| Previous Section | Home Page |
New Clause 3
Local order-making power
.--( )-(1) This section applies where an application made under section 6 above relates to proposals which in the opinion of the Secretary of State are minor and of only local significance.
Column 509
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may determine that an application which is in his opinion minor and of only local significance shall be handled by the local planning authority for the area to which the proposal relates. (3) The Secretary of State shall make rules as to the way in which a local planning authority shall determine such applications, including--(a) arrangements for seeking views on the application ; (b) the consideration of objections to the proposals ; and (c) the handling of appeals against a decision of the local planning authority.
(4) The Secretary of State shall publish a guidance note setting out the factors he will take into account in determining whether proposals subject to applications under section 6 above minor and of only local significance.'.-- [Mr. Snape.]
Brought up, and read the First time .
Mr. Snape : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The clause seeks to introduce into the Bill a means by which minor schemes of only local significance can be determined locally. The Bill does not include a local order-making power as floated in the Government's original consultation document. That is of considerable concern to organisations such as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities whose members are at the forefront of the revival in interest in light railway schemes. The subject received cursory attention in Committee and I raise it to press the Government to reconsider.
The consultation paper on which the Bill's provisions are based said that the Government saw advantage in a three-tier approach "with some proposals being considered and approved locally, others by Ministers and a small minority being referred to Parliament". The Bill provides only for a two- tier approach, the local tier having disappeared. On the local tier, the consultation paper stated :
"If some proposals of essentially local significance can be authorised by local planning authorities there are likely to be some time savings. In practice many local and minor schemes may have to come to central government for approval, either because they involve compulsory land acquisition or because the works require scheduled monument consent. It will be for Parliament to decide whether or not to give local authorities powers to confer a defence on grounds of statutory authority to actions for nuisance which will be involved in many of the proposals at present authorised by private bill. Nevertheless the Government would welcome views, particularly from the local authority associations, about what local decision-making may be practicable."
What representations were received from local authority associations and why have they apparently been discarded? The Association of Metropolitan Authorities strongly supported the local-tier proposal, as did other local authority associations. They argued that it would be especially useful in relation to small modifications to previously approved schemes which frequently arise as a result of detailed design work and implementation following initial scheme approval.
On Second Reading, the Minister said that the Government had examined the scope for a separate regime for schemes
"so local in impact that they should be dealt with by local authorities. On examining the matter further, we have found them to be too few to warrant the legislative apparatus, including possible appeals, which would be required."--[ Official Report, 2 December 1991 ; Vol. 200, c. 44.]
We are not able to quantify the demand for that type of procedure, but we are advised that minor modifications to
Column 510
schemes are not infrequent and that under the proposed arrangements they would be subject to the full blown order- making procedure. It is certain that as further major public transport schemes are proposed and implemented, the number of such minor proposals will increase. In Committee, the Minister said :"Several points were put to us--not least by the Council on Tribunals--as a result of our consultations and we felt that it was best to keep one type of scheme in operation for all the orders"-- [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 January 1992 ; c. 373.] The Minister's officials have been a little more forthcoming. In correspondence with the AMA they raised a number of objections to the local tier of decision making. In a letter to the association, the Department stated :
"an important feature of all statutory authorised works is that they benefit from a common law defence of statutory authority against actions for nuisance arising from the proper operation of the undertaking. We had doubts about the propriety of delegating to local authorities the power (traditionally in the gift of Parliament of Ministers of the Crown) to confer such a privilege."
When stripped of the jargon so beloved of departmental civil servants, that means that they do not trust anybody but themselves to take decisions. It is important to remember that the consultation paper says that that issue should be decided by Parliament, but it looks as though it has been prejudged by the Under-Secretary and his fellow Ministers.
The Department of Transport also argued in writing to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that it
"foresaw problems with defining what constitutes a local scheme." That is the opposite of what the Minister said in Committee during discussions about similar matters. I shall paraphrase what he said, and I took him to mean that it was easy to define a local from a national scheme. If he did say that, perhaps he could persuade some of his advisers that that is the case, because they appear to think that the opposite is true. The definition of what constitutes a local scheme applies equally to the definition of schemes of national significance for the purposes of clause 9.
Mr. McLoughlin : I think that the hon. Gentleman is mixing different parts of what was said in Committee. His paraphrase of what I said is almost correct, and I shall not argue about the small details on which he is wrong. I said that schemes of national significance which were subject to the special parliamentary procedures that were laid down would be easily identifiable. I shall later deal with the problems in the new clause.
