HL Deb 09 February 1971 vol 315 cc111-26

7.45 p.m.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Your Lordships may recall that the Bill is promoted by the Bristol Corporation for the purpose of authorising the closure of the City Docks, which are in the centre of the city and have now become obsolete. I think it is now generally conceded that the City Docks are no longer a viable proposition and must be closed. The Select Committee of your Lordships' House, to which I shall refer later, certainly came to that conclusion themselves, and accept that these docks are no longer viable. We had a most interesting debate on the Bill on March 5, 1970, when your Lordships were good enough to give it a Second Reading. The Bill was then opposed on what I may call amenity grounds, in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Henley, whom I see in his place to-night; Lord Methuen, who is not here; Lord Chorley, who I am glad to see is here, and others. Indeed, on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Henley, described the point at issue as of very great amenity consequence.

Subsequent to the Bill's having been given a Second Reading on that day it was considered by a Select Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Grenfell, who will be speaking later this evening. The hearing by the Committee last May took no less than six whole days, I understand; and in addition the Select Committee paid a visit to Bristol in order to see for themselves the City Docks and the other parts of the city which are affected by the proposals. To cut a long story short, the Select Committee found the Preamble to the Bill proved, but they made certain amendments to the Bill the short effect of which is to provide a new means of access to the St. Philip's Reach section of the Floating Harbour from the New Cut. The Amendments which they incorporated give St. Philip's Reach, after the closure of the City Docks, the same status as the remainder of the Floating Harbour; that is to say, in general terms the whole of the water area of the Floating Harbour will remain undiminished. It will be preserved for the use of pleasure craft not exceeding certain dimensions laid down in the Bill.

Now these amendments by the Select Committee followed one of the suggestions made by the Petitioners, the Bristol Civic Society and others, who appeared before the Select Committee on their Petition as representing amenity interests, and I believe that they are now satisfied with the Bill as amended. The proposals contained in the Bill are important, and they have aroused a good deal of interest in this House and elsewhere. For this reason the Select Committee made a special Report on the Bill—the Report which is dated September 29, 1970, and which is now before us. If I may be allowed to say so, I think that this Report is an admirably lucid summary of the various complicated issues which fell to be considered by the Select Committee and is really a model of what a Report of this kind ought to be. If I may say so, had the Select Committee been able to prevail upon Her Majesty's Stationery Office to put a map at the back of their Report, we should then have got a very valuable document indeed. It is extremely difficult without a map to follow the complicated business of what is happening in central Bristol. I have a map, but I am afraid that most noble Lords have not. I do not need to refer to the Report in detail, because no doubt such noble Lords as are interested in the matter will already have read it. As I say, it is extremely clear and lucid. But the fact is that the Select Committee found the case for the Bill proved, and recommended that it be allowed to proceed, subject to Amendments made which are now incorporated in the Bill and to which I have referred.

In conclusion, I would only say that I regret that it was not possible to bring this Bill before your Lordships before now, the Second Reading having been last March. This was due in part to the fact that, following the General Election, it was necessary to carry the Bill into the new Parliament, and in part to the very real desire of Bristol Corporation to negotiate with people who may be affected by the detailed provisions of the Bill without subjecting them to the expense of petitioning against it. I am happy to say that the Corporation have been able to conclude negotiations satisfactory to both sides with most, if not all, of what I might call the potential petitioners. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)

8.2 p.m.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, last March, I wish to say that this Bill enjoys the continuing approval of Her Majesty's Government. As the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, has told us, this Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, is now one which should commend itself to your Lordships.

This Bill is a local measure promoted by Bristol Corporation in their role as port authority for the Port of Bristol. The Bill falls within the field of concern of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. But, so far as his general responsibility for ports is concerned, his interest is very limited because the proposal to close the City Docks is essentially a management decision by the Corporation. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend recognises that Bristol need to adjust their statutory responsibilities to the facts of modern commercial life. Geographically, the City Docks are at a disadvantage. They are situated about seven miles from the mouth of the Avon. The physical limits of the river restrict the size of vessels able to reach the docks. The dock area itself is restricted and is unsuitable for modern forms of traffic. As a result, the City Docks have for some years been losing trade to the more modern and easily reached docks downstream at Avonmouth and Portishead, also operated by Bristol. I understand that City Docks are run at a substantial financial loss. Modernisation is not worth while because the restrictions imposed by the River Avon would still remain. In this context, closure makes good sense and would allow the Corporation to concentrate upon the management of the modern docks downstream.

