan has recalled, the Committee of Inquiry recommend should either be redeveloped or eliminated, are now, after years of neglect, silting up and becoming in worse physical condition every day.

It is the case that for the nine years since the British Transport Commission took over the waterways the operating loss has been £1,900,000—and that takes no account of the estimated £500,000 a year central charges and debt service. If that important factor be taken into account—and I submit that it must be—the deficit over the nine years has been some £6,300,000. That has been thrust upon the British Transport Commission. Most of it arises not from the 375 miles which are navigable but from expenditure on the non-navigable section of the waterways—1,700 miles or thereabouts. In addition to that, as my noble friend Lord Lucan has said, the British Transport Commission are spending upwards of £5 million in modernising and improving the Class A navigable stretches of the waterways—the 375 miles,

It seems to me that we cannot escape this growing deficit. We cannot just abandon the waterways, even the non-navigable ones, because if that were done there would be the risk of danger to health and safety. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has said, the non-navigable canals, as well as those which are navigable, render important services to industry and agriculture; and they possess certain amenity values and provide certain social benefits—which brings me to comment upon the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, who for a reason which I well understand, approaches this problem perhaps from a less commercial standpoint than others.

The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, clearly indicated that he was not concerning himself very closely with the commercial waterways and he particularly instanced the Kennet and Avon Canal. I can understand his interest, and that of many others, in certain of the recreational and amenity qualities of that canal, but it must be borne in mind that on that canal in a length of 85 miles there are no fewer than 105 locks; and the cost of maintenance is now some £40,000 a year. To put it in a usable, navigable condition (which does not include widening the canal at many points), doing the minimum of modernisation and improvement necessary for its user commercially, would cost in the region of £750,000. Then its maintenance would run at the rate of about £150,000 a year, against which we should have the uncertain, one might almost say the fugitive, revenue coming from such traffic as the waterways were able to gather in. It is quite clear that in no circumstances or conditions could we make that section of the waterways of this country a commercial, paying proposition; and if it is to be preserved for amenity purposes then the obligation to maintain it should fall upon those authorities, whether local authorities or other authorities, whose duty and responsibility it is to provide amenities for the nation and for the people of this country.

With regard to the Class B waterways, the narrow canals which are little used, I share the doubts of my noble friend Lord Lucan, whether, even with the expenditure contemplated, running at £3½ million over five years, on reinstatement and modernisation, the canals would be commercially profitable. My noble friend Lord Lucan referred to the proposal that not only should this money be spent but that, when it had been spent, there should be a guarantee that the modern standard thus achieved would be maintained for twenty-five years in order to enable those commercial concerns who were in expectation of using the canal to purchase carrying craft; and twenty-five years has apparently been taken by the Committee as an appropriate period to write off that expenditure. That may be so, but I should have thought that that was a pretty long period.

Moreover, if any of these vessels rank as ships the concern is entitled to an investment allowance of 40 per cent. on the purchase of the ship. I cannot say whether vessels of this kind would be regarded by the Inland Revenue as ships, but if they were so regarded only 60 per cent. of the cost would have to be written off, provided, of course, that the undertaking is making profit. If it is not, then it cannot set off the investment allowance against its income tax, because it is not paying any; but it can accumulate a very valuable loss, as certain mechants in the City engaged in merchanting finance rather than goods can tell you. However, that is a minor point.

There is another point which I should like to make, and that concerns the proposal for changing the tolls into licence fees, from which it is expected that considerable additional traffic may be obtainable. The tolls are high. They amount, according to the Report, to something equal to 20 per cent. of the total freight charges, and if that be so one can understand that they discourage traffic. The estimate by the Committee is that initially the cost will be £164,000, offset by such additional traffic as may ensue. I wonder why the Committee did not suggest that this change should be operated also in regard to the waterways of the other section, namely the Class A section, which are navigable, which are wide and which can take modern craft. It may be, of course, that the cost of so doing would be too high, because 90 per cent. of the tonnage carried on those waterways is carried by firms and undertakings other than British Transport. But it seems to me that a difficult situation might arise if a vessel, a barge, in the course of its journey went partly on a stretch of waterway where licence fees were charged and partly on a stretch where toll fees were continuing to be charged. It seems to me that some difficulties might arise in that way.