Mr. Snape : I probably did not paraphrase the Minister in as elegant a way as he delivered the original words. I thought that he said that national schemes were easy to quantify. Perhaps I read too much into what he said. I presumed that, if he could obviously identify national schemes, it would be fairly easy to say that the rest were local schemes. I have no doubt that the Minister will deal with that in his reply.
The absence from the Bill of a local tier is especially disturbing in the light of what the Minister said about a possible alternative route. Speaking to another clause to which the same principle applies, the Minister said :
"Clause 24 gives power to the Secretary of State to transfer certain classes of case to inspectors on the model of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 if experience shows that to be the best way of dealing with them." --[ Official Report, 2 December 1991 ; Vol. 200, c. 44.]
Column 511
The phrase "if experience shows" should cause us some concern. There can be no doubt of the existence of this group of minor modifications which require authorisation. For how long will they have to go through those expensive and time-consuming authorisation procedures before the Government introduce a streamlined and preferably locally based alternative route? If the Government cannot see the sense of the new clause, the use of clause 24 would become extremely important, and clarification of the Government's position on that clause is vital.Also important in the context of the debate is clause 6(4) which allows the Secretary of State to set different rules for applications for different types of scheme. If the Minister continues to resist the case for including in the Bill a local order-making power, will he agree to use the power in clause 6(4) to streamline the process for minor schemes?
The adoption of the provisions in the new clause will not only clarify this part of the Bill but make local order-making power easier and more democratic.
Mr. McLoughlin : As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) says, in some ways the new clause replicates one which we discussed, albeit briefly, in Committee. If my memory serves me right, "briefly" means that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) rose and said, "Why not?" and expected an answer. I accept that the consultation proposals contained the suggestion that local authorities should be able to decide on applications for orders which were minor and local in nature. I shall explain why we decided to drop that suggestion. We thought that there might be advantages to be gained in terms of time scale by deciding some applications locally. There was some support for the proposal from the local authority associations, but none of their responses identified any obvious or sizeable group of schemes suitable for treatment in this way which we thought would have justified the creation of a separate procedure.
Other responses to the consultation document, such as that from the Council on Tribunals, highlighted serious deficiencies in the proposal, and I fear that the same considerations apply to new clause 3. Our first difficulty was in deciding how to identify which schemes should be treated under a local procedure. Many small schemes might appear, initially, to be of only local significance because of their size. That factor alone would not, however, take into account the possibility that their environmental or economic effects could extend much more widely than the immediate vicinity of the works. 6.30 pm
Some schemes that are definitely minor and local may nevertheless cross local authority boundaries. These would be difficult to handle at local authority level and would probably require us to provide potentially complex procedural arrangements. There would be other handling problems for schemes--of which there could be many--which were promoted by local authorities themselves in their own area. In such cases, there would be understandable concern at the prospect of lcoal authorities applying to themselves for statutory authorisation for
Column 512
works, and we would certainly have to provide procedures for appeals to the Secretary of State and for the calling in of schemes by him.Many, if not most, orders under the new procedure will be likely to include proposals for the compulsory acquisition of land. It would be contrary to long-established policy for such matters to be decided other than by Parliament or Ministers of the Crown. There are similar doubts in some quarters about the propriety of allowing local authorities to confer statutory authority for works. Such authority carries with it a defence against actions for nuisance arising from the proper operation of an undertaking, and this will be a factor in most applications for railway and tramway orders.
Finally, we thought that the need to provide a mechanism for appeals to the Secretary of State against decisions by local authorities would remove any potential time benefits of local decision making. That would defeat the main purpose of setting up the procedure in the first place.
I should also take this opportunity to anticipate the amendments that we are proposing--Nos. 32 to 34--to clause 23 which takes a different approach to local schemes from new clause 3. I undertook in Committee to look again at the scope of the power to transfer classes of application to inspectors; our revised proposal is to exclude from the scope of clause 23 those applications which involve compulsory acquisition powers. I hope that Opposition Members will agree that clause 23 offers a more practical way of dealing with local schemes, and will agree to withdraw the new clause.