During the debate in this House on the Second Reading of this Bill, anxiety was expressed, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about the filling in of the Floating Harbour and its subsequent development. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the then Government pointed out, this development would have been subject to full planning control, including the possibility that, since the Corporation are themselves the local planning authority, the Secretary of State could call in for decision by himself any such development if the circumstances at the time called for it. As the House has heard, the Bill was amended in Committee so as to exclude the power it originally contained to fill in the Floating Harbour.

The Government were themselves anxious about certain buildings of special architectural or historic interest which appeared to be affected by the proposals in the Bill for constructing a fixed bridge over St. Augustine's Reach. The Corporation have assured the Secretary of State that only four such buildings would be endangered. Before anything could happen to three of the four, which are listed buildings, the Corporation would need to obtain consent. The Secretary of State would be almost certain to call in for decision by himself any application for this consent. The fourth building, a warehouse, is not listed, but the Promoters have undertaken to consult the Secretary of State about the effect of their proposals on it.

Some concern has been expressed about the need to improve on the Bill's provision for compensation. The Department have accepted that three firms are affected by the proposed constraint on navigation. The Compensation Code is at present being reviewed by the Government, and I have to advise the House that it would, in our view, be quite wrong to anticipate in this Private Bill the outcome of that review. Any changes of the Code which were decided upon should properly be made in general legislation applying universally in similar circumstances.

In view of the increasing use of inland navigation for pleasure cruising, the Government consider it desirable that there should continue to be a route for pleasure craft to proceed between the tidal Avon and the upper river. We note that this is provided for in the Bill. Finally, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, on his hard work on this Bill and to express to your Lordships the hope that you will give him your support on this Third Reading.

8.7 p.m.

LORD HENLEY

My Lords, I have many people to congratulate, but I cannot be quite so quick about it as were the two preceding speakers in their admirably short speeches. First, as one who spoke in support of the Petitioners' case, may I say how much I admire the admirable Special Report produced by the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and how much I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, in saying that this is a model of a Report? On Second Reading, I said that I sometimes feel that Select Committees cannot examine issues of this sort in the way in which they ought to be able to do so. I said jokingly to the noble Earl before the debate began to-day, "It's a lucky dip, isn't it?" He replied, "You must not say that!" My Lords, I do say it. Sometimes it is a lucky dip; but it came out to be a good dip this time—not only lucky but good. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his Committee for having performed their task so admirably.

What, in effect, they have done is to preserve the whole of the Floating Harbour. That is only one of the things they have done, but it is the principal one. The Floating Harbour is unique not only to England but to Europe. Even if it costs something to preserve, even if it means that one must forgo a certain amount of land that would otherwise be developed, it is nevertheless something for which future generations will look to Bristol City with gratitude. I can think of castles and houses which in the past were destroyed for railway lines and on which we now look back and say, "If only we had had that extra bit of sense, we could have preserved them and still have made the railway lines as good."

This is what I felt when I embarked on this case of Bristol. I know the land fairly well. It seems to me to be something of incomparable beauty which does not exist anywhere else in the world, and I felt that, before destroying it, another "think" was required. The advantage of our debates is that we have had that other "think". When the Bill came up for Second Reading the noble Earl suggested that a Second Reading debate on a Private Bill of this nature was unusual. Indeed, it is, my Lords. He also suggested that it was perhaps due to the failure on the part of certain interests—myself—to appreciate the underlying processes and perhaps to misunderstand the true intentions of the Promoters of the Bill. He may well have been right; we may have misunderstood some of the things that the Corporation, with the best intentions, were trying to do. We are all weak vessels and we can all feel concern at what is put before us.

Nevertheless, my Lords, I think that the virtue of having put forward the views that we did is that there has been a fairly extensive debate on this issue, and I believe that it has been a useful exercise. Whereas my friends and I had felt that perhaps this matter had been ill-considered in certain respects, we now feel that it has been considered, and considered very fully; and I believe that more or less the right answer has come up. Even if the Corporation feel that the right answer has not been given, it is still entirely open to them, if they so wish, to abandon any of the suggestions and to start again from scratch. Obviously they are not going to do this, but it is open to them. This is where I think, as I said, that we have many congratulations to extend. In fact, the congratulations are due to us on having forced the issue into the public view.