With regard to the non-navigable sections of the waterways of this country, as my noble friend Lord Lucan has said, the Chairman and three members of the Committee proposed that a Board should be formed—a scheme-making Board, in effect—in order either to redevelop these unusable canals or to eliminate them; meantime the canals should remain the responsiblity of the British Transport Commission or British Waterways. I think everyone here would agree that if that be the case then the British Transport Commission should have some grant to offset expenditure which they are carrying, or will carry, which is quite unrelated to their transport functions and does not contribute in any way to their revenue. It is suggested by the Committee that local authorities might get a grant in respect of some of the expenditure which would fall upon them if they took over the canals or otherwise dealt with them from the point of view of providing social amenities. I should point out, however, that certain of the grants which were receivable for that kind of expenditure, as percentage grants, are no longer available under the block grant which local authorities now receive.

I sincerely hope that the proposal of the remaining members of the Committee will not be accepted by the Government. It seems to me that the British Transport Commission or British Waterways, which are a section of the Commission, are the proper body to deal with these navigable waterways and non-navigable waterways until they have been redeveloped or have been eliminated. Otherwise, if a separate body is brought into existence, problems will arise of management, of staff, of reorganisation; and, what is not less important, questions will arise as to the docks which are now used and which now serve both inland and other shipping. In connection with this point the four members advocating the formation of the Inland Waterways Corporation suggest that a lease of these docks should be given or granted to British Transport Commission, but that seems to me to be a not very commendable proposal.

I should now like to make a short comment with regard to the Broads. Being a Norfolkman, I am not unaware of the beauties of the Broads and their increasing popularity for holidays and the like. The Committee, of course, recognise that this is a very difficult, complex problem, and they canvassed a number of various ideas for the solution of the problem, including the question as to whether the Broads should be taken over as a national park. On the other hand, they seem to come down in favour of a reconstruction of the existing Port and Haven Commissioners—representative, very largely, of the local authorities concerned with the Broads—and it seems to me that that might be a more encouraging and a more worth-while road of inquiry and consideration. In conclusion, may I say that it is devoutly to be hoped, after this last Report—comprehensive, informative, and reasonable in a number of its proposals, I think I can say, without necessarily accepting them all—that the Government will speedily take appropriate steps to regularise the situation in regard to the waterways of this country and to relieve the British Transport Commission of a financial liability which they should not have cast upon them.

6.32 p.m.

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

My Lords, I must start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, for the "false alarms" which, for one reason or another (and I may say that a certain epidemic which is rushing around at the moment is not unconnected with this) caused the unfortunate postponement of his debate on one occasion. As to the alteration of this present date, that was rather a different matter, due to a different reason, which the noble Lord knows, and my noble Leader is most grateful to him for having agreed to this second alteration. I had hoped—and, indeed, had had every reason to believe—that the Government's statement on the Bowes Report would, in fact, have been made in ample time for your Lordships to be able to discuss it by the 19th, if not by to-day: but, alas, this has not been possible, for the reasons that I have mentioned, and I apologise to your Lordships.

Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, can rest assured that to-day's debate has been immensely valuable and will be of great help to the Government in coming to their final decisions. The range and many-sidedness of the issues involved in the future of the inland waterways mean that, even after the Government have stated the main lines of its approach, a good deal is bound to remain to be worked out. Our discussion this afternoon has further illuminated aspects of the problem, and I am sure that the Government will give careful consideration to the informed suggestions made by your Lordships.

Obviously, I cannot in any way anticipate the contents of the statement, so that my remarks in winding up this debate—and I will keep them as short as possible—will have to be of a somewhat general nature. It may be useful if I touch very briefly on the main features of the problem, many of which your Lordships have already mentioned, which led my right honourable friend to appoint the Committee of Inquiry. I will then deal with the principal recommendations of the Report. The greater part of the network of inland waterways in Great Britain—over 2,000 miles of them—is, as your Lordships know, vested in the British Transport Commission, and about two-thirds of this nationalised system is used by commercial traffic in widely varying degrees. Within this two-thirds, the main commercial use is concentrated, as your Lordships have mentioned, on only 300 or 400 miles: these pay their way and earn a surplus. The remainder of the waterways on which commercial traffic still moves operates, as the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said, at a steady and quite substantial loss; and this drain upon the system's finances is, of course, increased further by the cost of maintaining and managing the remaining one-third of the Commission's system which is disused.

