HL Deb 11 June 1980 vol 410 cc435-6

2.56 p.m.

Lord PLANT

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree with the conclusions of the Thirty-sixth Report of the European Communities Committee on Social Conditions on Inland Waterways [H.L. (1979–80) 167] that the amended draft regulation would be inappropriate to, and an example of an unnecessary harmonisation for, the United Kingdom, and what steps they are taking in the Council of Ministers to ensure that the United Kingdom is excluded.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do agree with the conclusions of the Select Committee's report. The amended draft regulation is being considered by the Transport Working Group of the Council and it seems unlikely to go to the Council of Ministers without substantial amendment. We are seeking to exclude the United Kingdom from the provisions, or to have them changed to meet the needs of United Kingdom operations.

Lord PLANT

My Lords, I am sure that the users of the inland waterways will appreciate the noble Lord's reply. I am certain that it will be well received by the British Waterways Board and by the small traders using narrow boats on the canals. The EEC regulations, as the noble Lord has said, could not be applied economically to this country. May I press the noble Lord on another point? While no interest is payable on capital investment for the construction of roads, yet the British Waterways Board pays interest at the going rate on schemes that it undertakes, schemes such as the South Yorkshire canal improvement scheme. could the noble Lord say how satisfied the Government are that within the United Kingdom there is fair competition between road, rail and water transport?

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, Government expenditure on roads is not only for freight; it is also for passenger transport. It is very difficult for the Government to differentiate between the percentage of expenditure on one as against the other. We are aware that there are conflicting views on this matter. I am advised that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport does not consider that he has yet received any really convincing evidence that unfair conditions of competition obtain in respect of inland waterways. He is always prepared to consider any fresh information which is put to him. There is already a certain element of subsidy in the maintenance of the inland waterways. My right honourable friend is willing to look at any fresh information and we are always taking in such information as points are made to us.