As I say, the Petitioners' case has been conceded in very large measure. There are one or two matters on which I should perhaps have liked to go even further than the Select Committee went. But I can understand that there are very good reasons—as no doubt we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell—why some of the things that I should have liked are not possible. First, I feel that in the small points that I shall put before your Lordships there are aspects of the matter which help to give full effect—I say that with great emphasis—to the wish of the Select Committee, and indeed to the express desires and intentions of the Corporation; that is to say, to ensure a large variety of craft on the whole of the Floating Harbour.

I should like to see it made a duty, rather than left merely permissive (subject of course to by-laws, to ensure the minimum of inconvenience to road traffic), that the Corporation swing the bridges at Cumberland Basin. Before the Select Committee the Corporation accepted that it is one of the traditions of Bristol that tall masts come into the heart of the city. The Corporation told the Committee that they intended to keep the two bridges at Cumberland Basin swinging, thereby enabling large yachts to sail as far as the point at which the Outer Circular Road crosses the Floating Harbour. Unless these two bridges continue to swing, tall ships will be blocked from the Floating Harbour. I think this point should be safeguarded by a further proviso to Clause 24, because it seems to me that such a provision would ensure that fairly large ships, like the "Winston Churchill", would be able to come; and that is what the Corporation said they wished to see. This is the sort of thing that could be the subject of an Amendment in another place. I think it would be quite unsuitable for me to suggest anything of this nature to your Lordships to-night. As the noble Earl has already said, we have worked long and hard on this Bill, and it would merely be tiresome to your Lordships if I were to attempt to modify in any way the admirable conclusions arrived at by the Select Committee.

Secondly, if I had my way entirely, I would in one respect go against what the Select Committee said. I should like to reinstate the lock at Bathurst Basin. I know that the Select Committee said that this was unnecessary, and that may well be. All the same, I feel that the Floating Harbour would be more interesting with a way through in the middle into the New Cut, and it would be a pity just to preserve a dead end at Bathurst Basin, particularly in view of the fact that the Committee expressly condemned the dead end which the Corporation had intended to create at St. Philip's Bridge. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, will probably tell your Lordships that maybe I am asking for something which is unreasonable, in that by opening the Totterdown Lock there is already a circular way round, and there is no point in making, as it were, a figure of eight. But I should have liked to see that; it would cost only about a quarter of a million pounds, which is a very small sum compared with the total that the Corporation are to spend.

I am prepared to admit that this is something the Select Committee did not think necessary, and I am also prepared to concede (I did not know it until this evening) that this comes within the provisions of an attempt to extend the powers of a Private Bill, which is something that neither House can do. In your Lordships' House, or indeed in another place, the powers asked for in a Private Bill can be restricted, but they cannot be added to or extended. This I fully concede. Nevertheless, as I say, if it were entirely open to me, I should like to see the lock at the Bathurst Basin put back again. Although Parliament cannot do this, it may well be that Bristol Corporation may in time feel that from an amenity point of view it would be worth doing. I should like to leave that thought in the minds of members of the Corporation.

There is one other point which I feel would help to procure what I wanted in the first place, but which the Select Committee ruled out as being unnecessary; that is, that the prescribed dimensions of the craft should be slightly increased. The existing bridges across the Floating Harbour, with the exception of Prince Street Bridge, which swings, are 11 ft. above the water. The Corporation told the Select Committee that any future bridge to be built over the Floating Harbour would have a headroom of at least 11 ft. Why therefore limit craft of the "prescribed dimensions" to 9 ft.? There is no reason for this arbitrarily low figure and good reason for not having it. Sea-going cabin cruisers require more headroom than most little inland waterway craft. It seems to me a mistake to fix the height for bridges below what now exists or will exist. The same applies to the question of draft. Why limit the "prescribed dimensions" to 4 ft. 6in.—that is in Clause 4—when the present draft is already something like 20 ft.? It would cost very little more to dredge in years to come to 6 ft. 6 in. than to 4 ft. 6 in. Anyway, it will take a lifetime for the Floating Harbour to silt up to 6 ft. 6 in. The importance of good headroom as well as good draft is that it guarantees the sight of a variety of craft for the people of Bristol.

