BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD'S REPORT

HL Deb 12 March 1964 vol 256 cc614-30

7.52 p.m.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they intend to take on the British Waterways Board's Report. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I feel quite sure that your Lordships do not want me to take very long on this Question, and I will not. But I must say a few things on this extremely complicated matter, and may I first of all start by giving a welcome to this Interim Report of the British Waterways Board? It is a good Report. Indeed, it might be said that it is the best thing that has happened to the waterways for 100 years. That is partly because it is a good Report, and also partly because so few good things have happened to the waterways in the last 100 years. In another way, the Report is a heavy blow, but this does not mean that we are particularly sorry about it. A man who had been in prison for 100 years would be very happy to suffer a heavy blow if it got him out of prison, and that is the position here.

The blow that it strikes is that it places upon the many waterways lovers, who so long fought for the preservation of these waterways, the necessity, apparently, of going on fighting and digging into their pockets in the future for the preservation of a great many more waterways. The waterways lovers of this country, out of their own pockets, have already raised over £200,000, and that is not counting any money from elsewhere. They are already committed to finding another £700,000 on various waterways repairs schemes that they have in hand or in mind. If they have now, furthermore, to try to support such major waterways as the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, and several others which are named in this Report, they are going to have a great deal to do.

Luckily, however, it does not appear as if the threat is immediate. In fact, on looking at the matter a second time I do not believe the threat will ever arise, because a great many things will have to be done before the closure of any further waterways is dealt with. There is, to begin with, the question of this engineering report. I am not sure myself how far an engineering report is necessary, but undoubtedly it would be of value if we knew more about the state of many of these waterways.

There is another matter about which I wish to speak more particularly later, and that is the question of fresh legislation. There will have to be fresh legislation before the waterways can be put properly on their feet. The Board hints at the matter more or less throughout this Report and, indeed, it shows up very clearly. So as not to take up too much time, I should like quickly to run through this Report, particularly with reference to the excellent maps in it, which show the various areas where are mainly concentrated the various purposes about which the Report speaks. It is, I find, far easier to do it with these maps than simply to refer to the text.

On commercial transport, there is a very good map but, unfortunately, it does not point out that all the heavy cargo carriage is in fact on the broad waterways. The map shows very clearly, of course, that there is little cargo at all on the narrow waterways. This is entirely due to the present state of narrow boat traffic. I must confess that a year or two ago I myself thought that narrow boat traffic was coming to an end. I have changed my mind. It is clear that, on the new licensing system, narrow boat traffic may well revive and, indeed, attain a considerable volume.

At this late hour, I will not prove to your Lordships' House that narrow boat-carrying pays. This is not the time to do it, but I promise here and now that I will raise this subject again at some other time, and with figures which will show that narrow boat-carrying is a profitable method for all concerned—for those whose cargo is carried and for those who carry the cargo—and that when it increases in volume it will make a considerable difference to the waterways. Those of your Lordships who have seen this map will have seen that, should narrow boat-carrying revive, the entire central area of these waterways, which now carries very little, will become completely altered in its purposes from those envisaged by this Report. Of course, we can only say that we must wait and see, and that must be the verdict on that. But if narrow boat-carrying revives, then the whole position on that map will be completely altered.

Now we come to water supply. If there is one thing which really can be carried with great efficiency by a waterway it is water, and the revenue from water supply from these waterways is going up steadily and can be raised to considerably greater heights. It is, however, thoroughly entangled in the business of fresh legislation. Since this is a major source of revenue for the waterways, the business of fresh legislation is of the utmost importance. The noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, who has been raising this matter in Questions in this House, is exactly on the point. It is most important that every consultation which the Waterways Board can have with various new water authorities should take place at the earliest possible moment. This water supply map is a confusing one, because, although it purports to give both where the water originates and where it is used, it fails to mark a single one of the 98 reservoirs which the British Waterways Board possess, and in many cases these reservoirs feed a considerable length of waterway.

A paper was contributed to the Institute of Civil Engineers by Mr. C. M. Marsh, who was, until his retirement last week, the Divisional Manager of the North West Division of the British Waterways. This paper was published on Tuesday, October 30, 1962, and in it Mr. Marsh gives a series of maps which show that the greater part of the canal system is supplied from more than one reservoir, and in different places, and that, in fact, the abstraction of water from almost any point on quite a large part of the central area of the waterways can be made good from any one of a number of reservoirs scattered over a considerable area. This means, in fact, that instead of the water supply map showing the sections of waterway which are valuable for water supply, the whole central area which is covered by this network of reservoirs ought to be similarly marked as useful for water supply.