Mr. Snape : Although I understand the Minister's reluctance to commit himself in the way outlined in the new clause, I find some parts of his explanation less than satisfactory. It is all very well to say that it is hard to define the schemes that should be treated as local ; I should have thought that an element of common sense was required here. Obviously, if schemes cross local authority boundaries, they cannot be readily defined as local.
Some of the minor matters that are currently dealt with by means of the fairly cumbersome procedures of the House--and, in future, will be dealt with by means of the procedures proposed in the Bill, which appear to be equally cumbersome--really ought to be looked at again. We shall consult our noble Friends in another place about whether we should return to that point.
Surely it would be possible for Ministers to give local authorities delegated powers to deal with statutory agencies. Local authorities frequently act as agents for Her Majesty's Government when it comes to motorway works and repairs. Is there really any difference between that and delegating powers under the Bill?
As I have said, this aspect of the Bill will be considered again in another place, because we feel that more local democracy is necessary. The further down the democratic pipeline some of these decisions are made, the better. Having listened to the Minister' explanation, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Column 513
Clause 1
Orders as to railways, tramways etc
Mr. Snape : I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 1, line 17, at end insert--
(3) In exercising his power under this section the Secretary of State shall have no regard to the exercise of any power he may have to make any grant towards the cost of the construction or operation of the transport system proposed.'.
The amendment requires the Secretary of State not to have regard to any of his grant-making responsibilities when determining an order submitted to him under the provisions of part I. It is designed to secure assurances from Ministers on that important point. Local authorities with an interest in promoting, for example, light rail schemes broadly support part I, but there is some concern about the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport will be responsible both for authorising such schemes and for considering whether to grant-aid them. The authorities involved are keen to ensure that there is a clear distinction between the Secretary of State's two roles. Decisions on whether to make an order should relate to the need for the proposal in terms of transport policy, its implications for land use policies and other environmental effects. An order should not be rejected because the Secretary of State is not in a position to provide grant for it or because he fears that it may not meet the grant criteria that he has laid down.
I do not think that it is the role of the Department of Transport to try to second-guess--or, in the case of some schemes, to first-guess or out-guess- -the Treasury. After all, as someone far more eminent than I recently said, as the best brains of the nation are collected together in Whitehall in order to say no to every public-sector scheme put to them, the Department of Transport ought to allow them to do just that, rather than saying no on their behalf for reasons other than those outlined in the amendment. Confirmation that the Secretary of State will distinguish between the two functions is, in our view, vital.
Authorities' concerns have been exacerbated by the proposal in the draft applications and objections procedure rules circulated recently by the Department of Transport that an application for an order should be accompanied by
"an estimate (with breakdown of items) of the cost of implementing the proposed order".
Confirmation that the information on costs requested with an application will be no greater than that required under the current private Bill procedures would also be helpful.
Mr. McLoughlin : Again, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has made his point well and, in normal circumstances, we agree with the course that he urges on us. That is why, in paragraph 21 of the consultation document "Private Bills and New Procedures", we said :
"There will be cases where promoters of orders (eg to authorise light rapid transit systems) will also be applying to the Secretary of State for Transport for a grant towards the costs of their scheme. The Government recognises that the dual functions of deciding whether or not to make the order and whether or not to give grant or to approve investment will need to be kept separate. The Secretary of State will decide the case for statutory authorisation and the case for financial support independently and on their own merits." I do not believe that there could be a clearer statement of the policy. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it goes further than grant, which his amendment mentions,
Column 514
although grants under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 will be important in this context. The operator might also need loan sanction of some kind, or credit approval. That, too, ought to be kept apart from the consideration of the planning merits--in its widest sense--of the order. It is one reason why, in clause 20, we remove the need for BR and LRT to obtain consent before depositing an order, as they must for a Bill. That requirement never applied to local authorities or to passenger transport executives.That does not mean, however, that I support the amendment. It is undesirable and unnecessary. It is undesirable because it could be unfair to those adversely affected and to other objectors. If the Secretary of State receives an application for an order and the promoter has no hope of financing the work for the foreseeable future, should the Secretary of State really have no regard to that, even if he has a power to grant-aid the works? His proper course must surely be to turn the applicant away, so as not to inconvenience grossly those whose property and lives would be affected.
The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, is thinking of local authorities, and I am sure that we would all agree that we hope that they would not do such a thing. Would he think the same about private bodies? They, too, are eligible under section 56 for grants. I might add--to forestall the request for an example--that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) put one before us a little while ago.