The story, however, is not as simple as this, for there are more sides to it than just the transport aspect—and your Lordships have mentioned some of them. Other uses for canals and river navigations have grown up; sometimes these uses subsist side by side with navigation, and in many places they have survived—and even increased—where navigation itself has vanished. Some of them do play a part in the country's economy. Industry and agriculture take water from the canals, and the canals receive surface water from adjoining land and premises, as well as effluents from industrial plant. There are also recreational and amenity values. Unfortunately, the balance is not always on the credit side: disused and derelict canals often have serious disadvantages to the communities around them. To make matters even more complicated, economic and social benefit, as well as harm, live side by side on the same waterway; so that, whereas some authorities and bodies may be interested to see a waterway preserved and kept in water, others would benefit if it disappeared. Your Lordships will see how very complicated and complex this problem is.

Now what, in essence, the Bowes Committee were asked to advise upon was which inland waterways are to be preserved, and how to ensure that they are put to use in the way that gives the community proper value for the resources that must go into their upkeep. As for those which are not worth preserving as waterways, how can they, or their sites and works, be converted to useful purposes—or, at least, made unobjectionable? In the Committee's Report, the main points, as I see them, are as follows.

First, capital development should continue to be concentrated on the waterways which carry busy and remunerative traffic—those which the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, mentioned; the Class A canals. A further 900 miles of other waterways still carry some commercial traffic, but unfortunately their working expenses far exceed their revenue, and the Report states that this is likely to continue—these are the Class B canals. They are also used for purposes other than transport. These Class B waterways should, the Report suggests, be rehabilitated for navigation; traffic upon them should be encouraged, and other uses (and the revenue therefrom) should be developed as far as possible. The Committee propose that financial help should be given from public funds both for the cost of reinstatement and to meet the working deficits (I think the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, had some doubts about this) and that the availability of the system for commercial navigation should be guaranteed for 25 years—and neither of their Lordships on the Front Bench opposite was happy about this, either. As for inland waterways which have outlived their usefulness for commercial transport—the Class C waterways—the Report proposes a new procedure. This is for case-by-case review, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Latham, mentioned, in consultation with the authorities and organisations mainly interested in each case. The aim would be to assess their possibilities so as to prepare schemes for their future treatment.

My Lords, a thumb-nail sketch of a 120-page Report leaves a great deal unsaid, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that the Report brings out very clearly how many-sided the problem is, and how varied are the interests—sometimes combining, sometimes conflicting—which are affected in whichever way we seek to tackle it. Local authorities, water undertakings, drainage and river boards, industrial users, farmers, anglers, waterway carriers and the people who use their services, pleasure boaters and cruisers, walkers, naturalists, and lovers of the countryside and of old buildings are among the interests concerned—and that is not a complete list.

The Report has given the Government some complicated problems to consider. For instance, to accept the proposals for the Class B waterways as they stand would mean a commitment by the Government to subsidise a part of the country's transport system which operates under handicaps clearly set out in the Report, quite heavily and for a long period, with sums which run into millions of pounds. I can assure the noble Lords opposite that, obviously, the Government would have to think very carefully before undertaking such a commitment. On the other hand, I agree that to let still more waterways merely fall into disuse and become derelict is no solution. Certainly we must not allow ourselves to be so obsessed with the transport aspect that the other uses are ignored. If these uses are to tip the balance in favour of keeping these waterways in being, financial questions must arise. The Report indicates at various points that there is scope for obtaining from interests which benefit from the waterways' existence a fairer proportion of the cost of providing the facilities they use. I must say that I was heartened by the example the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, gave.

The Report has made some original and stimulating suggestions for the treatment of waterways which have no future as parts of the commercial transport system. The real difficulty in earlier approaches to this problem is that they never really looked beyond the navigation issue. A canal was simply a navigation, and it either kept going as such or it was simply abandoned, and the residual problems, by and large, were ignored. It is not surprising that the results have often been unsatisfactory. A major obstacle to a better solution has been the variety of interests involved. The basic theme underlying the Committee's recommendations for Class C waterways, as I read them, is that there must be a concerted, co-operative approach, and a constructive one. If all the people, authorities and organisations who are affected by proposals to re-develop any of these waterways can view the problem in this light, a whole range of new possibilities may be opened up.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that one of the other obstacles to making the best use of all these waterways is the multiplicity of legislation, the variety of Canal Acts, about which the Committee hoped that something would be done?

