Inland Waterways

– in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 1 August 1978.

Alert me about debates like this

4.18 a.m.

Photo of Mr Tam Dalyell Mr Tam Dalyell , West Lothian

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could be forgiven if you heaved a sigh of relief when the Scotland Bill had its Royal Assent because you thought that you had heard the last of it.

In raising the question of the potential break-up of the British Waterways Board, I have to say that the subject was never discussed in the 46 days that the Scotland Bill spent going through this House. In a truncated speech, I shall save a lot of time if I say that a number of matters were raised during our discussion of the Transport Bill on Monday. They can be found in columns 126 to 130 of Hansard for that day.

In my own defence, I should say that although it was pointed out tartly in a Sunday newspaper that I had spent longer on the Scotland Bill than Churchill did on the India Act, this subject was not discussed. It is a matter of great concern that the Board should in future be getting finance not from one body but from three, and that its expertise should be dissipated. What is happening is a retrograde step.

I quote from the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council: IWAAC has always held the view that there would be no advantage to the users if inland waterways were to be devolved; in fact they believe it would almost certainly result in additional administrative costs and thus reduce the available finance for actual maintenance. They feel in this instance that the British Waterways Board's objections to devolution as set out in their Memorandum of January 1977 are fully justified. That was a memorandum of which I reminded my right hon. Friend the Minister of State as soon as I knew that this debate on the Consolidated Fund would be taking place.

The Council continues: The administrative problems posed for the Board, in order to maintain the waterways under the 1968 Transport Act, would be particularly acute in Wales where canals are linked to England and indeed, cross in and out of the national frontier.In the case of the Scotland Bill, the situation could be further complicated by the Assembly's power to seek to alter the statutory duties to maintain the waterways.Our enclosed press release states the Council's considered view which has in no way changed. As you will see in the last paragraph, the Council emphasise that in their view devolution of inland waterways could not be of any benefit, hut if the Government feel for political reasons they must press for inland waterways to be devolved, then a safeguard such as that achieved by moving British Waterways Board waterways in the Scotland Bill from Part I to Part 11 of Schedule 13, and in the Wales Bill from Part I to Part II of Schedule 7, must be included as the Government accepted following discussions with the Council. The council goes on: However, in our discussions no assurances could be given that additional funds would be available immediately for the Board to cope with any major emergency should one occur in Scotland or Wales, and we share concern at any possibly hazardous delay which might endanger the public.The degree of concern the Government feels for canals in Scotland could best be demonstrated by the appointment of a Scottish Member to the British Waterways Board, as IWAAC and the Board have been urging the Government to do for some time. The IWAAC sticks to its considered view that the overwhelming belief held by the Scottish interests that Scotland's waterways should not be separated from the existing financial arrangements for the British Waterways Board should be maintained.

That is the opinion of the IWAAC. Let us go on to another informed body, the Seagull Trust, which is concerned with barges for the handicapped in Scotland. The Reverend Hugh Mackay says: In a rational world a responsible Government would be impressed by the fact that the Lords and the Select Committee of the Commons have come to the same conclusions on the desirable future of BWB, and would accordingly exclude inland waterways from the provisions of the Bill, and if the situation was anything like that I would advise IWAAC to go all out for total exclusion and the preservation of BWB as a United Kingdom body and a United Kingdom responsibility. Now I come to some additional information to that which I gave yesterday in the debate on the Transport Bill. It is from the BWB itself. Paragraph 4 of the Board's memorandum states that: At present the Board receives a grant which, together with revenue earned, meets the annual expenditure on all the Board's waterways. The Chief Engineer allocates money in his budgets according to the need for public safety, engineering maintenance or whatever, advised by engineering staff in different parts of the country. Therefore, if a known requirement should arise in Scotland the tilting of the engineering budgets towards Scotland can take place. Indeed, in recent years the Board have made a particular effort to improve the lock gates on the Caledonian Canal. Given that the Board had to obtain money from the Scottish Assembly for Scottish Canals, the opportunity to allocate money from south of the border would not be available. Paragraph 7 of the memorandum, which I quoted yesterday, states: The Board would welcome the appointment of Members representing the Scottish and Welsh interests. This matter is of course for the Secretary of State for the Environment. No approach has been made so far as Scotland is concerned…Lady White and Mr. Harrington happen to be Welsh but that is not the reason for their appointment. Paragraph 5 of the memorandum states: The main statutory responsibilities of the Board are contained in the 1962 and 1968 Transport Acts. The 1968 Act divides the canals in Scotland into two categories—the Caledonian and Crinan are Commercial Waterways, the lowland canals are Remainder Waterways. The Scottish Assembly, as a legislative body, could be in a position to amend the provisions of the 1968 Act. Most probably in a way which will save money i.e. the downgrading in category of the Caledonian and Crinan. As the Board understands it, the Assembly will be able to do this without reference to Westminster. There is one professionally experienced engineer in Scotland, based in Glasgow. He can at present call for support from his colleagues in the other engineering disciplines, namely, water, mechanical, electrical, and construction engineering, although he is a civil engineer. He can also call for professional advice from other departments of the Board, excluding legal advice. Its arrangements, therefore, provide the most economic way of handling the 130 miles of canal in Scotland. However, in the Board's view the canals in Scotland could not operate without duplicating all of the services presently provided by it. This would be expensive and the number of people with the professionally skilled knowledge to deal with canal problems is small. The board has most such people in its organisation.

Paragraph 11 is concerned with the Llangollen canal, which starts in Wales, flows south-cast into England, and returns north-east into Wales before finally returning to England. The reservoir in Wales is used to feed water for navigation and to supply the North West Water Authority, which has extensive storage facilities at Hurleston, in Cheshire. The precise position for covering the maintenance and control of this waterway under the Wales Act is not clear, but the Board expects that should any such order he devised by the Welsh Assembly the complexity of this waterway will be recognised and a rational solution found.

