HL Deb 28 March 1991 vol 527 cc1219-43

2.55 p.m.

Earl Jellicoe

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Perhaps I may begin with an apology and a declaration of interest. My apology is for unpunctuality and tardiness in that we are having the Second Reading debate at what is possibly not the most convenient of times. My excuse is that until very recently I thought that I would be obliged to be in Southern Africa until the beginning of this week.

The interest which I declare is that of being, and having been for a good many years, the president of the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust—a trust which I can proudly claim has done a great deal, in conjunction of course with British Waterways, to restore the canal which Her Majesty the Queen reopened last August on a very happy summer occasion.

Before I turn to the Bill itself, I should like to emphasise the importance of the national asset represented by British Waterways. That is not, I fear, always fully appreciated. The board is responsible for no less than 2,000 miles of inland waterway, in addition to 1,500 miles of continuous footpaths in England, Scotland and Wales and for their associated harbours, docks and estates.

The range of the board's responsibilities and activities is very wide. Let us consider, for example, leisure and tourism. Over 25,000 power pleasure craft use the canal network. Moreover, on average 42,000 boaters and 300,000 anglers ply the waterways every month. Additionally, the amazing total of 125 million visits are made to those waterways each year. There is considerable scope for much more development of tourist and leisure activities on our waterways. There is also the example of freight. Four million tonnes a year of freight is moved on the waterways network. That is the equivalent of taking 200,000 heavy lorries off of our roads and it represents a clear capacity for the further growth of freight traffic. Another responsibility of the board is land drainage, valued at over £20 million a year.

However, the canals and waterways do not only stand for pleasure, leisure, freight movement and land drainage; they also have an enormous environmental value and potential. The canals traverse, and indeed often enhance, the beauty of some of the loveliest countryside in Britain. They pass through the centre of many of our greatest cities and about 2,000 of their waterway buildings and structures are listed as being of special architectural and historic interest.

Our waterways scene, therefore, offers very exciting opportunities, which I am glad to say the British Waterways Board is taking, for attractive schemes of urban development. I cite as an example some of the important schemes which are already in hand, some of which are very close to us. I refer to those in Limehouse and Paddington and, further afield, in Leeds and Sheffield.

So much then for British Waterways Board's portfolio, actual and potential. What of the Bill itself?

It is of course a private Bill promoted by the British Waterways Board. As such it will go, after this Second Reading—to which I hope and anticipate your Lordships will agree—to a Select Committee, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Of course, it will be for that committee and not for us to consider the detailed provisions of the Bill and the 19 or so petitions which have been made against it. I shall, therefore, confine myself at this stage to making some general observations and the odd more personal aside.

At the start I wish to state clearly that a prime purpose of the Bill is safety: the need to safeguard not merely the lives and property of those who live near the canal network, but, equally important, the need to safeguard the lives of those who travel, work, cycle or fish on the network. Part II is designed to secure the first objective—the safety of the lives and property of those by or near the canals. The danger of a breach in some of the 200-year canal banks can be real with the danger of a serious flooding accident. There have been some potentially serious near misses in the past few years.

At present, as the MMC emphasised in its report of May 1987, British Waterways has no statutory right of access across private property to enable it to carry out what may be urgently needed repairs and maintenance. The waterways board's primary purpose in the Bill is to secure the right of entry to third party land—in an emergency, but only in an emergency, without notice, otherwise with due and proper notice, with the possibility of objections to that notice and a provision for the payment of compensation for any damage which may have been caused in the course of the work being carried out. All that is contained in Clauses 3 to 11, and in my view the powers sought are in principle right and unobjectionable.

The other important safety aspects relate to the boats themselves and those who travel in them. Many boats use the canal system, be they boats carrying freight, pleasure boats or houseboats. Safety again is no small matter. There have been 2,000 fires on boats on our inland waterways during the past six years, with 13 deaths and many hundreds of injuries. That is why in Clauses 12 to 22 and Schedules 1 and 2 the board seeks powers which will provide for the better regulation and management of our waterways network.

As traffic on our canals and inland waterways increases, and it is increasing steadily, such regulation is clearly and urgently required. Thus Clause 12 and Schedule 1 contain the standard terms on which in future houseboat certificates will be issued. The benefit for the owners is that there will now be a set of standard terms and British Waterways has told me that it intends to offer three-year, five-year or seven-year security of tenure for certificated moorings. In effect, those who live in houseboats will be placed in a position similar to those who live in caravans under the provisions of the Mobile Homes Act 1963. For its part, the other major clause in Part II (Clause 13) provides that the issue and validity of certificates, be it for houseboats or pleasure boats, will be subject to three important provisions. First, that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to its class; secondly, that there is adequate third party insurance; and, thirdly, that the proposed mooring is acceptable to the waterways manager.

Those of your Lordships who have read the petitions against the Bill will know that some of the provisions of Clauses 12 and 13, and elsewhere in this part of the Bill, have aroused some disquiet. Those petitions, and there are 19, will of course be carefully and impartially examined by the Select Committee. On Second Reading I shall confine myself to making just two general observations.

There is the anxiety that some who live in houseboats will not be able to meet the requirements and that that will add to the plight of the homeless in our cities. In London, for example, the waterways board believes that there may be upwards of 200 residential boats, some of which may be illegally moored. Clearly, there is a dilemma here. On the one hand, those houseboats, many in all probability unlawfully moored, may be unsafe, or they may be causing pollution or obstructing navigation. On the other hand, neither the board nor anyone else would wish unnecessarily to acid to the problem of London or inner city homelessness. The waterways board has been looking at that problem carefully and sympathetically. It is its intention to invite those concerned to register their need for permanent moorings by a certain date and place them on a waiting list. Thereafter there would be a five-year moratorium during which those on the waiting list would be found permanent moorings on the canal system, or themselves find, or be offered, alternative accommodation on land. In both cases the assistance and co-operation of the local authorities will be much needed and will be sought.

My second observation is this: a common theme running through the petitions on this part of the Bill is that those refused certificates of compliance with standards should be given the right of appeal. That seems only just to me and it is the intention of the board—I am authorised to say this by the board—to table an amendment providing for that before the Select Committee. Likewise, a number of the petitioners have called for statutory consultation by the board—for example, with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council—before standards for the various classes of boats are altered, and possibly about the timing of their introduction. I have some considerable sympathy with those suggestions which will be incorporated in the Bill.

Perhaps I may add one further purely personal comment. It relates to Clause 17(2) which has, I am told, a highly respectable legal parentage, but its wording might at least to me justify and even encourage what I would politely term a "sugar off" attitude on the part off f the board's charming and benevolent officers.