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

Yes, my Lords, I am coming to that. Commercial traffic may have forsaken a waterway for good. The hard facts of economics have to be faced. But the Report does not accept that it must necessarily follow that the adjoining landowner must be deprived of his drainage, the factory owner of his cooling water, the angler of his sport, or the yachtsman of his cruising ground, as the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, mentioned. What it suggests does follow is a need for these interests to get together, to see how best the waterway can be adapted and maintained to serve their joint needs—

LORD LATHAM

And to see who pays.

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

Quite. And to see whether the benefits they will derive are worth a contribution from all of them. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, mentioned angling, and I would say, as the Committee have clearly pointed out, that sporting rights are more often than not vested in the adjoining owners and others under the innumerable special Acts by which the canals were authorised. The Government are fully alive to the fact that a considerable number of people derive a great deal of pleasure and relaxation from fishing in canals. However, one factor is that by no means all payments go to the canal owners. Incidentally, the noble Lord mentioned that there was a possibility that £300,000 might come from anglers. I think that what the noble Lord was referring to was the argument that if anglers were to pay 10s. a head per year, there would be a sum of something like £250,000 derived from that—but only if.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

Has anybody asked them?

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

Not that I know of. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, mentioned boating. I assure the noble Lords that the Government do not underrate the attraction which boating and cruising on inland waterways holds for many people; and, of course, the prospect of more revenue for the system is always welcome. The British Transport Commission have shown considerable interest in that activity. As for revenue, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, that optimism needs to be tempered with a little caution. The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, raised the question of the Kennet and Avon Canal. I think that questions about particular waterways can better be discussed in the light of the statement when it comes out, and with the noble Lord's permission I will not answer this question to-day—nor, for that matter, the question about the Broads put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Latham.

I am coming to the end of my remarks. The Committee of Inquiry were given wide terms of reference and their investigations were thorough and detailed. To put much of what they proposed into effect would involve reshaping the existing law. Here I come to what the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said. At present, the inland waterways system is governed by a large number of special Acts—literally hundreds of them—dating from the eighteenth century onwards. Amending legislation, in such circumstances, is bound to be a complex operation and will take time. But, apart from general changes in the law, it might also be worth while to take into account what can be done perhaps in rather empirical ways. There is room for experiments and maybe valuable lessons to be learned.

I cannot leave entirely without mention the question of future administration. Indeed, this has aroused a great deal of interest, and controversy even, in your Lordships' House. Noble Lords opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Jesse], who apologised to me because he could not be present at the end of the debate, could not agree on this. Should the nationalised waterways continue to be owned and managed by the British Transport Commission or should this task be entrusted to some new body or bodies? The sharp differences on this question are reflected in the Committee's own division upon it, although they were unanimous in their other recommendations. That division, I think, underlines the many important considerations on both sides which must be taken into account when the Government make their difficult choice.

Finally, my Lords, the complexity of the subject faced the Chairman and the Members of the Committee of Inquiry into Inland Waterways with a heavy task. My right honourable friend expressed his thanks to them in announcing the public- cation of the Report. I should certainly like to repeat the Government's, and indeed the country's, tribute of thanks to Mr. Bowes and his Committee for their devoted labours and their Report, which has done so much to advance understanding of the problems, and I am sure noble Lords would wish to associate themselves with that tribute. I believe also that your Lordships, when you study the statement, will be satisfied that Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to the needs of the situation. I would end by expressing to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, whom I would congratulate on his perseverence, our gratitude. I hope his effort has not overtaxed his strength. To all your Lordships who have taken part in this debate I should like to express my gratitude for your views, which I promise will be seriously studied, and I am sure they will be most helpful to the Government in battling with this complex problem.

LORD AMMON

My Lords, I feel that before I ask leave to withdraw my Motion I should apologise to the House for the very bad start that I gave to the debate. I over-estimated my strength and ignored all the advice I had before that I ought not to try. However, I thank the Minister for his reply, and also all those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and I hope that it may have been worth while. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.