Wash Barrage

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 25 July 1967.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Richard Body Mr Richard Body , Holland with Boston 12:00, 25 July 1967

Before I follow the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) in discussing the exciting potentialities of the Wash barrage, may I ask the House not to overlook that there are a number of people who earn their livelihood in and around the Wash, and others whose recreation is to be found there. At the moment there is about eight square miles of deep-sea fishing that would almost certainly be lost if the Wash dam came about. Also there are those who gather mussels, cockles and shrimps from the area. The naturalist too, has something to lose from the erection of a dam.

If one goes from Fosdyke Dock, where the Welland goes out to the sea, one can walk 10 miles or more and not see a soul and scarcely a house, until one reaches the old lighthouse, not far from King John's Farm. One can then cross the river down at Sutton Bridge and walk for another 10 miles until one reaches Admiralty Point, and again not see any sign of human habitation. This is where the common seal is to be found and where, unfortunately, too many of them are being destroyed.

It is a mecca for wildfowlers and a place where lovers of nature can find uncommon plants and see unusual birds. The Wash dam will bring this rare part of England to an end. It will be sad if that comes about. Reluctantly I conclude that it will be necessary. Nothing can compensate the naturalists and the wildfowlers, but for the fisherman, if a golden bowler is not to be an appropriate headgear for them to be given, there should at least be put into their hands a silver net.

As I understand it, the one objection the Government have to the Wash dam is the huge cost involved. As all of us who are interested in the Wash dam know, the Binnie report has estimated that £287 million would be the cost of this venture. That, it goes without saying, is a huge sum, but one must examine that sum in the context of the amount of money we have already spent on water supplies since the war and the amount we shall have to spend in the next two or three decades. The money spent since the war on increasing water supplies adds up to no less than £800 million. We must spend much more than that in the next two or three decades to meet the demands which were outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend. I believe that to obtain the additional 650 million gallons a day that the South-East of England will require we shall have to spend a capital sum of at least £200 million. I cannot see any lesser figure being realistic.

Not only shall we be expending money, we shall be expending land, and it is almost impossible to calculate now the capital value of the land which will be eaten up—that is not the right word: drowned, I should say—by those reservoirs. My right hon. and learned Friend named one reservoir. I think he gave a figure of £10 million. Certainly, the total sum must be very much greater than that. The Wash dam, on the other hand, will mean reclamation of a large number of acres.

The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) calculated 40,000 acres. There have been other calculations, he knows only too well, and I think he was being rather lenient to the antagonists of the scheme when he said 40,000, because others have gone up to 80,000. Of course, 40,000 is a fair figure of the land which will be of use to agriculture, and he knows how valuable agricultural land is in his constituency, and in my case, over the county border, land is even more valuable. Only a fortnight ago a 90-acre farm went for more than £700 an acre, and nothing in Norfolk can equal that. There is rich land in Lincolnshire, and it is valuable land, and if those 40,000 acres were reclaimed there is no doubt that it would be most valuable—not less, I think, than £16 million.

Again, I think one ought to set off the quite considerable cost each year in coastal protection. I believe that the figure is now running at about £300,000 a year round the Wash. If one were to capitalise that, I suppose it would be fair to put it at £20 million. Therefore, those items ought to be set off against the £287 million which has been estimated by Binnie and Partners.

The Wash dam, as the hon. Member for King's Lynn showed us so clearly, would prove an enormous capital asset. Across it could run a major highway to relieve the existing A17 road and act as a link between Humberside and the East Anglian ports, the growth areas around King's Lynn, and indeed down to London as well. It is within the realms of possibility that we could have built on the dam a new Europort to serve our trade between Rotterdam and the manufacturing areas in the Midlands, which are the two major growth points on either side of the Channel.

I believe that fish farming within the dam may well be an economic proposition. Today the deep-sea trawler costs £500,000, and maintenance comes to about £100,000 a year, and these costs are increasing rapidly. Some of the pundits predict that fish may soon become an expensive commodity if it is to be obtained from the sea by present-day methods. In years to come, quite different methods of fishing may be needed, such as electrocuting fish bred in reservoirs. If this is so, the Wash dam would be a most valuable asset for commercial fishing.

Then there is the recreation which would be available, especially for those keen on sailing. This is a recreation which gains more adherents every year, and decades hence one can visualise the Wash dam serving a most valuable purpose for recreation.

There is one more point about costs. I think that the hon. Member for King's Lynn gave the figure of 12s. per thousand gallons. I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman got that figure from, but from the various reports which we have had, and from the various experts who have given opinions on this project, I understand that if one obtains 200 million gallons a day from the Wash the cost of water will work out at 5s. 4d. per thousand gallons, but if that is increased to 620 million gallons a day, the cost will be 3s. 5d. per thousand gallons. This is just about the average cost of water for users in this country; and that is the extra quantity of water that we will need in south-east England.

The figure which I have given, and the calculations which I have made, are based on the original estimate of £287 million as the cost of the Wash dam, but as those who take part in these debates, and who have studied the poten- tialities of it know, Binnie and Partners are not the only ones who have examined the possibilities of the Wash dam. The hon. Member for King's Lynn and I went to Holland some months ago and saw how much was being achieved in the Rhine delta. We saw how the brilliant Dutch engineers were transforming countless acres of Holland. They were doing it by economic means and enterprising methods. We had an opportunity of discussing the Wash with them. They were unanimous in their belief that the Wash dam was a practical proposition. I had the good fortune to make the acquaintance of the leading consultant engineer in the Rhine delta. I invited him to this country to examine the situation, and he visited the National Hydraulic Laboratory and the Wash. He said categorically that the Wash dam is most certainly an economic as well as a practical proposition. Although he had more scanty material than Messrs. Binnie and Partners, he estimates the cost to be less than they envisaged.

It is significant that two other Dutch engineers have given a detailed account of what they consider the Wash dam might cost. Mr. De Weger and Professor Jansen have been here to study it and have concluded that the cost need not be more than £150 million—much less than the figure suggested by Messrs. Binnie and Partners. They have urged three phases for the dam, starting with a technical feasibility study, which they say could be completed within six months. If the scheme seems feasible they recommend going on to a detailed design study, which would take two years, followed by the third phase, the construction period, lasting seven years. The advantage of the three-phase system would be that the work could be brought to a halt at the end of the first or second phase without undue waste of money.

In rejecting the feasibility study, has the Minister considered the views publicly expressed by Professor Jansen and Mr. De Weger? If their views have been considered, why have they been rejected? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not say that the only opinion that has been considered is that contained in the report by Messrs. Binnie and Partners.

I echo the words of the hon. Member for King's Lynn that the case for a feasibility study is absolutely unanswerable. I hope that tonight we shall hear that at last the Government have had second thoughts and now realise that soon it will be desperately urgent to go ahead with the feasibility study.