The only other thing one can say about this map is that it shows as not much use for water supply a large part of the Grand Union Canal which passes fairly close to the Bedford Sands, an area where water in the future may well be stored in very large quantities underground. Also, that part of the Canal is connected, again, to the great reservoir system I have already mentioned, and when agricultural irrigation really gets into its stride in this South-Eastern area where it is most valuable, an enormous amount of water is going to have to he fed into the area. The best possible way to do this is to feed it down the Grand Union Canal and store it in the Bedford Sands. This, of course, is all for the future.

Among the other purposes of these waterways which I must mention is pleasure cruising. The map shows that the greater part of the waterways is used for pleasure cruising. It may rather surprise the uninitiated to see that some canals are not for pleasure cruising. The fact is that the ones which are marked "not for pleasure cruising" are those which are closed for navigation. The reason, therefore, for their not being used is that they are not usable.

One thing I am very glad to see is that a number of waterways have reappeared upon the map. The Transport Commission, when dealing with waterways, had a very nasty habit. When a waterway was about to be closed, the first thing one knew of it was that it became, in Orwellian terms, an "un-fact" on the map—it vanished. The first one would know about the future closure of a waterway was that one would see a map of the waterways no longer showing such and such a canal, or such and such a branch. Now, under the new Waterways Board, I am glad to see that these "un-facts" are being "refacted" again, if that is the word. They are all reappearing—and we can only raise a cheer, in particular that the Stratford Canal has appeared on the British cruising map. Quite on what basis this has happened I do not know, because no pleasure craft has yet gone down it.

Here, again, this map is a little misleading, because it shows the pleasure craft going more or less everywhere, but it does not show the difficulties that pleasure craft are going to face in the future. Wherever they cruise on the centre of the area they cause no great trouble to anybody at the moment, because there is not very much commercial traffic. But wherever they enter this system it is, as one sees on comparing the British cruising map and the main cargo map, through an entry where there is considerable commercial traffic. If these pleasure craft are going to increase in numbers very much they are going to create a considerable number of bottlenecks. It is already the case in places like Brentford that, owing to the short hours of lockage now prevailing, the pleasure craft are getting pushed into the working hours of the working boats and are causing certain difficulties. If the numbers of these pleasure craft increase very much—and we know they are going to because that is the experience of America, where things generally seem to happen a little earlier than they do here—then the pleasure craft coming into the system are going to make considerable trouble for the commercial craft. The only rational method of dealing with this would be to have much longer lockage hours at some of the entry points, so that the pleasure craft can be kept "out of the hair" of the unfortunate cargo carriers.

It may be said that this would cost more money, but I think it should be possible to limit the sum. We certainly do not want to inflict more financial losses on the British Waterways Board. There are methods of limiting this expense. The easiest way would be to do what is done all over the up-country parts of the waterways already: that is, to let the pleasure craft users work their own locks, and simply have, if necessary, somebody on duty to supervise the matter and make sure that nothing too terrible is done. In general, pleasure craft operators are trusted to work the locks over the whole of the rest of the country and nothing too terrible comes of it, and I do not see why the same course should not be pursued at the main entry points where these craft are so liable to cause trouble to the commercial carriers.

There is one other point to mention in regard to pleasure cruising: the matter of moorings. I do not very much like the word "marinas" myself, but it is now in common use; there is no other word for it, so we had better use it. The mooring of these pleasure craft in marinas is a very profitable business for the marina owner. A pleasure craft on the inland waterways spends between £2 and £5 per annum on moorings for every £1 that it spends on licensing. Therefore, the provision of these marinas, which really are just somewhere to moor behind a locked gate, is a profitable undertaking for whoever does it and if it can be done by the British Waterways Board, that is all the better.

Furthermore, this is important because the shortage of moorings on the inland waterways is already starting to restrict the number of boats that can be put on them. It is a fact that marina owners opening new marinas on the inland waterways at the moment are finding that the people who apply for moorings are those who have not got boats. The shortage of moorings is such that they are booking the moorings before they are buying the boats, and if we let this situation continue we are going to slow up the entire development of pleasure cruising.