I said that I did not want to be greedy. Perhaps the three points to which I have referred were being greedy. The Petitioners have had a very great deal conceded to them, one might say almost all of what they asked; and they are entirely satisfied with the Bill as it now stands, with those very small exceptions. I think my friends and I would agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that we are satisfied with the Bill as amended. With that satisfaction and those very small points which I have added, which no doubt will be commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, I commend this Bill to your Lordships and ask that it should be given a Third Reading.

6.10 p.m.

LORD GRENFELL

My Lords, owing to the importance of this Bill and the interest disclosed on Second Reading in your Lordships' House, the Committee felt that a Special Report should be made, and this is available to your Lordships. With hindsight, I think my noble friend's remark regarding a sketch to accompany the Report is valid, and I am sure that this will be noted for the future. I should like to thank him and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for their kind remarks regarding the Committee and also those who assisted in compiling the Report. A number of Petitioners withdrew, leaving one Petition jointly lodged by the Bristol Civic Society, the Clifton and Hotwells Improvement Society, the Cabot Cruising Club and the South-Western Branch of the Inland Waterways Association.

The history of Bristol Docks goes back to the early days of the merchant adventurers, when there was a flourishing trade in tobacco, chocolate and copra. Since those days, Bristol has gradually turned its eyes more to industry rather than to maritime commerce, and the building of the docks at Avonmouth and Portishead sounded the knell for Bristol docks as a viable concern for oceangoing commercial ships. There was ample uncontested evidence to show that the losses in keeping the docks operational could no longer be considered as a commercial proposition. It was immediately evident to the Committee that the extinction of navigational rights for large ships after 1980 was in no way an issue in this Committee. The Corporation wished to make an exception in the case of social visits by tall ships, such as the training ship "Winston Churchill" and ships of the Royal Navy, which could enter via the Cumberland Basin.

As my noble friend has said, it is difficult to discuss the plans of the Corporation without diagrams, but many of your Lordships will have a knowledge of Bristol and know that the River Avon runs South of the city in a canal called the New Cut, which, being tidal, is navigable at high tide but which at low tide is merely a trickle and hence has not been for many years of any value as a means of maritime transport. It is proposed in the Bill, and it is not contested by the Petitioners, that a barrage and lock should be constructed at the seaward end of the New Cut, which would ensure that occupants of pleasure craft who wished to by-pass Bristol would have a permanent access down to the Severn, subject to the tides on the Severn side of the barrage.

May I at this point explain that, as defined in the Bill, the Floating Harbour is kept at a static level by a lock at Cumberland Basin and that floating the New Cut will mean that the level of water will be maintained in spite of tidal differences which pertain at any one time. So far as the New Cut was concerned, the Committee felt that floating this would be a great advantage to the amenities of pleasure craft of the prescribed dimensions. Here may I say, in answer to one of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked me about the prescribed dimensions, that we had evidence from the Harbour Master that these dimensions were a safety factor in passing under some bridges and that it would be inadvisable, because of the tide, that they should be any higher. I am going back nine months now, but I think that was the explanation we had.

I do not propose to go in detail into the works to be done in the Floating Harbour, except to say that the clearance of the docks installations and the evidence as to the beautifying of the city appealed to the Committee and were not contested by the Petitioners. It would also appear that a fixed bridge across St. Augustine's Reach would assist to a great degree the traffic problem within the city, in the fact that it would help to clear traffic from Queen's Square and allow this to be converted into a pedestrian precinct, except for service roads adjacent to the houses.

Before continuing our journey through the Floating Harbour, I feel that I should say that there was apprehension by the Petitioners that the Corporation, on extinguishing navigational rights, might consider filling in part of the harbour, to the detriment of pleasure craft. The Committee did not feel that this was a likely consideration, and in fact the Promoters tabled an Amendment to the Bill to ensure the right of way to pleasure craft. May I now follow the Floating Harbour through in an easterly direction, which brings me to St. Philip's Bridge. It was at this point that the Corporation proposed to terminate any movement of small craft. Beyond St. Philip's Bridge is St. Philip's Reach, which leads into two waterways, one going East and called the Feeder Canal and the other, the continuation of St. Philip's Reach, running South and joining the New Cut at Totterdown Lock, where at the present time there is no access for shipping into the New Cut.