So much for Part III. I wish to comment on only two aspects of the Bill at this stage, because I realise that this is just before the Easter holidays and that some of your Lordships, although I fear not I, had a rather late night in your Lordships' House yesterday. I wish to comment first on Clause 23. I spoke at the outset of my remarks about the board's ample portfolio of splendid landscape and historic buildings. They include, for example, some beautiful aqueducts on the canal that I know best. I am glad to know that the chairman of the board and his team are fully conscious of their great architectural, historic and environmental heritage. Equally, I am glad, albeit not surprised, that under Clause 23 the board now accepts on a voluntary basis—it need not have—important new environmental and recreational responsibilities, the provisions being based on Section 8 of the Water Act 1989, as recommended by the Environment Select Committee of the other place. I am or course aware that some have stigmatised subsection (5) of the clause as an escape clause. That is not so, at least in my view. Enforcement can be provided, and no doubt if necessary will be provided, by ministerial direction.

My second observation relates to Clause 25. The purpose behind it is clear. It would allow the board, as Section 1 of the Transport Act 1981 allows British Rail, to hive off subsidiary businesses, such as hotels, for example, to release capital for investment in its mainline business—the canals themselves. British Waterways has a prime need for more capital, as I am only too acutely aware from my experience of the Kennet and Avon canal. It has a backlog, for example, of £65 million of really critical arrears of urgently needed maintenance and improvement to our main waterways. So if the waterways boa rd can create subsidiary businesses such as hotels, develop them and then at the right moment sell them off and plough back the profits into the waterways then in my view so much the better.

However, perhaps I may be quite clear about one matter. The clause has nothing to do with the privatisation of British Waterways To make this crystal clear beyond a shadow of doubt, the board proposes to introduce an amendment to the Bill at Committee stage stipulating that Clause 25 will not permit the board to dispose of any commercial or cruising waterways or any towpath adjoining any such waterways. Such a clear-cut amendment should allay any fears that the Bill could provide for the privatisation of British Waterways by the back door. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady White, will refer to an Instruction to the committee, which she would like to see adopted, which bears on Clauses 23 to 25. I shall wait to hear her speech before commenting on that aspect.

I believe that I have detained your Lordships quite long enough on the eve of your richly deserved Easter holidays. Perhaps I may add in conclusion that British Waterways today is an active and go-ahead organisation. I have good reason to know that through personal experience. It has a clear business strategy; it has adopted modern management methods; and it rightly puts a high value on safety. It is, I believe, fully alive to its responsibilities to the community and, not least, to the scope for creating more opportunities for leisure, fun and tourism. At the same time, it is determined to preserve and, where possible, enhance its great landscape and architectural heritage. Much of this is implicit in the Bill which I commend to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

3.12 p.m.

Baroness White

My Lords, I am sure that we are all deeply indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for the way in which he introduced the Bill. The information which he has put at our disposal as to amendments which may be proposed later by the British Waterways Board are most welcome so far as they go. We are gratified that he should have accepted the responsibility for introducing the Bill. We congratulate him very warmly indeed on the success of the Kennet and Avon Canal restoration, the most notable canal restoration in recent times. No one could be better suited than the noble Earl to deal with the Bill in your Lordships' House.

I know that several noble Lords wish to raise points during consideration of Parts II and III of the Bill. I do not propose to deal with either. I shall leave it to my noble friends or noble Lords on the other side of the House who may wish to speak.

It is encouraging that the British Waterways Board is prepared to meet those who are deeply worried about the present lack of the right to appeal. That was the train of thought in a number of the petitions. I have read every one of the 19 petitions. It is quite clear that there is very strong feeling indeed that proper arrangements for appeal should be made. That is satisfactory as is the indication that where appropriate there should be more consultation with IWAAC than is currently provided for in the Bill. The noble Earl is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of the historic as well natural heritage of the canals.

Despite the most recent encouraging progress in various directions to which the noble Earl rightly referred, it is important to remind ourselves that much of the British canal system is still largely a prisoner of its past. Noble Lords will be aware that almost all our canals were built between 150 and 200 years ago for the conveyance of heavy freight. It may not be so clearly appreciated that as recently as 20 years ago our inland waterways were firmly classified, together with their historic rivals British Rail, as the direct responsibility of the Department of Transport. No doubt it is entirely fortuitous that the two preceding Bills on the Order Paper today were the British Railways (No. 2) Bill. and the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 5) Bill.

However, it was not until 1970 that the British Waterways Board, created in 1963, came under the aegis of the Department of the Environment. Much of the primary legislation which still regulates the activities of the board is to be found in the Transport Acts of 1962 and 1968.

In examining the Bill before us, we must recognise that contemporary environmental considerations, as well as the current emphasis on leisure and peaceful public enjoyment, are relatively recent. I believe that it is a reasonable assumption that the Bill will receive a Second Reading in your Lordships' House. The 19 petitioners whose submissions will be studied by the Select Committee in due course are mainly concerned with anxieties of pleasure boat or houseboat owners or users, or persons or firms engaged in various waterways services or businesses, some of them quite modest but mostly, I hope, successful, engaged as they are in such activities as the restoration of boats with historic value. The petitioners mention certain difficulties which will face them if the board carries out its proposals exactly as indicated in the present draft of the Bill.

Other organisations, including the Ramblers Association and the Cyclists Touring Club are worried about what they see as possible loss of access to certain towpaths by walkers or cyclists. I do not believe that we shall see turnstiles on towpaths; but plainly some of those who have access to towpaths which are not registered as public rights of way have apprehensions. I hope that these can be fully dealt with in due course. Some riparian landowners or occupiers whose rights may be affected are also represented among the petitioners.

I am sure that all these anxieties will be most thoroughly and scrupulously examined by the Select Committee. I am also sure that we warmly welcome the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has accepted the fairly onerous post of chairman of the committee.

The proposed Instruction to the committee standing in my name touches on rather wider issues. Part IV of the Bill includes the subsections referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The valuable section of Part IV is the commitment of the British Waterways Board to concern itself with protection and conservation of the natural and cultural features of the waterways under its charge. That commitment is consonant with the strongly expressed recommendation of the Select Committee on the Environment of another place, under the chairmanship of Sir Hugh Rossi, in its report on the British Waterways Board issued in 1989. Paragraph 103 of the report mentioned particularly the comparable provisions of Section 8 of the Water Act 1989. I have a copy of that Act with me in case any noble Lord should need to refer to it. The report referred to provisions in the Act affecting the duties of the water plcs and the National Rivers Authority. It recommended that a similar duty should be placed on the British Waterways Board. That recommendation was accepted by the Government. However, the addition of subsection (5) in Clause 23 has undoubtedly caused widespread alarm and despondency among conservationists and voluntary organisations. There is no equivalent to this subsection in the Water Act. The same wording as that used in subsection (5) is however to be found, although in a completely different context, in Section 46 of the Transport Act 1968. Clearly, that form of words must be beloved by lawyers as they find it necessary to use exactly the same words more than 20 years later.