There is only one further map to which I should like to refer, and that is the map labelled "General recreation and amenity." I am afraid that I entirely fail to understand it. I think the man who made the map tried to mark those waterways which he considered the most beautiful; but in so doing he forgot quite a number of factors. First, almost all these waterways are of considerable amenity use, and, secondly, how do you measure amenity? Do you measure it purely on the beauty of the thing, or is there also beauty to a beholder?

If you mark merely the up-country canals, where an occasional pedestrian or hiker may walk along the towpath, this map may in many ways be accurate. But if you happen to pass along the waterways at the weekend, you will find far more users of canal for amenity—for fishing, strolling, picnicking—in the town areas. Opposite my own house in the middle of London there is invariably a long string of fishermen sitting far more close together than 100 yards apart, though of course on the inland waterways we do not suffer from these regulations. If you count amenity by the number of people who enjoy the amenity of these waterways, then this map must be completely altered. All the area in and around London and the big towns must be included; in fact they should be included more heavily than the up-country areas where there are fewer people. Amenity, however, is a very large subject; the evening is getting on, and I must not go further into it, much as I should wish to.

I should like, however, before leaving the question to others, to make a few points on the needs that we shall have some day for future legislation, because the whole of the future policy of the Board is entangled in this. To begin with, we must free canals of the impossible tangle of, I believe, some 200 old Canal Acts, most of them over 100 years old and some over 200 years old. These give enormous rights to riparian owners and others to do all sorts of things, free of charge or toll, and it is time that these rights were abolished. I never like saying that anybody's rights should be abolished, but here I am on strong ground because I am myself the holder of some rights of the kind which I am advocating should be wiped out. I am a riparian owner on the Regent's Canal. I have, of course, the right to fish on my bit of the bank; I also have the right to carry cargoes of manure free of toll. In my case, this is not a particularly serious right, although it is true that I am alongside the Zoo and I am told that very good manure for roses is obtainable from elephants. I am also told that one has to be careful about tiger—however, that is not a serious comment.

Apart from these rights, I also own the right to keep a pleasure craft, free of toll, on the canal, not going through locks; and this right is worth, to me, about £20 or £30 a year. If the riparian owner rights in this matter are seriously used—and they are going to be seriously used in future—it will mean quite a loss to the British Waterways Board, and I cannot see why these rights should persist. I know that the Transport Act included a clause which would have abolished these rights and the Minister himself removed it. I quite understand why it was removed: it was more sweeping than was intended, and would have done damage to certain particular cases which needed attention. But something should certainly be done to get rid of these ancient rights of riparian owners.

Also, before the Board can really get ahead it must sweep away a large number of antiquated contracts. There are a large number of contracts made in the early days of the canals, or in the days of the railway ownership of the canals, which nowadays are bad for the waterways and in many cases make no sense. There are several cases—some quoted in Mr. Marsh's paper, which I have already mentioned—of contracts which were made by the railway companies, when they owned canals, by which the canals supplied water for various factories, either free of charge or at a low charge, provided that the factory used the railway for the carriage of its goods. That, of course, made sense so long as the railway and canal were in the same ownership; but now that their ownership is divorced, and there are two separate bodies each with its own finances, the railway is getting the benefit and the poor old canal is having to supply water at less than its proper cost. This, I think, is a matter which should be put right. I do not know whether it would require legislation. It might be done by amicable agreement, hut something should be done about it.

There is another point. It is high time that something was done to give the canals a freer hand with riparian property. In the earlier days, the canals were very considerable property owners along their banks, and they used this property to provide wharves and industrial estates, where firms who wished to use the canal for transport could set up their businesses. In the course of the railway suppression of canals a great deal of this land was either sold off or leased off in such a manner that the businesses turned their backs on the canals. In fact, the position now is that large lengths of waterway (this is particularly true in the London area) are not approachable from the shore at all; the canal is running in a sterilised sheath and there is no conceivable method by which business can be brought back to it. Something must be done about that state of affairs, if the waterways are ever to be used I again as they should be.