Evidence was given regarding the Feeder Canal, and there could be no doubt that it was in bad repair and was in fact leaking. It was proposed in the Bill, and the Petitioners did not seriously contest this, that the Feeder Canal should be closed and filled in, so that a road-widening project could be brought into operation. The Committee concurred in this decision. It was at this stage that the Committee surmised that the continued navigation of St. Philip's Reach by pleasure craft and an entry into the New Cut were the main bone of contention in the Bill. It did not appear clear to the Committee what definite plans were visualised by the Corporation as to what they wished to do with this waterway, except that the extinguishing of all navigational rights would provide flexibility for the future planning of the road system of Bristol.

The Committee now felt that they should visit the site. They proceeded to Bristol on Monday evening, May 18, and spent the next day in the city. We should like to thank the Corporation for the excellent arrangements made for our comfort. We travelled by car and launch along the waterways of this beautiful city and got a good picture of the proposals in this Bill. The Committee sat again on Wednesday, May 20, and heard the final speeches of counsel for the Petitioners and for the Promoters. The Committee were not satisfied as to the technical position should they consider the retention of St. Philip's Reach as a navigational channel for craft of the prescribed dimensions through Totterdown Lock. Counsel were therefore recalled and it was indicated to them that the Committee were minded to make this decision and required the assistance of both sides as to the technical position. The question was also put to counsel whether Work No. 5, being the entrance from the New Cut into the Floating Harbour through Bathurst Basin, would be required if the Committee decided to keep open St. Philip's Reach. Here may I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that in closing the Bathurst Basin the Committee felt that, having incurred rather a large expense in opening Totterdown Lock, we should then save the money on the entry into Bathurst Basin, and thus the overall amount of money spent on the whole project would be very little altered.

After a short adjournment for consideration, the Committee heard counsel on this subject and announced their opinion that the Bill should proceed with Amendments. The effect of the main Amendments is as follows. First, St. Philip's Reach is now included among the waterways which the Corporation will be statutorily required to keep open for craft of the prescribed dimensions. This means that the whole surface area of the existing Floating Harbour will remain as it is. The Corporation will now be empowered to close the Reach or to build a culvert at St. Philip's Bridge. Secondly, Totterdown Lock will be reopened so that boats will be able to pass from the New Cut into the Floating Harbour. This will provide an alternative way into the Harbour, instead of the present access through the Feeder Canal, which will disappear when the canal is closed.

The Bill, as amended, will ensure that the Floating Harbour is available as a through navigation in the future, even when the dock installations have gone after 1980. The Committee felt that in this way the main objectives of the Bill would be achieved and there would still be boat traffic passing through the heart of Bristol.

8.22 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what has already been said, particularly because I was one of those who on Second Reading made what I think the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, still feels was a rather fierce speech. I am glad to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and his Committee, on this admirable Report. It certainly is one of the clearest Reports that we have had from a Select Committee. Unfortunately, we do not get many of them now.

I think the Report is valuable not only because it is so clear, but because of the conclusions to which the Committee came, after what was obviously a very careful consideration of the whole problem and a detailed inspection on the spot. I think it is a vindication of the method which we still use, although rather less frequently than in the past, on these matters in which amenity is in issue: it is a vindication of the Select Committee method of going about the business, because it means that a number of men of considerable experience and sensitivity bring detailed consideration to bear on matters of national importance. The result of this has been, I am sure, not only a much improved Bill but also a much improved situation, because the people of Bristol obviously feel that careful thought has been given to their problems. It is right that they should have this feeling as citizens of a very proud city. I feel also that the amenity interests over the whole country will feel a similar gratitude.