To the non-legal mind subsection (5) of the current Bill appears to be a "get out" clause which could permit the British Waterways Board to renege on its obligations in a way which would not be open to the water plcs or to the National Rivers Authority. Hence there is the need for an authoritative opinion on the matter. It is largely for that reason that I thought it desirable to place on the Order Paper a draft Instruction to the Select Committee. I hope that as a result of the considerable disquiet which undoubtedly has been felt by conservationists and voluntary organisations, no one will feel this to be an unnecessary provision. It is only right that we as a House should indicate to the Select Committee that this is a matter which should be clarified and shown to be a proper and acceptable part of the Bill. If the arguments that are presented seem to indicate the contrary, the British Waterways Board may decide that if the water companies and the National Rivers Authority can get on without this provision, it might be able to do so too.

There is also disquiet about the meaning and possible effects of Clauses 24 and 25. Clause 24 appears to bring in the designated "remainder waterways" in addition to the commercial and cruising waterways. I myself am still not entirely clear about the arrangements proposed by the board. As I understand it—the noble Earl appeared to indicate this—the board is prepared to offer assurances for the future as regards not selling off the necessary assets of a commercial or a cruising waterway, but it does not appear, on the surface at any rate, to have any such safeguard in mind for the remainder waterways. The remainder waterways are in some respects more vulnerable to potentially undesirable land disposals or developments. For them longer term considerations are far more difficult to sustain than for the canals which are registered as commercial or cruising canals. Yet some at least of the remainder waterways are looking forward to a future. I believe I am correct in saying that the Kennet and Avon Canal was at least in part a remainder waterway before the recent successful restoration took place.

Earl Jellicoe

My Lords, I hope I may interrupt the noble Baroness. I am afraid that a great many miles of the Kennet and Avon Canal are still classed as a remainder waterway.

Baroness White

My Lords, in that case I am sure that I can carry the noble Earl with me. He will recognise that longer term considerations are more difficult to sustain for remainder waterways but can be just as important for them. Misjudgments or mismanagement now or in the near future could have serious consequences for the ultimate fortunes of any remainder canal. A canal is a continuum. A particular development can affect not just its immediate surroundings but also the future prospects of the canal as a whole. I speak with feeling as the President of the Montgomery Canal Restoration Trust. Perhaps we could induce the noble Earl to join us. I offer him a vice-presidency at once if he will give us the benefit of his influence and experience.

As I have said, I represent a canal for which great efforts have been made. A vast amount of voluntary work has been put into the restoration of that canal over the past 20 years that I have been associated with it. We have great difficulties, not the least of which is that the canal crosses the border between Wales and England. Unless certain differences of view can be reconciled, it may not be easy to do what should be done with the canal, and to do what was recommended in the report of the House of Commons Select Committee. The report stated that the canal should be seriously considered for upgrading, mainly to relieve other parts of the canal network, particularly the Llangollen Canal which is, if anything, overused. However, I must not take up your Lordships' time pursuing my own interests.

Nevertheless I feel that the Bill as it stands does not pay adequate attention to the problems and potential of some at least of the remainder waterways. The Select Committee would do well to take that into consideration. Meanwhile there seems to be a good deal of concern and uncertainty as to what the British Waterways Board will be entitled to do with its subsidiaries, with or without the consent of the Secretary of State. Canalside developments are normally subject to planning consents, but the British Waterways Board is in a weak position in relation to planning proposals by other interests in the vicinity of canals. Unlike most comparable statutory bodies, the British Waterways Board has, as I understand it, no right to be informed or to be consulted by the appropriate planning authority. That unsatisfactory situation may possibly be rectified in the Planning and Compensation Bill which is now passing through another place. I understand that some steps are being taken in that direction. I hope that the position can be rectified.

The Private Bill procedure has obvious advantages for corporate organisations or statutory bodies with legal advisers at their disposal. However, it can be bewildering —I use that word advisedly—for individuals, small organisations or small businesses who might feel they could put their case at a public local inquiry without too much difficulty. However, the prospect of dealing with possibly hostile counsel at the Palace of Westminster may be quite daunting. It is incumbent upon the Select Committee to do all it can to clarify situations which cause anxiety to people who are not in a position to brief expensive counsel to put their cases for them.

Were I to be a petitioner concerned with the future fortunes of a canal or a group of canals, I might have been a little disconcerted to learn yesterday of a sale by the British Waterways Board, at the Mayfair Hotel, of a considerable number of canalside properties. I have the sale catalogue with me and noble Lords can see that it is a handsome document. I understand that sales in advance or at the sale itself have brought in some £5 million, which is a considerable sum of money.

I was delighted to be informed by representatives of the board that the sale was of capital assets and was not, as some people seemed to think, to meet Treasury requirements in relation to current expenditure. It was genuinely a sale of assets and buildings, or in some cases sites, which are not necessary for the immediate purposes of the board and which the board is convinced—and I have no reason to doubt this—can provide capital which can be more economically employed in other capital schemes which the board may undertake. In other words, it is not a question of providing money which will be lost in the maw of Her Majesty's Treasury.

I believe that there are misapprehensions among people who are worried about such sales. I was uncertain of that point when I heard about the sale yesterday to which there was a reference in a London newspaper. It is only right to say that I was told immediately prior to this debate that such anxieties are not justified in this case and that the board is satisfied that it will be able to use the financial resources which will now be at its disposal to better advantage than if it had retained the properties. I hope that this possible source of misunderstanding or misapprehension has been removed.

I conclude by saying that we must trust the Select Committee to report on the Bill in such a way that the uncertainties and anxieties which some speakers in today's debate may well touch upon will at least be clarified, if not removed.

3.32 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am very pleased to thank my noble friend Lord Jellicoe for his presentation of this very worthwhile Bill and for explaining some of the history and some of the recent achievements of the British Waterways Board, all of which we should applaud.

However, an anxiety remains in my mind. It seems strange to me that although discussions took place in 1977 and again in 1984 and 1987 there remain a very large number of petitioners, who are to be heard by your Lordships' Select Committee. It is a reflection upon the British Waterways Board that in that time it has not been able to come to an accommodation with those petitioners, many of whom, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, said are individuals, small institutions and associations.

Furthermore, today, at Second Reading, my noble friend felt obliged to advise your Lordships that a number of amendments are to be tabled, most notably dealing with the right of appeal. It is a very late stage for the board to make such a gesture, which was on the cards months ago. As my noble friend Lord Jellicoe underlined in his reference to Clause 17(2), the board has adopted a rather cavalier attitude in regard to a number of provisions.