That is the BWB's concern about the situation. In the other place those who know about these things discussed them in the debate on 9th May. The Countess of Loudoun said: These waterways, or at least most of them, have been managed successfully by the British Waterways Board since January 1963 as a unified system, and the need for a national plan was acknowledged when the Water Act 1973 became law, and reaffirmed in paragraph 27 of the Green Paper about the future of the water industry. I can find no evidence of any great public pressure for inland waterways to be devolved. Lord Harvington said: This system should remain part of the general system, with the know-how of the British Waterways Board being put at the disposal of all the canals throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom. Viscount St. Davids pointed out: They have suffered under previous Governments, but they have almost suffered more under this Government. Until recently it was suggesed that British waterways should be cut into nine pieces under the regional water authorities. We had a lot of argument on that and the points were put clearly to the Government that the Board would not work well in nine pieces and the Government were persuaded—very rationally—that it really worked best as one organisation. Viscount Hanworth pointed out: by far the wiser course would be to divide tonight and eliminate this matter from the Bill. The only possible reason for including it is that it is a pawn in the political game of devolution. Lady Elliot of Harwood said: it is not practicable to devolve ministerial responsibility for the larger matter of inland waterways and competence to legislate on the subject but, at the same time, to reserve all powers relating to the British Waterways Board."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9th May 1978; Vol. 391, c. 904–11.] These people have experience in the industry.

I intend to be brief tonight. I have taken a great deal of time in this Parliament on the Scotland Bill.

I ask the final question: what is the purpose of breaking up the British Waterways Board, other than giving this Assembly something to do? This seems to be a political and not a technical decision. I do not want to use any handle to beat the Scotland Act, but that is a fair question which has not been discussed in this House. Why are we perpetrating the folly of breaking up the waterways board that has served canals and canal users well in the past?

4.33 a.m.

Photo of Mr Kenneth Marks Mr Kenneth Marks , Manchester, Gorton

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has a long-standing interest in British waterways, and there is no doubt that he has been long standing, too, on the Scotland and Wales Bills. He is genuinely concerned about the effect that devolution may have for the British Waterways Board and its work.

Before I explain why the Government wish to devolve inland waterways when the British Waterways Board is so opposed to the idea it would be as well if I clarified what devolution will and will not do for the waterways system.

My hon. Friend quoted a memorandum of January 1977. The Board says that that still represents its view. There have, however, been alterations in the proposals since they were published. We reviewed the relevant proposals in the Scotland and Wales Bills and the Government amended them so that devolution of powers related to the BWB will not take place until the Scottish Executive or the Welsh Assembly specifically request it. We do not believe that the Scottish Assembly would take such action if it felt that it would cost the people of Scotland a great deal more to maintain their canals.

We further amended these proposals to provide that the devolution of the British Waterways Board after a referendum of the Scottish and Welsh peoples, and after a Scottish Assembly or a Welsh Assembly had made the request, should still be dependent on an affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. I have no doubt that, should either of the Assemblies decide to make that request, the voice of my hon. Friend will be heard again in this House on the subject of whether that request should be granted, and this House will make the final decision on that.

The devolved Administrations will be able, if they wish, after consultation with the BWB, to seek the devolution of inland waterways and BWB. Should such a request be agreed by both Houses, the devolved Administrations could, if the relevant orders contain the necessary provisions, assume the powers to determine the policy for their canals and be responsible for their financing. The Scottish Assembly, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, would also have power, if it wished, to legislate to alter the arrangements for inland waterways in Scotland.

The Government's reasons for devolving inland waterways are that they can be dealt with suitably and conveniently in the context of water supply, recreation and the environment, as they are at the moment in the United Kingdom. Those responsibilities, too, are to be devolved. I appreciate that the Caledonian canal is a commercial canal. This was realised when the Langan locks problem was discussed and we made an additional grant for those locks. It was appreciated that the Caledonian canal has an important commercial factor, and that it is important for transferring smaller fishing boats from the North Sea to the Irish Sea and the Atlantic. Nevertheless, the bulk of the work in Scotland, as in England, remains with the Department of the Environment here, and the related work of recreation, water supply, and so on, remains with the Department.

The Government consider that the Scottish and the Welsh people ought to have the right to decide for themselves how their canals should be administered and financed. There are no physical links beween the waterway systems of England and Scotland, and few—my hon. Friend mentioned one—between England and Wales.

My hon. Friend argued that devolution will create difficulties for the British Waterways Board and will lead to its fragmentation, but I do not think that it would make sense for ministerial responsibility for the larger matter of inland waterways and the competence to legislate on the subject to be devolved while at the same time all powers relating to the Board were reserved. We took the view that arrangements for the Board should be related to those for inland waterways generally, and that these must be decided in the context of the Government's devolution policy as a whole.

Devolution will not necessarily cause the fragmentation of the Board; all it will do will be to provide that at the request of the devolved Administrations, and with the consent of this House, the Secretary of State may make an order giving them certain powers. But that could not mean dividing up the Board or its staff into separate units. All it would mean is that the Board would account separately to the Administrations for its operations in Scotland and Wales.

As to wastage of expert staff, I agree that the number of BWB staff in Wales and Scotland is only a small proportion of its total staff, but it is incomprehensible that the devolved Administrations and this House would contemplate changes that might affect these workers before discussing such changes fully both with the Board and with the unions concerned.

The House considered the functions of the BWB and inland waterways generally for several hours last night, so I do not intend to discuss its functions at length. But should the referendum decide to go for an Assembly, and should the Assem- blies in both countries, and the Scottish Executive, decide to make the request, the matter will again be debated here.