The amendment is unnecessary because, in making decisions on these orders, the Secretary of State must have regard only to the evidence presented at the inquiry, if there is one, or to the written representations, if there is not. He must not take account of what he might do about grant or loans or any other extraneous matter. If he were to do that, he could be challenged in the courts, either by the applicant or by the objectors. He must have good reasons for his decisions on orders, and they must be made public. So there is ample opportunity to check that decisions have been made for proper reasons.
Mr. Snape : If that is the case, why, in the draft procedure rules recently circulated by the Department, is there provision for "an estimate (with breakdown of items) of the cost of implementing the proposed order"?
The Minister will forgive me for being somewhat suspicious if I feel that price has at least as large a part to play in the Secretary of State's decision-making process as necessity.
Mr. Moate : I have been listening with interest to this exchange. I wonder whether my hon. Friend might also respond to some concern that is felt on this side of the House. I see the difficulty involved in legislating, but my hon. Friend's answer seems to suggest that a Secretary of State could build Chinese walls within himself. On the one hand, he would have to make a quasi-judicial decision ; on the other hand, he could be the banker. My hon. Friend has said that there is no problem. Is he saying quite clearly that if, for financial reasons, the evidence of the inquiry were disregarded, the decision could be challenged in court? Is that the point that he is making? If so, the Chinese wall that we like to think might exist will be reinforced.
Mr. McLoughlin : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not using the trick that I understand my noble Friend Lord
Column 515
Whitelaw used when he was thinking about the answer to a question--the device of coughing and spluttering, and stopping the interview until he got a message. I shall have no trouble in responding in due course. The trouble about the notes that one receives from one's officials is that one cannot read them. Obviously the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East wishes to make a point, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate).Mr. Snape : Perhaps I should intervene again to enable the Minister to look a little more carefully at his official's note. For all I know, it may well say that the amendment is not only eminently sensible but also acceptable. If it does say so, will the Minister put us out of our misery?
Mr. McLoughlin : I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the note does not say that.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the fact that we circulated the draft rules. He has rightly said that they are draft rules. Obviously representations will be made in respect of some of the points that he has raised, and in the light of them amendments may be made. But cost is an important point, as the hon. Gentleman must recognise. Surely he would not want to encourage a local authority to come forward with a scheme that might cause great inconvenience to local people if the authority had no way of funding that scheme. The blight that might be caused is also a serious concern to local residents. We have all seen how damaging blight, or the possibility of blight, can be.
Let me come now to the matter of the public inquiry. Let us imagine that the objectors question the economic viability of the scheme and successfully demonstrate that there could be no public benefit from construction, that the cost-benefit ratio was so awful that even the hon. Gentleman might not grant-aid it. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that money will be free-flowing ; nor do I think that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) suggests that money will be free- flowing, whatever the circumstances. Given the other claims for finance that are likely to be faced, would it be right to amend the Bill so that the Secretary of State would have to have no regard to their evidence, even though the objectors, including environmental groups, had shown that the economic case for the scheme was so weak that grant could never be justified? I think not, as I imagine Opposition Members probably think not, because the environmental damage done by the scheme could not be justified as against the public benefit from it. Apart from that, such a provision would mean that the effect of blight would be extended until the grant application had been rejected and the scheme failed as a consequence.
Let me sum up. First, to achieve what he wants to achieve, the hon. Gentleman should have gone further. Secondly, we have every intention, in normal cases, to keep separate whether a scheme has planning merit and whether it should be grant-aided and, if so, when. Thirdly, if the Secretary of State takes into account improperly the way in which he might use his grant powers when making a decision on an order, he will be subject to judicial review. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is not here, but I should say that I am aware of his point
Column 516
about the last stop. Obviously the last stop is considered carefully by the Secretary of State when these points are put forward.This amendment is far too rigid and would lead to inquiries and decision which, for the reasons that I have given, could prejudice many ordinary people and environmental groups. I hope that the Opposition will feel able to withdraw it.
6.45 pm
Mr. Snape : I am a little taken aback. First, the Minister tells me how sensible my amendment is ; then he berates me for having the temerity to move it in the first place. I must warn him that, after the election, he had better destroy the missive that he somewhat belatedly received. Otherwise, if this is the kind of reaction that we are to expect, we might check the handwriting and take appropriate action.
