Water Bill (Hansard, 3 March 1981)

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, perhaps we may now return to the rather more tranquil waters under the control of the British Waterways Board. On behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I, too, should like briefly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for giving us so clear an explanation of the purpose of this limited, although very necessary, measure. I should also like to indicate our general support for the measure.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, explained, the main purpose of this Bill is to increase the borrowing powers of the British Waterways Board. I have worked very closely with the British Waterways Board in a number of capacities for very many years and, thus, I am deeply conscious of the board's need for adequate resources with which to discharge its very important functions. As the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, indicated, our inland waterways network, of some 2,000 miles, is a unique and very valuable part of our national heritage, and I think that noble Lords in all parts of the House would agree with me when I say that if we once lost it, it could never be recovered.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, indicated, the main purpose of our inland waterways network is, frankly, recreational. It is true that it has some importance to agriculture in relation to drainage; it possibly has a potential—not yet fully realised—with regard to freight transport, for which it should undoubtedly be preserved. But at the moment its main benefit to our community is for recreational purposes.

I believe that one of the main or principal challenges facing Britain today rests in the provision of opportunities for the fulfilling and constructive use of leisure, in ways which are not consumptive of resources or destructive of environment. I believe that the recreational activities of the inland waterways network fall precisely into those categories. They are unique in that they provide a wide range of opportunities for a wide range of people—people of all ages, of different types of physical ability and of different kinds of tastes. They provide opportunities for boating, fishing, canoeing, simply sitting about or walking along the towpaths of the waterways. These are invaluable areas and I believe that everything possible should be done to support the British Waterways Board in maintaining them. However, I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that we must look not only at the capital provisions but at the revenue costs as well.

1337 With regard to the amendment, which has not yet been introduced, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, referred, I would merely say that I think this is a very necessary measure. I think that it has been one of the few issues on which, frankly, I found myself in total and complete agreement with the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union. Indeed, I think that the provision to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred and which it would not be proper to go into in more detail here, is very necessary and will certainly receive our support. But in general terms I think that it is right to remind your Lordships that the effective provision of leisure opportunities at the moment is of paramount importance, and the inland waterways network can do a great deal towards that.

Noble Lords may like to know that at the moment the Countryside Commission is working very closely with the British Waterways Board in providing a new long-distance route for walkers, made out of linking the canal towpaths, towpaths which in many places intersect the existing long-distance routes, such as the Pennine Way. That these towpaths already exist means no acquisition of new land; they merely have to be linked together and maintained. Of course, the British Waterways Board has a statutory responsibility for maintaining navigation. It has no corresponding responsibility for maintaining the towpaths for walkers. However, I merely mention that as an example of a further way in which this part of our national heritage can be used for recreational purposes. Insofar as this limited measure goes some way towards giving the British Waterways Board some of the resources which it undoubtedly needs in order to discharge these, at the moment, very heavy responsibilities, it certainly will have our enthusiastic support.

§ Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I have listened with great interest and care to the speeches of the two noble Lords this afternoon. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not think it discourteous of me if, first, I comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said while it is fresh in my mind. I am very well aware of the point he made. Having, up to a month ago, made my entire living off the leisure industry, I am very well aware of the opportunities that can and should be created and which, in the particular case which the noble Lord mentioned, are being created.

My feeling is that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, perhaps read rather more into the Bill than he need have done. Obviously, it is impossible for me to deal adequately with all the points that he raised, but I shall endeavour to explain what I mean when I say that perhaps he slightly misunderstood provisions of the Bill. If I omit anything, the noble Lord can be assured that, with the leave of the House, I shall write to him.

The noble Lord's main complaint was that this is a feeble, puny, little Bill which might well have dealt far better with matters which they see as more pressing in the water industry. But I must repeat what my noble friend said in his opening remarks. This Bill is deliberately short. Its primary function, as has been acknowledged, is to secure an increase in the 1338 borrowing powers of the British Waterways Board, an increase which I would remind the House is very urgently needed. It must have that increase by 1st April, the beginning of the new financial year. While it was appropriate in the Government's view also to use this vehicle to tidy up one or two anomalies on water law, this is water supply law. I really must underline this point. After the comments made at Committee and indeed at Second Reading in another place, my department sought legal advice on this. The scope of the Bill is as a water supply Bill, and there is no way that any other provisions outside this particular rather narrow field can be incorporated into it.

I should also emphasise that it is not necessarily the case that legislation is needed to deal with some of the questions that the noble Lord raised. In many cases improvements can be secured by administrative means, and the Government have taken a number of steps in this direction with the general intention of making the water industry more efficient and cost conscious. This policy is beginning to pay off. Not least, of course, is the old problem that legislative time is at a premium now as it always has been.