My noble friend quite properly said that the Bill deals essentially with matters of safety in respect of persons and property. He quoted some figures: 13 deaths in the past six years, a number of injuries and some 2,000 fires. However, whenever we consider safety—as we so often do in your Lordships' House whether in relation to aeroplanes, the railways or the roads, and we are now considering safety on the waterways—a balance has to be struck. Some of the provisions of the Bill, particularly in Parts III and IV and the accompanying schedules, tip the balance slightly the wrong way.

I turn now to those anxieties. I shall begin with Clause 13 in Part III of the Bill. The clause deals with conditions relating to certificates and licences. My noble friend was quite right to say that some disquiet had been evidenced and that there was a possibility of some homelessness. There are two issues here. The conditions of certificates and licences deal both with moored boats and houseboats, which are homes, and with cruising craft. On each of those scores it would appear that the regulations, which do not form part of the Bill but which someone seeking a certificate or licence has to comply with, are fairly onerous. Even as recently as 1987 the board gave assurances that what could be termed grandfather's rights would obtain. Then it suddenly changed its position. That means that the new conditions and specifications applicable to craft and equipment which will have to be met in order to obtain a certificate or licence may place a very heavy burden on owners of houseboats or cruising craft.

Marine surveyors do not come cheap. It has been put to me by a number of people that a survey could cost anything between £150 or £500 as a result of the conditions which the board seeks to impose. Compliance with whatever the surveyor may recommend could be expensive because some of the craft are old. The cost of modernisation and of bringing such craft up to the standards would be disproportionate to the value of the craft. That seems to be a means of edging some people off the waterways.

The Royal Yachting Association, which has discussed the matter with the board, told me that it is almost impossible to obtain third party insurance at a reasonable rate on boats which are more than 10 years old. Some boats used for cruising are Dunkirk-type boats and are certainly that old. If third party insurance cannot be obtained for such boats they have to come off the water. That is not fair. If the board wishes to impose such high standards as its regulations appear to demand, it should make some endeavour to secure economic insurance, which is not normally available.

I turn to Part III Clause 15(6) (a). We are dealing here with the removal of vessels by the board. It seems to me that subsections (6) (a) and (b) are somewhat arbitrary because it is not always possible to act within six weeks, particularly given the fact that many people who live on the waterways work abroad and may be away on a three-months' contract. It will be difficult to find them in some foreign part.

Again, Clause 19, which deals with the removal of vessels to permit works, and so on, is another fairly arbitrary statement. I quote from the Bill at page 11, line 2: the owner of such vessel shall within 48 hours after receipt from the Board of notice requiring him so to do remove the vessel". It does not say how much notice the boat owner may have, which is a pretty cavalier attitude.

I turn to the schedules.

Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 refers to determination of the certificate. The last two lines of sub-paragraph (2) (d) state: since the date upon which the certificate was issued, as a result of which it is no longer appropriate that the houseboat should remain at the site". That is a determination made purely and simply by the board and no alternative appears to be offered to the boat user or owner.

Again, in paragraph 4(1) of that schedule, dealing with the qualifications of the right to moor, the third line states that: the period for which that right subsists shall not extend beyond the date when the estate or interest of the Board determines". On the face of it, that again is a fairly arbitrary kind of statement.

I take great objection to sub-paragraph (2) of Schedule 1 which refers to the sale of houseboats. It states: Where the holder sells the houseboat, and assigns the certificate … a commission on the sale at the rate specified in the certificate and determined in case of dispute by arbitration shall be payable to the board. That reminds me of the discussions that we had with regard to the mobile homes Bill and the way in which caravan owners had to pay premiums to sell their own property and re-assign their leases. In many cases the owner of the caravan site refused permission unless a new caravan was put on the site. Something of that nature is repeated in this schedule, which I consider is unfair.

I have referred to insurance policies for vessels. Certainly the whole of Part I of Schedule 2 is a prescriptive set of conditions which would be hard to sustain. I referred to the standards for construction and equipment in Part II of Schedule 2. To me that has a little smell of Rachmanism and harassment in that from time to time the board can make different specifications, without giving any further notice. If the owner cannot meet the specification, he is off the water. That also seems to be cavalier.

In my view, a place should have been found in the Bill for something similar to the grandfather rights—that is, some form of exemption for older and historic boats (I referred to the Dunkirk type of boat) and some of the sailing vessels which are 20 or 30 years old which cannot be brought up to a modern standard. These are matters which I have not raised with my noble friend Lo rd Jellicoe and I apologise to him for not having done so. However, no doubt these points will come up during the committee stage.

I have a lot of faith in your Lordships' committees on Private Bills. Such committees consist of a small group which is able to put at ease the individual who is unused to appearing before a committee of your Lordships' House and is somewhat daunted by it. Undoubtedly some of the matters that have been raised in this House will be examined in the committee and receive consideration there. This Bill is so worthwhile and important that I am saddened because the board so far have not moved very far toward meeting the quite proper and, I believe, reasonable hopes of its tenants.

3.46 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his helpful introduction which has explained the provisions of the Bill much more clearly than I first thought I welcome the safety considerations which are behind some of the actions that are proposed. In the matter of residential boats, I share the anxiety mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but I am comforted by the idea of a five-year moratorium. Many of the problems could be solved in those five years, certainly those which relate to houseboats and people who need alternative accommodation.

The noble Lord drew our attention to some valid points about Schedule 1. I confess that I have not read the schedule as carefully as I might have done. I agree that some of the provisions to which he referred appear to be very harsh. Perhaps we can be comforted with an explanation from the noble Earl at the end of the debate. However, the board certainly seems to me to be asking rather a lot.

I am in particular bothered by the provision which asks for a commission on the sale of a certificate. I am sure that there must be an explanation for it but I find the proposal rather odd. I wonder whether it is meant to cover administrative costs. If so, they must be rather high. I am sure that we shall receive an answer on that point.

I have only two main points to make. I support the Instruction of my noble friend Lady White. I shall not cover all the ground that she dealt with so ably this afternoon. Many waterways have become important wildlife habitats. They are important also to local residents as areas of tranquillity. Due weight must be given to that by the committee.