I understand only too well the financial implications of some of these schemes. All that my amendment proposes is that those implications should not be the reason for rejection of schemes within the Department. All too often the suspicion is that that is just how things are done. If there is one great thing wrong with the planning procedures, especially in respect of public works in this country, it is that all too often the money is decided first and the scheme tailored accordingly. I am merely trying to prevent the Minister, in his few remaining weeks in office, from falling any further into those bad habits.
However, having said, as we did earlier, that we are prepared to accept any crumbs that we can get--if not from the rich man's table, then from the Minister's--I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2
Extension of section 1to other guided transport systems
Mr. McLoughlin : I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 21, leave out from instrument' to House' in line 22 and insert ; but no order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each'.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 19.
Mr. McLoughlin : These two amendments fulfil an undertaking that I gave in Committee to provide what at least the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will regard as a better form of parliamentary scrutiny of ministerial orders that prescribe modes of guided transport and descriptions of works which interfere with rights of navigation and therefore extend the scope of the order-making powers under clauses 1 and 3.
Ms. Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) : It is always nice to get to the stage of having secured some concessions from the Government. We are grateful for those.
There is one aspect on which I should like to press the Minister further, relating to Government amendment No. 19. Why does not the amendment apply to the whole of clause 3? Clearly it is important that we have the
Column 517
affirmative resolution procedure. Perhaps I should try to string out my comments so that the relevant message, in the relevant handwriting, can reach the Minister.As things stand, I do not know whether the Minister has been generous in respect of amendment No. 19, or whether he is trying to give the impression that it relates to all the concerns that we expressed in Committee. What worries me is that what he has come up with, in the shape of amendment No. 19, relates only to such things as tidal barrages, and not to the wider issues of canals and rivers. How generous is the Minister actually being? Why do these amendments not go further? Why do they not extend to the whole of clause 3? Can the Minister, either at this stage or at some later stage, give us some assurance about this matter?
Mr. McLoughlin : The amendment certainly fulfils the commitment that we gave in Committee. I think that I pointed out in Committee the difficulties that we would have in extending this all the way along the line, and that there was not the need. We shall come at a later stage to some of the points about waterways that the hon. Lady may want to talk about.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3
Orders as to inland waterways, etc.
Mr. McLoughlin : I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 3, leave out use' and insert operation'.
Madam Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to consider the following : Amendment No. 54, in page 2, line 15, at end insert-- (4) The reference in subsection (1)(b)(i) above to rights of navigation in waters does not include any right to use or keep any vessel on those waters.'.
Government amendment No. 53.
Mr. McLoughlin : Somewhat unusually, I find myself in the position of moving an amendment with the support of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I am almost sure that he ought to be moving the amendment, because I added my name to the amendment after he had tabled it.
As members of the Committee already know, I have listened carefully to the advice of those who represent users of inland waterways. We have been grateful for their constructive comments, and have agreed that some adjustments to the Bill, like this one, are desirable. The effect of changing the term "use" to "operation" will make for consistency between the clause 3 and the clause 1 order-making power. It will also reassure the users of waterways that the essential purpose of the Bill is for orders to deal with the construction and management of works rather than their abandonment or redevelopment. I am sure that the House will support amendment No. 1 and the consequential amendment to the long title in amendment No. 53. I understand that amendment No. 54 reflects the concerns of the Inland Waterways Association to protect the position of houseboat owners in certain waters. The association has noted that the parliamentary orders under the Transport Act 1968, which we propose to preserve under amendment No. 24, include the power to interfere with the right to keep a vessel or craft on a canal or inland waterway. The IWA's argument is that ministerial orders
Column 518
under clause 3(1)(b), which deal with matters outside inland waterways, should not have that power because they are not subject to parliamentary approval.I cannot accept that it would be reasonable to fetter the Secretary of State's powers as the amendment proposes. Currently, if a Transport Act order is not required, the arrangements for houseboat owners in a works scheme can be made under a private Bill, and there is no reason why a future order under this Bill should not be allowed to make similar arrangements. The position of moorings may be crucial to a particular works scheme under clause 3(1)(b), but it would be for the promoter to convince the Secretary of State and any local inquiry that his proposals were justified. The objections of local boat owners would have to be taken into account, along with the provisions of any existing local enactments and local mooring contracts. Compensation would be available to anyone who had proper rights to moor.