There is another point which must be dealt with—I refer to certain aspects of the recent Transport Act. The recent Transport Act, as we said at the time, created an enormous amount of uncertainty among the users of the waterways by making them completely insecure in their businesses. They never knew from one moment to another when the waterway might be closed and their whole business swept away, and the Act created uncertainty as to what compensation would be paid if such a disaster occurred. Throughout this Report the Chairman, Sir John Hawton, says, very gently, that uncertainty must be removed from the waterways. The waterways users must be given certainty of tenure. I feel sure Sir John is not hitting at the Minister. Sir John is an extremely pleasant and able man, and I have every confidence in him. But I feel sure that he has in his mind something in the nature of an amendment to the Transport Act which will remove the far too great powers at present in the hands of the British Waterways Board, and so give greater security of tenure to the waterway users.

There is another smaller point that came up—the business of dry docks. During the passage of the Waterways Act there were various Amendments moved from this side of the House to give the British Waterways Board a power to use its dry docks for other people. These powers were denied by the Minister at that time on the grounds that it would be competing with private enterprise. It may be that that was true at that time; but unfortunately the private enterprise docks have now closed, the British Waterways Board have disposed of their boats, and we have the position that the pleasure craft passenger carriers in the London area have got boats which they are compelled by law to dry dock once a year, but they have no dry docks, and the British Waterways Board, who could dry dock their boats, have dry docks, are forbidden to use them and have no boats. Something should be done about this.

I will not keep your Lordships endlessly on this subject; one could talk about it for the rest of the night. The really important thing for these waterways is that they should rapidly get on to the making of fresh legislation. That could quite easily take place at the same time as an engineering report was produced. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that every kind of consultation which is needed for that fresh legislation to be formulated should start at once. If we can get on with that, then I believe that all the high hopes which are stated in the financial chapters of the Report are perfectly able to be achieved; in fact, I believe this to be an understatement.

8.23 p.m.

LORD METHUEN

My Lords, I should like to associate myself with a great deal that the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, has just said, I cannot claim to speak with his authority on, or his knowledge of, this business. I am an amateur. I am a dry bob rather than a wet bob. But I feel most strongly that the Report is absolutely on the right lines. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, could not be with us this evening because what he says counts a great deal. I have great faith in him, and I am only too sorry that he has not been able to be present.

To my mind, the Report is a forthright, clear-sighted and well expressed document, and good to read. It comes after a long period of vexations and frustrations and of disappointments when we have had to watch, not entirely in silence, many of our canals slowly but surely deteriorating. However, the Report leaves no room for misunderstanding on this point when it says that The present policy of the moratorium in water policy will, as soon as possible, be succeeded by a planned adaptation of the future maintenance pattern of some more rationally foreseen and publicly desirable uses. To me, the way the Report deals with each subject matter in turn makes it easier for the reader to grasp the essential difficulties and how the Board intend tackling them. For instance, the old method of classifying canals into three categories, as propounded by the Board of Survey, according to their financial viability, is abandoned in favour of an examination of individual waterways according to their respective and potential uses; and charts to illustrate this are given to make the meaning abundantly clear. The Report favours making our waterways pay as a whole and not piecemeal, which is a most important departure from previous ideas—namely, that our canals should be multi-users as likely to be found the best and most realistic approach to economic administration. Other methods have been found to be wasteful and inefficient, or uncertain, with consequent deterioration.

Quite naturally, the Report keeps constantly to the fore the question of the cost of upkeep and of administration as well as the possibility of increased receipts. It touches lightly on receipts from fishing rights which we have always known to be merely nominal. It is doubtful if they could be advantageously increased. In any case, anglers are rather picturesque subjects and are certainly not an expense. The argument of licences versus tolls is, to my mind, well made out. This has already been referred to. It is interesting to note that the toll system, which many of us thought was as dead as could be, has been revived; but for the narrow boats the licensing way is preferred.

The figures given of the cost of maintaining canals are most valuable. We learn that the cost of maintaining a canal may vary from £1,500 to £8,000 a mile, but that for pleasure craft it is £700 to £1,100 a mile, which is an important factor to which I am coming in a moment. These facts have a sharp bearing on some of our canals that may be singled out for conservation as adapted largely for amenity purposes. I am glad to see that the Board are seriously considering providing what they term "the track" while possibly leaving to private enterprise the task of hiring out their craft. Your Lordships will know that there has been in the past considerable criticism of the atitude of the previous administration to the policy of running their own boats; and in this connection I notice that the Board intend to run down their own fleet of narrow boats in the South-East and North-West of their system.