Clause 23 provides a basis for a sensitive approach to conservation needs. If the waterways board accepts the spirit of Clause 23 I believe that a solution can be worked out in most cases without too much difficulty. The noble Earl's introduction was very comforting and encouraging on that point.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England which is very skilled in this kind of exercise, supports the principle of Clause 23 but is concerned about some of the wording in it. It points out that British Waterways is the only national body with responsibilities for inland waters which does not have a duty to further conservation; a duty which was placed on the water companies and others by Parliament under Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

In August 1989 the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, in its report on the British Waterways Board, recommended that the board should be given a duty to further conservation along the lines of the duty laid on the water companies and the National Rivers Authority in Section 8 of the Water Act 1989. In its response to the Select Committee's report, published in February 1990, the Government endorsed the committee's recommendation. They proposed to take the first suitable opportunity of placing a duty on British Waterways to further conservation. I understand that British Waterways accepted that that would happen. The Bill appears to be such an opportunity. The British Waterways Board has agreed to include it in its own private Bill. Welcome though that is, I refer to Clause 23(5) which prevents the environmental duty from being enforced by a court of law. That is quite contrary to the duty imposed on the National Rivers Authority or the water companies under the 1989 Water Act.

The noble Earl said that there was no need to delete subsection (5) because the alternative to the right to take the matter to court would be that the provisions would be enforced by ministerial direction. I am not sure exactly what that means. However, it does not sound to me like a good alternative. A ministerial direction depends very much on the Minister of the day and how he feels about such issues, not to mention the pressures that may be placed on him from other sides. I would rather rely on the discretion of the courts in a situation such as CPRE has in mind.

I hope that the committee will examine that aspect carefully and decide whether or not the board should be exempt from the restrictions that are placed on the NRA and water companies.

My second point refers to the use of towpaths. The Cycle Campaign Network—which as noble Lords know speaks for the Cyclist Touring Club and the London Cycling Campaign with a total of about 50,000 members—has petitioned against the Bill. It feels that the Bill as presently worded could allow future action by British Waterways which would adversely affect its cyclists. I shall quote from its petition in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9. It says: Clauses 24 and 27 provide for free development of the land owned by the Board. At present cyclists can, by way of purchasing a permit for a set fee, gain access to specified sections of the Board's towpaths. In many urban and rural areas this is recognised as a valuable and safe alternative to the road network. The Bill is silent on how public access to towpaths would be affected in the event of land development. Clause 25 provides for the disposal of land assets. Again, the Bill provides no safeguard against purchasers developing land and denying access to others, nor does it address any means of handover from the Board with regard to the present cycle permit system". It states that the powers embodied in the Bill are lacking in clarity, and that it is not expedient for the board to be granted the powers in Clauses 24, 25 and 27 without a clear determination of the board's primary and residual powers. I believe that the areas of anxiety which need to be explored are quite clear.

The solicitors for British Waterways Board have responded to the anxiety by suggesting an amendment to the Bill which has reassured the petitioners to some extent. However, the Cycle Campaign Network is still uneasy about the standards of maintenance which would be necessary for continuing cycle use, and about standards of reinstatement in the event of severance to connect new developments. It is important that these anxieties should be met. The amendment as drafted would cause British Waterways Board to retain towpaths. But it does not say a word about the standards of maintenance.

The petition of the Ramblers Association draws attention to the extensive use of towpaths by walkers and the need to ensure that not only are existing rights of way respected but also that the Bill should provide, as my noble friend Lady White mentioned in her address, that all access presently enjoyed by members of the public should continue even when the land is sold to developers. I am not sure how that can be achieved in the Bill, but it is worthwhile aiming at such provision.

Walking and cycling are recreations most easily available to all sections of the population. They can be enjoyed irrespective of income. They pose little or no threat to the environment. By encouraging walkers and cyclists away from roads to clearly marked and well maintained paths, we can make a significant contribution to road safety.

The towpaths in the care of British Waterways are an important element in the network of paths nationwide. It is essential that the Bill before us should end its passage through Parliament with no ambiguity about its pathway provisions.

There is no reason to doubt the intentions of the noble Earl who introduced the Bill or of the present management of British Waterways. However, we are all mortal. Managements change and so do pressures. Assurances made now are welcome but they must be underpinned by clear wording in the Bill. I hope that these anxieties will be taken on board by the Select Committee and by British Waterways and that suitable amendments can be agreed before the Bill returns to us at Third Reading. We usually assume that the conclusion of the Second Reading debate of a Private Bill in this House is the end of the matter. However, I remind noble Lords that that is not the end of the matter. It comes back at Third Reading. It has been known for a Bill to be thrown out at Third Reading if the Select Committee has not met the anxieties in the meantime. With that rather terse reminder, I end my speech.

3.56 p.m.

Lord Norrie

My Lords, my main concern is with the environmental duty in Clause 23. Over the past few years this House has put into effect environmental duties on a range of authorities, agencies and companies. I refer to the Water Act 1989, the Electricity Act 1989 and the coal industry legislation of 1990. More recently we have pressed for similar duties during the Planning and Compensation Bill. I was therefore pleased to see that an environmental duty had been included in the first draft of the Private Bill. Indeed, I tried to secure just such a duty on British Waterways during the Environmental Protection Bill debated last year, but it was ruled out of order and I could not therefore table my amendment. With an environmental duty already written on the face of the Bill, I had thought that I would be able to relax on that issue. Unfortunately that was before I read Clause 23(5). I fear that subsection (5) makes the entire environmental duty ineffective by preventing its enforcement by a court of law.

We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that in February last year the Government endorsed the recommendations of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment. The committee stated that an environmental duty along the lines of the Water Act 1989 should be placed on British Waterways. There could be no reason why British Waterways should be any more above the law than the National Rivers Authority or private water companies.

The environmental duty of Section 8 of the Water Act 1989 is a free-standing statutory environmental duty, and therefore fully enforceable through the courts. The same such duty should apply to British Waterways. A strong environmental duty will also help to balance the sometimes competing interests of conservation and recreation of our waterways. Every time a lock gate is opened on the Kennet and Avon Canal—which is only half a mile from my home—40,000 gallons of water are discharged downstream. That can cause major problems upstream and to the levels of any adjacent river in particular during a dry summer. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in his opening speech stated that Her Majesty the Queen had opened the canal officially last August at Devizes. However, the water level in the canal above Devizes was so low that the barge for the official opening had to be transported by road so that the Queen could open the canal on water.

A strong environmental duty will ensure that British Waterways must balance all future considerations. The likelihood of such a problem occurring should therefore be reduced. However, I do not understand the logic in firstly proposing an environmental duty yet rendering it worthless in subsection (5). In my view subsection (5) should be deleted from the Bill and I trust that its proposers will see fit to do so.

I turn briefly to the draft Instruction tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady White. It draws the Select Committee's attention to planning and development issues connected specifically with remainder waterways. While I share her concern I doubt whether the Instruction goes far enough. The clauses quoted in it have a wider effect which is also of considerable importance. I shall not seek to amend it; I trust however that the Select Committee will read our debate with care.