I approach the matter as one who has known Bristol for some time. It is a very fine city, one that holds its own as a matter of history and of beauty, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, emphasised, with many of the great historic ports and cities of Europe. It is not in the same class as the greatest capitals, but it is a town of really high value. It is from that point of view that I think this Report is so valuable, and the way it has been received in Bristol is greatly to be commended. We have not got all that we perhaps hoped to get—one seldom does. But we are getting a great deal. Not only is Bristol getting a great deal, but so also is England, because with a city like Bristol the interests of the nation as a whole have to be considered.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that it is a pity that the bridges are no longer to swing. I think that a timetable which would have obviated such continual interruption of traffic at the bridges as has occurred in the past would have been better. I am sorry that it may be difficult for the tall ships still to be seen from the City of Bristol. I remember, on the first occasion of a visit to Bristol, how surprised and gratified I was to see in the very middle of the city the mast of a tall ship. I had not realised at that stage that the magnificent Floating Harbour was there. It is one of the great engineering feats of possibly the greatest of our 19th century engineers, Brunel, and is certainly a living memory to his genius. I hope that Bristol will see its way to ensure that these tall ships will still be visible from the streets and squares of Bristol. But even if that cannot be done, I feel that what has been done represents a considerable contribution not only to the amenities of the city of Bristol itself, but to the increasingly valuable hobby of sailing small boats, not merely in our inland waterways but around our coasts. This is a spendid sport, and one that is, I am sure, contributing a great deal to the health and adventurous spirit of our young people, and also to the national historic welfare as a whole. I congratulate the Committee, and I am glad to know that this Bill is going through.

8.27 p.m.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, and I feel that we shall now send the Bill to another place with blessings. It seems to me that what we have done this evening is to demonstrate that the democratic process has worked and will be seen to have worked. Our Second Reading debate—and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was quite right to say that I thought he was very fierce with me—is on record for people to see that he was very upset about what he felt were the provisions of the Bill. I am glad that he is happier now. This is how things should be.

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, made a fuss. I am delighted that he should now receive some of the congratulations. He made a fuss and has been instrumental in preserving the whole of the Floating Harbour. I do not want to be churlish, but I must say that the Promoters originally proposed to cut off only a small part of the Floating Harbour; now, of course, we are not going to cut off any. The Feeder Canal is a horrible place; it has not been saved, and I am glad about that.

I am not going to reply to Lord Henley's three points: that it should be a mandatory duty to swing the Cumberland Basin Bridges; that he wished it was possible to reinstate the lock from the new cutting to the Bathurst Basin; and that he would prefer the prescribed dimensions to be a little larger. He is quite right in thinking that to reinstate what was Work No. 5, which is now no longer in the Bill, would be an extension of powers, and I am advised that it would not be possible for one House to take out a power like that and for the other House to put it in again. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, to whom we are very grateful for giving us a Sunday Times-like "Insight " as to how the Committee worked, was very interesting and fascinating. What he has said may be true in this case. He has removed the main bone of contention regarding St. Philip's Reach. Now I hope everybody will enjoy St. Philip's Reach, and will go and boat there. Some people may count how many people actually boat there, but that is neither here nor there at the moment. We shall have the New Cut, although nobody has been able to say what it will look like, which will now have the new barrage down at the Under-fall Yard, and the dam removed up at the other end, at Netham. The New Cut will no longer be a very utilitarian Victorian ditch—early Victorian, 1803—to take the tidal water. Instead of the very thick cocoa-like stuff which now comes in from the Bristol Channel—and which seems to us when the tide ebbs to leave only a little sewage—there will be river water. There will no longer be this thick "cocoa" coming in from the Bristol Channel. It is extremely thick, and you only have to look over the new suspension bridge to see how thick it can be. It will now be fresh water; it will now be the Avon coming down, and it will be navigable. The old constructed harbour originally was the course of the Avon and the Frome, and was then turned into an artificial harbour, with the Avon diverted down the New Cut. Now the New Cut will be full of fresh water, fish and boats, and Lord Henley's children will be playing on the marina; the Floating Harbour will no longer have the commercial docks, and we shall really have a most beautiful centre to the city of Bristol. It has been rather expensive to provide all this amenity, but the expenditure has no doubt been right and proper in a great commercial city.

I anticipate from what I have heard this evening that this Bill is likely to proceed to another place, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed, and stayed late to do so tonight, and to put on record their appreciation of the work carried out by the Select Committee in the preparation of their Special Report.

On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.