There is a good deal of useful information on the sale of water; but it is not surprising that the Board, as the noble Viscount has already mentioned, find themselves having to give away quite a lot of water free. The amenity value of our canals is rightly stressed. There must be few people with any experience of our waterways who would not admit what a valuable national asset they still are, taken as a whole. If in the early days of canals, as Daniel Defoe points out in his Tour of Englund, they were a boon, if not a necessity, to timber merchants and ship builders, so to-day they can provide an easily accessible and valuable outlet to holiday makers, crowded out of their usual holiday resorts with the increase in leisure in paid holidays and with the more equitable distribution of wealth and therefore a greater spending capacity.

What could be more atractive than a quiet week or fortnight on one of our canals? After the fatigue and dangers of motoring any distance on any of our main roads, the canal would prove to be a positive rest cure. Speed and time would no longer dominate our thoughts. From its banks you would get a view of the surrounding landscape from an entirely novel angle. In addition, you have its lovely hump-back bridges—the terror of motorists and the bane of road authorities. You will find lovely aqueducts, such as Rennie built on the Kennet and Avon. Canal, to which I see the Report refers at some length. It says, in fact, that the restoration of this waterway would clearly produce a major improvement of the entire system, and that the possibility of designating the entire towpath as a long-distance recreational footpath is under consideration.

Quite excusably, some of the difficulties of restoring the Kennet and Avon Canal are mentioned. But may I say, without bias—as I have an interest in this, as your Lordships possibly know—that these difficulties must not be exaggerated. Only a few years ago barges were plying from Bristol to Reading; but neglect and deterioration did its work, and did it quickly. Only a careful engineering survey, as has been suggested, will disclose the extent of that damage and what it may be necessary to spend to get the two bad parts into proper order. The rest of the canal simply requires normal maintenance.

The Board have referred to the existence and promise of voluntary labour and to the extraordinary enthusiasm generally shown. I can assure the Board that they will get every possible help from our Trust members. The Devizes flight of locks must have been one of the major engineering achievements of its time and merits rehabilitation and scheduling as an historic monument; as well as the unique Claverton Ram just west of the Dundas Aqueduct. I should like to emphasise that this is a broad canal, which puts it in a different category from the narrow ones. While talking of the Devizes flight, I understand that there is a new invention which practically does away with long sets of locks like that by having an ascending and descending container for barges in a sort of endless chain. I was told before coming here to-day that this is undergoing experiment, and I hope shortly to get particulars. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply knows something about it. I think it might be the answer.

One cannot ignore the Board's lament that they should have to start their proceedings saddled with an enormous inherited debt of over £19 million on which they are expected to pay interest. As they say themselves It constitutes a grievous burden, hardly a stimulus to sound financial management. Those of us who have watched the deterioration going on, knowing well that this meant incurring increased liabilities for the future, fully sympathise with this point of view.

Before sitting down, I wish to remind your Lordships of what we owe to the Inland Waterways Association, which body has borne the brunt of the fight to ensure the survival of our inland waterways, particularly the canals. We owe them an immense debt. I consider that the Report is the first instalment. This Report is like a whiff of clean air. It is a positive statement, full of hope and a stern desire to leave behind, we hope for ever, the negative attitude which we have had to put up with in the past. Difficulties come to be overcome: and that, I feel, sums up the outlook of the Board's excellent Report.

8.33 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I was, of course, very pleased to hear from the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, and the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, that, if I may borrow the phrase, "this is a whiff of clean air". It is welcome to hear this, even if in certain respects there may be a qualification. I too, think that it is a very good job. Incidentally, the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle—and I, too, am sorry he cannot be here to give his views to the House—has taken the bull by the horns; and I am glad to inform your Lordships that he has given me a copy of his speech, which I have undertaken to look at in the Department and a copy of which I shall send to the British Waterways Board. So, despite his physical absence, his views will join the matters the British Waterways Board will no doubt be looking at, because I am perfectly certain they will be looking carefully at what is said in your Lordships' House this evening.