My officials have discussed amendment No. 54 with representatives of the IWA and the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council. I hope that, in view of its impracticality, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish will agree not to press it.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : I am grateful to the Minister for adding his name to amendment No. 1. It will go some way towards reassuring canal users. However, some of them feel that a move is afoot to increase mooring charges. If some of the moorings that are lost are cheap moorings, people may be forced to pay substantially more for new moorings. I realise that this issue overlaps issues that are dealt with in the private Bill which, I believe, is still in the other place. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will make it clear that this clause is not intended to be used as a reason for increasing mooring charges on canals.
Ms. Walley : It is strange for an amendment to be tabled not just in the name of the Secretary of State for Transport but also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It shows that genuine concerns were expressed by the Opposition in the early stages of the Committee proceedings. It would be appropriate at this stage to remind the Minister of the widespread concern among those who are worried about the future of our inland waterways. I am grateful that the amendment has been tabled and that flexibility about amending the Bill has been shown in order to meet many of the concerns expressed by the Inland Waterways Association and others. There are about 24,672 readers of Waterways World. I have it on good authority that each copy of that magazine bought is read by three other people. The amount of correspondence that we have received shows that absolutely everybody connected with inland waterways is concerned about this issue. That is why the amendment is so important.
It would be worth while to set out how we have reached this stage. We debated this issue for many hours in Committee. We appreciated the opportunity to have consultations with the Minister. However, those consultations ought to have taken place much earlier. There might never have been so much misunderstanding, mistrust and suspicion among all those who use our inland waterways if consultation had taken place much earlier. Nevertheless, amendment No. 1 does not go--surprise, surprise--far enough for us. I intend to explain briefly why.
Column 519
We accept that it is perfectly in order for work on canals to take place or for new transport systems to be constructed over, on or below them. However, we do not believe that the definition should be widened. Mistrust has been created by our attempts to try to clarify where responsibilities begin and end. We do not believe that they are set out clearly enough in the definition. I agree with those who criticise those parts of the Bill that deal with inland waterways that ancillary works necessitated by new transport systems could still be carried out under clause 1 and clause 3. No one could blame those concerned for being suspicious. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish referred to the fact that a private Bill is being considered in another place which is causing even greater anxiety than there was to begin with.There appears to have been piecemeal privatisation of the inland waterways, which has caused much concern and outrage. The question is whether amendment No. 1, to substitute the word "operation" for the word "use" in clause 3, with consequential amendment of the long title to correspond, will remove the general powers aspect from the Bill and ensure that only orders referring to the operation of waterways rather than to their use or extinguishment come within the scope of the clause.
My concern is that orders relating to use or extinguishment could still be made under clause 3. The use of a waterway could be terminated or curtailed as a matter ancillary to the carrying out of works under clause 3. We need an absolute assurance from the Minister that, as the Bill stands and as it might stand under future regulations, we have secured this narrow definition of what would or would not be approved under the order-making procedure.
Orders about use or extinguishment might be made as a matter ancillary to the construction or operation of a waterway. For example, a main line waterway might gain more water for its operations by filling in a branch that took water to work a lock. These are fairly technical matters, and not ones with which I am wholly familiar. I understand, however, that my hon. Friends are very concerned about this issue, too. The abandonment of a branch would be ancillary to the operation of the main line, and could be carried out by order under clause 3. I hope that that will give some idea why we feel that even the new definition in the amendment does not take us far enough.
On consultation generally, we are still concerned that there is no parliamentary procedure for orders under clause 3. I accept that we might return to this matter, but it relates to the scope of the amendments before us. The Minister may point out that there is provision for consultation and appeal in the public inquiry process, but most of that will be left to discretion and subordinate legislation. We are concerned that subordinate legislation will be involved. We would like an assurance that no loss of consultation or right of appeal will result from the substitution of a system of orders under the Bill for the private Bill system that exists now. Amendment No. 54 is designed to clarify what is meant by "rights of navigation" in clause 3(1)(b)(i). It is intended to prevent a temporary order from interfering on a long-term basis with a boat mooring, landing stage or anything else that a person has a right to keep on the
Column 520
rivers. We would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm whether "rights of navigation" are intended to include the right to keep a vessel or anything else on the waterways.7 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : Will my hon. Friend press the Minister on the question of the width of the canal, because I am concerned about traditional boats being able to get through? I understand that, in at least one example, the British Waterways Association has fractionally narrowed the width of a lock gate and, as a result, a whole group of boats is unable to use that stretch of canal.
