LORDS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 20 July 1978)

§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 55 to 65 to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof: Page 49, line 18, after "reservoirs" insert "Non-navigable". This Amendment has been put down for procedural reasons rather than on the issue itself. I do not in any way wish to belittle the strength of the argument in favour of not devolving the waterways. This point has been argued at two previous stages in the Bill. It will introduce three sources of finance for the waterways instead of one as at present. It will almost certainly create extra administrative expense, but I can quite understand a local government being prepared to accept the extra administrative expense for the freedom of action that they feel it will give them.
I should like to ask the Government the specific question: Do they envisage that they will have some kind of agency basis with British Waterways to avoid the rather ridiculous anomaly of setting up a mini-British Waterways to run two small canals? I should like to emphasise once again the anomalous situation which devolving the waterways will create because the ports are not devolved. Those of us who use the Crinan Canal will find it rather ridiculous that we will go down that noble waterway staffed by about six people and, when we come to the little port of Ardrishaig we will move into another "regime", so to speak. This seems faintly absurd and it should not happen.
The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries roundly condemned the proposal to devolve the waterways. Since we had our debates the Government have answered that in a fairly unconvincing reiteration of their original stance, which in no way weakens the case. The real reason for moving this admittedly less good version of the original Amendment is simply because the Commons never did this House the courtesy of discussing the issue at all at any stage.
505 This is the only issue on which this can be said in the Scotland Bill. I personally, felt that many of the issues not discussed on our Amendments, should automatically have been sent back to the Commons because that conduct seems discourteous to this House. This is the one issue that has never been discussed at all. It seems wholly proper to say to the Commons: "What is the use of this House ' beavering away ', doing all this work, if you are not going to do us the courtesy of paying attention to what we have done?" This is the reason for moving these Amendments.

§ Lord KIRKHILL
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, has put down an Amendment of two words joined by a hyphen and offered to withdraw all the Amendments previously carried in your Lordships' House, Amendments Nos. 55 to 65. We are grateful, but not for the reason that the noble Lord might suppose. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would probably—and I emphasise "probably"—be to nullify the entry in Group 16. This has a precise meaning. But the phrase "non-navigable" does not. It means—at the risk of stating the obvious—not capable of being navigated. Since all water, save the smallest stream, is navigable, perhaps for example by canoe, the effect of the qualification could be very wide indeed and leave nothing of substance to be devolved, including navigable rivers.
The noble Lord has therefore withdrawn one set of Amendments and substituted something which might be considered as being simpler. I do not think that is the case. I think the position remains for all practical purposes the same, and that seems a total opposition to the devolution of inland waterways. On this the Government have clearly reiterated their position from time to time. I do not wish to add anything at this stage. The Government's view has been endorsed in another place.
506 It is true that the issue was not debated there. That is a fair point to make, and I accept that. But there has been a debate on the inland waterways provisions in the Wales Bill. This House, and another place, having debated the issue, have decided that it is appropriate to make provision for the devolution and responsibility for inland waterways to the Welsh Assembly. I would argue that in Scotland the case for devolution is even greater because there are no physical links between English and Scottish canals, for example. With this in mind, I doubt whether your Lordships would envisage a disagreement with the Commons on the question of devolving responsibility for inland waterways in Scotland.

§ Lord BURTON
My Lords, could the noble Lord give some indication as to how the two canals, Crinan and Caledonian, would be run?

§ Lord KIRKHILL
My Lords, I want to be precise about this. There has been a suggestion earlier that the British Waterways Board might be fragmented, but that is not what the Bill proposes. We have in mind that the British Waterways Board should become answerable to the Scottish Administration for its operations in Scotland, and not the Government, and that it should look to the Scottish Administration and not the Government for the necessary finance. In a matter primarily of local importance, such as the Crinan Canal, that seems an eminently sensible proposition. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.

§ Lord MONSON
My Lords, I should like strongly to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, for the reasons he has given, and to express the hope that he will press it to a Division if the Government do not accept it.

§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL
My Lords, with the greatest of reluctance and having thanked the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for his support, I shall have to resist allowing this House to show pique, although I would dearly wish to do so, because I think it has been harshly treated. Having expressed our displeasure at the way this matter has 507 gone, and being unconvinced of the validity of the Government's argument, nevertheless I am content to withdraw my Motion.