On the problem of collapsing sewers, this is one of those things that legislation cannot solve. It is a question of more money. I can assure the House that water authorities are fully aware of the problem and are taking every step they can to improve the situation. But, as in many other cases, it is a question of balancing costs against resources. If there was more money, there are many things we should like to do not only in the water industry per se but also for the British Waterways Board. The sooner we all manage to make more money, to create more money by working for it, the sooner we shall be able to achieve all these objectives.

The British Waterways Board's grant is something which has concerned the noble Lord. It is important to be absolutely clear that, as my noble friend said, this Bill deals only with borrowing powers for capital items. It does not affect the position on maintenance works which are paid for out of revenue, except in so far as it enables the board to acquire plant; for example, a dredger which is subsequently used for maintenance work. As has been made clear, the Government already support the board to the extent of 60 per cent. of its revenue costs. We would wish to do more but again economic realities apply.

As to the need to provide a clear indication over a period of years of the grant that the board can expect, I repeat what my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in another place: It is clearly desirable and it will be done as soon as economic circumstances permit". The noble Lord also mentioned the reduction in grant by the Government over the previous Administration's proposals. It is true that a reduction of £2 million was made in the basic grant. This was an essential part of our fight against inflation, but there is a danger of making far too much of this. After adding special allowances for protection measures and other adjustments during the year, the amount of grant paid to the board during the current financial year will be £25.4 million. Grant at this level will be maintained for 1981–82 when the total is expected to be £28.5 million 1339 at constant prices. Our calculations show that, allowing for inflation, the level of grant for 1981–82 proposed by the previous Administration would have been £29.4 million, a difference of about £1 million, which I am sure the noble Lord will admit is really very little in the circumstances.

The backlog of maintenance is something that anybody who knows about the canals is extremely worried about. I should like to give noble Lords some reassurance in this matter. The board takes every opportunity to publicise the interruptions to navigation and keeps in close touch with representatives of the firms operating hire craft so that the area of the difficulty is well known in advance. The two points of interruption on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal will be open to navigation by the end of April. Wast Hill Tunnel on the Worcester-Birmingham Canal is expected to be open by the end of June, as is Stoke Bardolph Lock in the River Trent. This leaves only the Netherton Tunnel on the Birmingham Canal navigation, and Blisworth Tunnel on the Grand Union which will remain closed throughout the year. Regarding the noble Lord's comments on the Fraenkel Report, it is my understanding that 10 per cent. of the problems that he outlined have already been cleared up. I think if the noble Lord is a little more patient than he seemed to be he will find that within the next few years they will all be cleared up.

That probably covers Clause 1, the British Waterways Board section. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also made various other points about the rest of the Bill. When particularly water undertakers are no longer able to charge for fire-fighting supplies they will have to recover the costs from somewhere. There was some discussion of this in another place and it may be helpful if I explain the situation as we understand it. We originally took the view, based on the practice which the North-West Water Authority told us on more than one occasion they would follow when this Bill is enacted, that the cost exemption will be recovered from metered industrial and commercial consumers. In this case domestic consumers would not have been affected, and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State pointed this out in another place. We now understand that the North-West Authority changed their plans at a meeting on the 23rd February. They now propose to spread the cost of exemption among all their consumers. In this case, of course, the domestic consumer would be very slightly affected. Our calculations reckon that this is about 1 per cent. of the total water bill.

This Government however (this is another point on the same subject that the noble Lord made) are not in the business of setting up bureaucratic organisations. I think he will agree that our record of doing away with unnecessary Quangos is second to none in the past 20 years. We do not feel that this general charging policy means that the Bill should be amended to protect the domestic consumer.

Lastly, it would be appropriate if I mentioned the clause dealing with the Water Authority's right to require that separate pipes should be installed for various reasons. It was, I hope half-heartedly, suggested by the noble Lord that the power of the undertakers to insist on separate service pipes to houses 1340 with common supplies is merely a device to further the sales to council houses. I can assure him that this is simply not true. It is true, however, that most houses built with common supplies in recent years have been council houses. It is also true that the problem we are tackling is highlighted by the sale of a council house. However, the Government do not accept that there is any sense in imposing the extra costs on the buyer of a house with a common supply, and there are private houses also with common supply simply because that house is being sold and irrespective of whether there is anything wrong with the supply, or the various conditions mentioned in the relevant clause in the Bill.

I hope that I have now dealt, albeit briefly, with the more important topics raised in the debate. There is one point about which I shall certainly write to the noble Lord. It is very complicated. That is the point he made about the Thames Water Authority and how they were going to budget for the income which is no longer available to them. If I can put it briefly, I would say at this stage that they have had plenty of warning for this. As far back as last October they knew that they were not going to be allowed to do it. My personal feeling is that if they have not done it by now, they never will. But I am sure they will do it and I will write to the noble Lord.

I am very encouraged that noble Lords have not expressed any fundamental opposition to what the Bill is proposing, and I ask the House to send it forward to Committee where we will be able to look at its provisions in much more detail.