I enter a plea that the committee should look carefully at two points. The first arises in Clause 25 which empowers British 'Waterways to dispose of its subsidiaries or of their property rights. Once disposed of, any land involved could be developed outside the framework of the board's environmental responsibility under Clause 23 without the consent of the Secretary of State. I suggest that we consider the use of restrictive covenants in such cases.

The second point relates to Clause 27 which seeks to repeal certain unidentified rights of owners, lessees and occupiers of land adjoining the waterways which were granted in legislation prior to 1947 but are not currently exercised. It is not unlikely that to do so would remove existing constraints on the commercial development of a considerable number of parcels of waterside land. We must be careful in dealing with those cases for the reasons that I gave when referring to Clause 25.

I hope that the Select Committee will take note of all the points raised in today's debate.

4.2 p.m.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I support the Instruction tabled by my noble friend Lady White. In doing so I wish the Bill a fair wind. I hope that the promoters will pay attention not only to the Instruction but also to the comments made in the course of the debate. My noble friend Lady Nicol indicated the consequences of their neglecting to do so. I do not wish to underline them too heavily, but they should be noted.

A number of provisions in the Bill require close attention by the Select Committee. I wish to make a few comments on Clause 4. It is obvious that the powers that the board wishes to use in cases of emergency should be granted to it. I do not believe that anyone would dispute or argue about that. However, Clause 4 asks for more. It provides for the board to carry out routine maintenance—not emergency maintenance—on private land. Where such works cannot conveniently be carried out without such entry the board can be permitted to leave plant and materials on other people's property for a period of time. That time must be stated and it can be appealed against, but it is a powerful demand to make.

How does it arise that in respect of routine maintenance the board requires to approach its canals through other people's properties? The natural method of access would be by barge, carrying out such maintenance as is possible from the waterside of the canal. It is conceivable that on certain canals that might be difficult because the water is too shallow. It is also conceivable—I do not speak from personal experience, which is slight—that the shallowness arises from inadequate dredging. Is it the fact that the necessity to carry out routine maintenance from other people's property arises from the board's neglect of the waterways? I make no accusation; I merely ask a question. If that is the case the arguments in favour of allowing the board entry other than in case of emergency is greatly weakened.

In turning to Part III I agree with much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. He appeared to have seen clearly the weaknesses in the draconian provisions of Part III. There does not appear to be any reference to consultation with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council. Can that omission be remedied, or can we have an explanation of why no such reference can be made?

Part IV of the Bill is more significant to today's debate. Many noble Lords have spoken about it, especially Clause 23. I wonder whether Clause 23 is necessary because subsection (5) appear; to render it useless. If that is so there is no point in having the provision in the Bill. Subsection (5) merely provides that the board will do what it must do. The remainder of the clause is a declaration of intent—no doubt a worthy declaration—but it is pious. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, that subsection (5) should be removed from the Bill. At the same time I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made conciliatory comments on subsection (5). We must see how far they go.

I have two further comments to make about Clause 23. One is in favour of the board. I am pleased that in subsection (6) the word "building" has been defined to include a structure. I have pressed that definition upon the House many times in recent years. This is the first time that it has been placed on the face of the Bill without prompting from me. I welcome it wholeheartedly. In respect of Clause 23(1) (b) I must raise a King Charles's head. Those of my noble friends and other noble Lords who have previously heard my comments need not listen but the promoters of the Bill might. Clause 23(1) (b) states: have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest". I have argued the case before. In this sense "archaeological" means industrial archaeology and not artefacts of great antiquity. The inclusion of the word "architectural" interests me. It suggests that a building of some kind might be preserved and protected not because it has archaeological interest or historical interest—conceivably, it could have both—but because it has architectural interest.

The canal system is an elegant structure but it is not noted for its architecture. There is no doubt that the system contains elegant pieces of architecture but fundamentally it is an engineering system. There are artefacts in the system which may be preserved not for archaeological interest, nor for historical or architectural interest, but for engineering interest. I should like to see the word "engineering" slipped in the Bill beside "architectural". I have argued the case in the House many times, hitherto unsuccessfully. I hope that the board will pay greater heed to me than the Government have done thus far. The point is a real one, though so far the Government have not agreed with me.

I have little more to say except to agree with much of what was said regarding the board's apparent desire to become some kind of property company, or that it appears to give itself certain rights in that regard. Clause 25 suggests that in so far as the board is divesting itself of a property it is also divesting itself of many of the hopes held out under Clause 23; unless, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, suggested, restrictive covenants are imposed. I strongly support him in that respect. In regard to Clause 25 I strongly support the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who said that it was proposed to table an amendment on privatisation. I shall watch for that with considerable interest.

I support also the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, in regard to Clause 27. I shall not go into the detail of that; he adequately covered the point and there is no need for me to repeat it. Clause 27 takes away the rights that people have held for some time. It hardly seems proper for private legislation to take away rights which were given by public legislation. If rights are to be removed then they should be removed by means of public rather than private legislation.

Finally, I wish to endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, regarding the work carried out by parliamentary committees. They are excellent vehicles for discussing projects of this kind. I have no doubt that they are much better than public inquiries. I have every faith that the committee appointed to discuss this Bill will examine the proposals closely; that it will pay deep and thorough attention to the petitions, and I sincerely hope that a Bill will be returned at Third Reading which will please my noble friend Lady Nicol.

4.13 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I begin with the usual disclaimer in speaking from this Dispatch Box. My party does not take a collective view on any private legislation. Anything I say now expresses my personal opinion and not a collective view.

I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for introducing the Bill. He was very clear and already quite conciliatory. He recognised some of the objections likely to arise and had soft answers for a considerable number of them. Whether he succeeded entirely in turning away the wrath, I am not certain.

I have identified four major areas of anxiety in this interesting debate and should like to make a few remarks in regard to each of them in turn. The first relates to residential boats; the second to the environment and environmental obligations; the third to access; and the fourth to disposals, with its implications both for the integrity of the waterways network and for the continued public obligations of the British Waterways Board.

In regard to residential boats the noble Earl opened by agreeing that there should be a right of appeal in any dispute between residential boat owners and the board regarding temporary or permanent mooring rights. He very properly told the House of the proposal by the board to establish a waiting list for those who do not have legal permanent moorings and to grant a five-year moratorium for those on the waiting list. That may go some way towards meeting some of the anxieties expressed. However, I do not believe they meet many of those expressed this afternoon.