Ms. Walley : When I said that my hon. Friends knew more about these technical matters than I do, I did not expect such an immediate example. My hon. Friend has made a good point. If the width or gauge--or whatever is the correct navigational term--is too small and is preventing the effective operation of the waterways system, my hon. Friend is right to press the Minister for an assurance that the waterways system will not be restricted because of such a technical matter. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that. As I said, amendment No. 54 deals with the right to keep a vessel or anything else on the waterways. It is important because the definition in the Transport Act 1968 is wide. It relates specifically to the right to keep a vessel or craft on the water. The problem is that there is no definition in the Bill. Therefore, there is an anomaly. We should know what the Bill is supposed to cover, and I hope that the Minister can clarify it.
It is fair to say that all those connected with the waterways movement-- avid readers of Waterways World, those who keep boats on the waterways or those who just enjoy walking along them--are concerned that no attempt has been made by the Government to restrict the powers in the Bill to temporary works on waterways. The Inland Waterways Association and its friends continue to remain suspicious that the Bill's real intention is to close waterways and build transport systems along their dry beds. I should be concerned if we did not get the assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has asked. We do not want to see the decline of our waterways in that way.
No protection against temporary closure exists in part VII of the Transport Act 1968, and none is proposed in the Bill. Rights of navigation still exist on rivers. It would be helpful if the Minister could assure us that any modification or suspension of navigation rights will be temporary and will be kept within reasonable time limits should works be proposed on rivers under clause 3. I should like to remind the Minister that consultation with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council exists for only two thirds of inland waterways in the country. It is concerned only with waterways under the ownership or management of the British Waterways board, whereas the Bill affects all waterways. It is important that some consideration should be given to whether the IWAAC's remit could be extended to cover all waterways since it is clear that many important issues are related to the operations that could come about as a result of the Bill and the amendments. If we are to feel that we have the safeguards we want, IWAAC needs some teeth in any Government review.
Column 521
I hope that the Minister can reassure us on the issues that I have outlined. Such reassurances might further reduce the suspicion that still exists among those who use inland waterways.Mr. Spearing : I must declare an interest, as I have been a member of the Inland Waterways Association for many years. I said in Committee that the way in which the Government have handled clause 3 is totally unsatisfactory and does not bring any assurance of their good faith. That was said time and again in Committee, and it should be said again now and quoted chapter and verse.
The canals in Britain have been a matter of controversy for many years. The foundation Act, the Transport Act 1968, which was the responsibility of my noble Friend Lady Castle was a landmark--or a watermark. For the first time, it provided protection for amenity waterways that were part of the landscape and heritage of the country and not just for recreational or transport use. The water was first ruffled--to use an analogy--during the passage of the Water Bill in 1973, when there was a proposal to absorb the whole of the then co-ordinated waterways system under the British Waterways Board into the regional water authorities then being proposed. An enormous public campaign ensued and the canals were detached, fortunately, from that important Act.
After that, the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council was appointed by the House as a statutory body specifically to look after the amenity aspects of the waterways. Yet, as we saw in Committee, in the Government's response to the Select Committee on Procedure's report on private Bills, there was no hint that inland waterways would be an integral part of the Bill.
The original hearings of that Committee dealt with harbours. In a harbour, particularly at its upper end, there is frequently a relatively short stretch of inland waterway or impounded harbour. That was the first issue that we were aware of that related to waterways. In Committee, I challenged the Minister to say when these matters were first brought to the attention of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council.
We heard in the end--the Minister cannot deny this--that, as late as October last year, the Minister's official representative on that waterways statutory Committee did not give any notice of the intention to include new clause 3. When the Minister replied to the quotations from parliamentary answers which I read into column 118 of the report of the Committee's proceedings, he could say only that the hon. Member had the Command Paper from which I read, but he could not deny my charge that inland waterways were not included. We got off to a bad start, and I hope that the Minister will agree that I have not been unfair in my broad description of events.
It is even more of a shame that we cannot make further progress on the report. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) properly said that one part of a waterway will have an intimate effect on another, even the impounding of the headwater which forms the reservoir at the summit of any canal system. A reservoir usually has no navigable connection with the rest of the canal system but is an amenity which is usually and almost entirely owned by the British Waterways Board. It is very valuable property.
| Next Section
| Home Page |