I would perhaps fall out a little with the noble Viscount only over the business of "re-fact and un-fact". I can only say that it is as well the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was not in the House at the time. The Board is in existence with the sole task given to them by the Act of running waterways and seeing what they can do about the whole thing. The fact that they have been doing it for a little over a year is creditable, and they have done three important things. First of all, they have made a most remarkable improvement in the financial position of the whole undertaking. They estimate that, after allowing for the waterways share of the central charges of the British Transport Commission, the 1962 deficit was not far short of £2 million. But, after their first short year of office, they have indicated in paragraph 178 of the Report that the results for 1963 should be at least £300,000 better than in 1962; and, in fact, I am given to understand that when the fully made-up accounts for 1963 are available they will very likely show an even greater improvement. I would, of course, echo the noble Viscount's hope that further avoidable burdens will not be imposed on them in any way.

The second thing is that they are making important changes in the management structure which they inherited. These changes are phased over a two-year period, and began to take effect at the beginning of this month, and they are being carried out in close consultation with the staff. The Board estimate that the changes ought to result in a further saving of about £150,000 a year. So your Lordships will see that the Board are already getting on with their job of management and that this is producing in the early stages welcome financial results. Third, the Board have begun the review of their entire system required by the Act. They are doing this not only from the point of view of commercial transport, but also in the light of all the varied purposes which the inland waterways could or might be made to serve. The Interim Report of the Board, on which the whole question turns, is the first step in that review and sets out really no more than the Board's preliminary ideas. T must stress that the Report is interim.

The Board propose to go on to test their preliminary views in three ways. They first propose td test them by systematic financial investigation, not only of the course that seems at first sight to offer the best solution, but of the other courses open to them as well. Second, they are going to institute the special comprehensive engineering survey to which the noble Viscount referred. It seems to me a very necessary step for them to take, in order to make a proper and thorough job of the financial investigation. For me, it takes on a little more importance than I thought was attached to it by the noble Viscount. The third point—and this is happening now—is that they will seek and welcome the advice and co-operation of all other bodies and individuals interested in the future of the waterways.

The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, mentioned the question of the Kennet and Avon canal. As he pointed out, the Board propose to start discussions with the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust, and with other people who are potential helpers and who are interested in what might be a practical and reasonable scheme. Therefore, I think the noble Lord will forgive me if I say no more about it to-night than that I think we ought to await the outcome of the discussions.

LORD METHUEN

That I can understand, my Lords. I only wanted to mention that we are itching to get on with it.

LORD CHESHAM

That, I had thought, was the idea, and I am coming back to that point in a moment. I am sure, in fact, that the Board will take into account what the noble Lord himself has said this evening.

My Lords, quite frankly, despite what the noble Viscount said, it is only when these three jobs have been completed that it will be possible for the real specific conclusions to be reached on future policy. The Board themselves emphasise this almost throughout the Report, and specifically at page 50, in paragraph 1 of the summary, where they use the words: We are not seeking specific approval to detailed proposals. We want to explain broadly what we have done, and what we think, so far. This Report, as the noble Lord has been good enough to say to-night, has been well received here. It has been well received in another place, by the Press and by the public generally—and, I think, deservedly well received. It has been produced in a remarkably short time, and it is a most interesting and readable document. I think it is an achievement of which the Board can justly be proud, and I am sure your Lordships will wish to join me in congratulating them on it.

Now, my Lords, to the bone of the noble Viscount's Question: what action Her Majesty's Government intend to take on the Report. I think I have said enough to make it clear that, at the moment, the next steps are for the Board themselves; and I think the Chairman's covering letter to the Minister, which was published as a preface to the Report, makes it clear that they are aware of the urgency of the matter. They are already getting on with the next stage of the review, and have recently announced a number of special appointments designed to facilitate further studies which they want to do. I think the only action for Her Majesty's Government at this stage was, therefore, to agree the general lines of the next phase of the review; and this, my Lords, the Government have done without delay. When the further studies and consultations have been completed, it will be necessary for the Government and the Board to discuss things, and to reach conclusions on long-term policy and on the need for legislation to facilitate that policy. The noble Viscount told us that in his view legislation will be needed; and for all I know now, it may. But after completion of further studies and consultations will be the time to discuss exactly what. Meanwhile, as I say, the action of the Government must be, and indeed already has been, to say to the Board "Well started—go on".