It is clear that there are far too many permanent moorings on the waterways network, particularly in urban areas. It is clear also that, despite the good intentions of the board for the future, there has not been any significant increase in the number of moorings, particularly in London. A major effort will be required to provide the necessary increase in moorings even to accommodate those who are already living on residential boats. I do not suggest that it should be an objective of the board to continue to increase the number of moorings so that all who may in the future wish to live on residential boats are accommodated, but there must be some kind of compromise. There should be somewhere in the Bill an obligation on the board to provide more moorings than are presently available.

Regarding the environmental issue, I agree with those who say that the very welcome echoing in Clause 23 of the obligation to further environmental protection is vitiated by subsection (5) of that clause. In its defence the board says that that protection from the courts is provided in the Transport Act 1968. I am a great admirer of the Transport Act 1968. I say that even in the absence of my noble friend Lady Castle who created it. What the Transport Act 1968 did for public transport and the concept of public service obligations, particularly for British Rail, is perhaps something that should be revived and could continue to stand us in very good stead. However, in environmental terms the 1968 Act is very much out of date. Subsequent legislation has never included the kind of protection from the courts which the 1968 Act had. The Bill should be brought up to date with current legislation and with current environmental thinking.

The third area of anxiety concerns access. My noble friend Lady Nicol rightly spoke of the needs of walkers and cyclists. Waterways are in a curious position: they are a combination—historically and to some extent presently—of commercial enterprise and environmental resource. There must be a balance between those interests. I fear that the way in which progress is being made on the waterways is not that there is no balance between recreational access and the legitimate business of the waterways—in other words, carrying goods by water—but that there is a failure to achieve a balance between recreational access and the activities of the Waterways Board, in effect, as a property developer. Thai is the real conflict which will have to be resolved in favour of environmental access. After all, these are public assets and must not be allowed to leave the public domain. The public must continue to be protected.

The fourth and perhaps most important issue is that concerning disposals. Again, some progress has been made by the board. The board says that it is willing to secure against disposal the main navigable channels of any commercial or cruising waterway or towing path—I am paraphrasing; it is more complicated than that—or duties under the Transport Act 1968. In other words the board is saying that it is prepared to protect operational land.

I entirely support the Instruction tabled by my noble friend Lady White which goes further than that. It refers also to the residuary waterways and those which are not at present required for commercial use but which are required for recreational use. Nobody knows better than the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that they can be brought back into operation for cruising use. It is the integrity of the network which it is important to preserve. There is a mixture of waterways: commercial, cruising and the remainder. If the remainder were to go the integrity of the network would be severely damaged. To that extent I hope that the Select Committee will take very serious note of the points made by my noble friend Lady White and others in support of the Instruction.

The second aspect of disposals is whether they are to be used as a back door for privatisation. We had a debate on this matter when we were discussing the Water Bill in 1989. The way in which back door privatisation is achieved is by disposal to subsidiaries, which is made easier than disposal to outside bodies. The problem is that the disposal is not restricted to subsidiaries, there can be disposal to a single subsidiary which would then be a sitting duck for privatisation. The danger of privatisation by the back door is not to be underestimated even if there are to be restrictions on the disposal of operational land. Here again, the Select Committee must pay great attention to the points which have been made by noble Lords in this debate.

It is fair to say that there has not been a very friendly reception for the Bill. However, that does not mean by any means that all parts of the Bill are undesirable; it simply means that there are significant parts which need to be put right before the Bill passes through your Lordships' House. I urge the promoters of the Bill to take seriously the very gentle threat put forward by my noble friend Lady Nicol. As the House will know, she holds the Swanage medal; she also holds the British Rail Heathrow Link bar and she is now looking to another bar on her row of medals. If she is not accommodated, I can assure your Lordships that she will achieve it.

4.23 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, it may be helpful if I intervene to state the Government's view on the Bill. The Government have considered the content of this Private Bill and have no objections in principle to the proposals in it. We have made it clear that we want the British Waterways Board to be run as commercially as possible commensurate with its statutory duties, in order to maximise income and reduce dependence on Government grant. BWB's Private Bill proposals will give the board additional powers to manage its assets to best advantage.

The additional powers do not represent a plan to privatise the board. Indeed, I understand that the board has undertaken to amend the Bill to make clear that Clause 25 (provisions as to disposal of subsidiaries etc.) does not apply to operational land. Those provisions reflect the board's integrated business strategy which we endorsed last year and announced in our response to the Commons Environment Select Committee. The strategy, which was welcomed by the Select Committee in their 1989 report, provides for the development of the board's property assets, in partnership with the private sector, as an integral part of their management of waterways, thereby protecting their essential character. Increased income from property development car be ploughed back into waterway-related improvements which will enhance the value of the network for users and for the whole community.

The Government are also pleased to see included Clause 23 (General environmental and recreational duties). This clause fulfils the remit we accepted in our response to the Environment Select Committee to extend the provisions of Section 8 of the Water Act 1989 to BWB at the first opportunity. The clause has been drafted in consultation with the department. The board is already under a general duty to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside. The British Waterways Board has made considerable progress in developing the potential for recreation of the 2,000 miles of waterways under its control arid improving access to them; conserving 2,000 listed buildings and ancient monuments; and initiating developments which enhance and harmonise with the waterways.

It is only recently that, along with a parliamentary colleague, Sir Robert Durant, from another place, that I was privileged to receive a commemorative scroll from the British Waterways Board and the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust of which my noble friend Lord Jellicoe is president. The occasion was to commemorate a splendid project to restore the waterway for navigation between Reading and Bristol. While congratulating the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust and the considerable voluntary effort, I was also able fully to recognise the co-operation with that project of the riparian local authorities and the British Waterways Board.

The British Waterways Board's willingness to promote additional legislation on its own behalf provides a practical demonstration of its commitment to protecting the environment while pursuing plans for development of the waterway network. All the additional powers BWB is seeking in the Bill are entirely consistent with the board's waterway responsibilities. In particular, the powers sought in Part II (entry on land) follow a Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommendation that the gap in the board's powers to cross third party land to carry out emergency powers should be made good.

While, generally, it is a sensible set of proposals, aimed at providing more effective waterway management and control in the interests of the safety and convenience of all users, not all are uncontroversial. Concern has been expressed about a number of provisions in the Bill. I note that there are 19 petitioners. They will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The committee will be in a much better position than we are this afternoon to examine in detail the issues involved.

It is of course primarily for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers are justified. I hope that in the conventional way, the House will give the Bill a Second Reading so that it can proceed to committee for that detailed consideration.

4.27 p.m.

Earl Jellicoe

My Lords, I believe that I have the right of reply. In a way I rather regret that I have that right because so many detailed points have been made by so many experts that I feel I could, to use marine terminology, easily find myself torpedoed. It is appropriate at this hour to confine myself to remarks which do not take too long at this moment. I thank noble Lords who have spoken for their general if at times rather mitigated and muted welcome for this admirable Bill.

As noble Lords have said, and as my noble friend the Minister has just said, it is now for the Select Committee to get down to most of the detailed points which have been raised. I wish to preface the few remarks I intend to make by saying to my noble friend Lord Lucas that it is my understanding that the board's intention is to continue the discussions that it is having with the petitioners. For one reason or another the board may have been unable to start those discussions as early as it would have liked. The discussions are continuing at the present time. It is my hope, and I know it is certainly the hope of the board, that between now and the Select Committee tackling this matter, some of the 19 petitioners will feel that their concerns have been met and will be able to withdraw their petitions.

As noble Lords know, there has been a number of so-called "second house undertakings" given to the public utilities. I very much hope that their concerns will be met in the course of the coming weeks. Having said that, the anxieties which have been quite rightly expressed centred on a number of matters. There is the question of access and standards on which my noble friend Lord Lucas particularly touched. There is the matter of disposals and perhaps most important of all, the question of the environmental aspects of this Bill. Perhaps I may make a few very brief remarks under those headings.

The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, asked why, save in a case of emergency, it is necessary for access to be by land. Due notice is provided for in the Bill where there is not an emergency. A right of objection is provided and there is also compensation. Access by land is now normal because of the type of equipment now used. It is heavier and is therefore not very easily transported along the waterway network.

As regards access by walkers and cyclists—I heard very well what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said about the anxieties of cyclists—it is the general policy of British Waterways to encourage and, indeed, optimise the use of the waterways in every way possible, including the use of towing paths. Where towing paths exist they are regarded as being absolutely integral to the waterways system. Subject to the board's general duties and powers, I am authorised to say that the paths will be maintained as such for public recreational use by anglers, walkers and cyclists, and indeed by everybody who desires access to them.

As the noble Baroness knows, some towpaths are public footpaths or bridleways. They will always maintain that status. The others which have not been dedicated as public rights of way have been used for many years on a permissive basis. The board has authorised me to say that that use will continue. That is the general policy of the board. I am sure there are some detailed points on this matter which the Select Committee should rightly consider, but certainly that is the board's general intention.

I turn now to standards. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made some very trenchant criticisms in his usual way about the Bill in this respect. I remind him and other noble Lords who have touched on this matter that a right of appeal will be introduced, consultation with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council will be written in, standards are being changed and also the timing of their introduction.

There will be a moratorium on waiting lists for those who may be threatened with the possibility of homelessness as a result of failure to get certification. It is the intention of the board to double in the next four years the number of approved moorings in this respect in the London area. It will not be an easy problem to solve—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will recognise that—but that is the board's intention. It will require help and co-operation from the local authorities and I express the wish that that co-operation will be forthcoming.

I also noted what my noble friend said about rather short warning periods. That, again, is a very valid point for the Select Committee to look into. My noble friend mentioned three other points. Insurance is a matter for the Select Committee. It is a very detailed issue and I would get into much deeper water than I should like if I were to go further into that. Commission on the sale of houseboats was a point which worried me when I read the Bill. The explanation and justification is that if there is substantial improvement arising from the board's investment and so on, the value of the houseboat or boat concerned will be enhanced. In that case it does not seem unreasonable that the board should be able to charge a commission. Again, that could well be considered at Committee stage. My noble friend also referred to historic boats—old boats, Dunkirk boats, and the rest. My understanding is that the board would like to give some flexibility in that respect. How that can be worked into the Bill is once again a matter for the Select Committee.

On the question of disposals I do not think I can say really more than I have already said. It is the intention of the board to introduce an amendment to make it crystal clear that there can be no question of the board disposing of its main assets—the main waterways—which are under its control. The Select Committee will have plenty of opportunity to see whether or not that particular amendment is adequate. It is an important point. I should like once again to say quite categorically—I say that with some knowledge of the board's intentions in this matter—that nothing could be further from its thoughts in Clause 25 than privatisation of its main business by some backdoor method. That is quite contrary to the board's intentions.

In conclusion, I turn to the very important matter of the environment, on which noble Lords have quite rightly dwelt. There is the question of the escape clause, Clause 23(5). This clause is consistent, as I understand it, with Section 106 of the Transport Act 1968 and with the responsibilities of the National Rivers Authority, the water authorities and, indeed, the sewage undertakers; which likewise are not liable to any civil or criminal proceedings, to which they would not otherwise be subject, purely by being in breach of their duties in this regard. It is the function of the Minister to regulate their performance. It will be the function of the Minister to regulate the performance of the board by direction, if that is thought appropriate, by code of practice or by whatever means. That is an important aspect. As a non-lawyer I jibbed a little at subsection (5) when I first read it, but I have set out its very respectable pedigree. It is a matter now for the Select Committee to look at in the light of comments which have been made from all sides of your Lordships' House.

Another matter is the Instruction suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady White. I appreciate her anxiety and I also appreciate her deep interest not only in the waterways but in environmental matters generally. I have a fellow feeling for her in some respect because I am a remainder man myself, as she is a remainder woman in Wales on canals. I hate the phrase "remainder waterways" which reminds me of remainder clothes that one takes down to sell for charity. I hope very much that we can find a more respectable and reputable name for distinguished canals like that in which the noble Baroness is interested—distinguished canals such as the Kennet and Avon.

As I understand it, nothing in Clause 23 would put at risk any British waterways; not least the remainder waterways in respect of which the board has quite clearly defined duties and powers under previous Acts and which the board is not seeking to modify by this Bill. Indeed, both Clauses 23 and 25 are caught up in the matter.

Land development in the vicinity of the waterways is an integral part of the approved business strategy of the board. It has—rightly, in my view—a jealously guarded reputation for sensitive development of its properties. Moreover, it has carried out such development in close conjunction with the local authorities and local restoration groups.

However, I appreciate the concern expressed by the noble Baroness and others. Although I do not believe that the Instruction is necessary, if' it is your Lordships' wish that it should be given to the Select Committee, I shall not argue against it. It is phrased in language that I believe is moderate and sensible, as one would expect from the noble Baroness. As I said, although I do not believe it to be necessary, I shall not oppose it.

Having said that, it only remains for me to express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate this afternoon. I wish the Bill well on its way to the Select Committee. I believe that we have given that committee many aspects to consider.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

4.42 p.m.

Baroness White rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Bill is committed that in considering Part IV of the Bill, in particular Sections 23(5), 24 and 25, it shall take account of the need to protect from unsuitable development, either of the waterway or of land in close vicinity, canals currently designated "remainder waterways" which have potential for future use as cruising waterways or as areas appropriate for quiet enjoyment by the public.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.