House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 May 1993

Mr. Baldry : Boat users contribute 12 per cent. of the costs of British Waterways.

Ms Short : I am grateful to the Minister--the figure is 12 per cent. I am worried by those two figures. The Minister also said--and I think that it is in the framework of law--that British Waterways is required to make a commercial return as often as it can. The logic of that is that it will seek to make more and more charges. We all agree that charges for some additional services would be reasonable, but I remain worried that that might lead to charging for basic uses of the waterways. I hope that more undertakings will be given in Committee.

Mr. Bennett : I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that a charge is no longer made for a general bicycle permit. Many people, certainly those on the canals around Greater Manchester, are concerned that there is competition between walkers, horse riders--riding horses on towpaths is a traditional activity--and cyclists--who have been using the towpaths for at least 70 years. Earlier this century, cycling was an important means of getting from the locks. There is considerable wear and tear on the towpaths. It has been suggested that one way to ration the use of towpaths would be to insist on permits for cyclists and horse riders and, possibly, on a charge for walkers. I realise that it is difficult to maintain towpaths for those three activities. I hope that my hon. Friend will seek assurances that there is no intention to circumvent that rationing or sharing policy by imposing charges.

Ms. Short : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who elaborates the general worries that I am trying to describe. I am sure that he will seek his own assurances. I am not

Column 86

certain that we shall obtain any more assurances today than those we have been given by the Minister and the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West. The Committee that discusses the Bill should return to the subject and table amendments to protect people's right to enjoy the canals.

I said that there were three reasons why the Labour party originally had doubts about the Bill. The first related to the drive to privatise or make commercial development the Bill's overwhelming purpose. Protection against those moves is afforded by the strength of clause 23 and relevant amendments. We have discussed the possibility of charges ; I have stated that I do not believe there is strong enough protection and I hope that the Committee will return to the subject. The third reason for our doubts involves the impositions on boat owners.

There is absolutely no doubt that major concessions and changes have been made to the Bill due to the very reasonable objections and petitions of boat owners and those who live in boats. Those fears have been considered in our second Chamber. However, I have a letter from the Residential Boat Owners Association which was passed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. I noticed that he was honorary president of the association, so I thought that I should take the letter seriously.

It seems to summarise the remaining concerns of residential boat owners. We all know that they have been very concerned, and that many negotiations have taken place and many concessions have been made. The letter summarises the association's three remaining concerns. It states that its first concern relates to clause 13(1) and schedule 1. The letter states that the provisions lay down that

"the Board would have the right to terminate a houseboat certificate if the houseboat or any equipment is having a detrimental effect on the amenities of the locality on the site.' This clause is the same as in the Mobile Homes Act, and in the Mobile Homes Survey (1992) published by the Department of the Environment it was shown that this provision is open to subjective judgment and therefore to abuse. It would be better to write any regulations about the condition of a residential boat and its mooring into the local mooring agreement rather than fix it in statute."

I hope that we will get an answer to that point from the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West.

The association's second anxiety has to do with clause 15, which is about penalties. The association suggests that the board already has enough penalty-making powers and does not need more. It suggests consolidation of existing legislation. The same point was made in the House of Lords Select Committee report. We hope for an answer from the Bill's sponsor.

The third concern of the association is that it would like to amend section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 to permit the owners of boats seized by the board to have immediate access to their possessions on the boats. I understand that that provision had been removed or softened, but I hope that the sponsor will be able to give me an assurance on that--

Mr. Robert B. Jones : To respond to the hon. Lady's point about dangerous or deleterious houseboats : I understand that the Department of the Environment is reviewing the relevant part of the mobile homes legislation because it has not worked terribly well in practice. I am happy to add that the BWB is looking into that and is in negotiation with the association whose concerns the hon. Lady has read out to try to resolve the matter amicably.

Column 87

Ms Short : I am grateful for that. It still leaves the two other points. Perhaps if I give the hon. Gentleman a copy of the association's letter he may be able to help us further. For people who live on boats, this is a serious matter because all their property can be seized. I had understood that the danger had now diminished, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can fill us in on that later.

My final point is to be found in paragraph 54 of the Select Committee's report. It has to do with the relationship between the BWB and those who live on and enjoy boats. The report says that that relationship has been poor, and that consultation and complaints procedures have been poor. I am glad of the progress represented by the commitment to an ombudsman. If he or she is to have the power to make binding arbitration, he or she will be much more powerful than, say, the local government ombudsman. I know of a frustrating case in which the latter ruled against a local councillor, but there has been a refusal to implement the ruling.

We expect more problems in this area, even with the best will in the world. There are 20,000 boats on our canal system, 2,000 of them with no moorings. We want people to enjoy their boats, but the chances are that more and more of them will want to mess around in boats. More and more people in our estuaries have nowhere to moor their boats, and they are beginning to interfere with the wildlife. Given that increasing ownership, there will have to be some regulation to protect the quality of our canals. Similarly, although there are 169 authorised houseboats, we know that there are another 1,000 that are unauthorised--a serious problem. Clearly, we need permanent, good moorings for people who want to live in their boats. The BWB has made some major concessions to allow those with no authorised moorings a longer time in which to acquire authorised moorings. I am still worried that the BWB may not give undertakings to all who register in the hope of getting moorings that they will be certain of acquiring them. Under the Bill, it remains possible that some people who have lived in boats for a long time will not be offered permanent moorings after the transitional period. There is certainly no absolute assurance of that.

Mr. Robert B. Jones : May I offer the hon. Lady a personal observation? I have dealt with the BWB throughout the 10 years I have been in the House. At first, I thought that it was awful and unresponsive. It is still not perfect--none of us is--but the improvement over the years has been immense. I am happy to pay tribute to the local staff of the BWB for their responsiveness now.

Ms Short : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman ; what he says is good. When I first came to the House 10 years ago--it sometimes feels longer--I used to receive a lot of letters about trivial matters that troubled people living on boats--disputes that should have been resolvable without involving a Member of Parliament. There has indeed been a considerable improvement. I maintain, however, that the possibilities for conflict, if everyone is not guaranteed a mooring, are great. We need fair consultative procedures so that boat users can agree certain standards. Then, if certain irresponsible owners will not comply, they will know that the standards have been reasonably arrived at.

John Stuart Mill said in his lovely little book "On Liberty" that we will truly know that we live in a free society when there are plenty of eccentrics living in it.

Column 88

During the past 15 years or so, perhaps we have got rid of some of our eccentrics--but some of them remain, living on, caring for and loving their boats. It is important that each of them has the right to complain and to be protected. British Waterways will find that it can deal with some of the awkward customers more easily if it has first consulted the majority of boat users and implemented standards with their support.

Many of our initial concerns have been met. I have outlined the remaining ones, which I hope will be satisfied by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West and in Committee.

8.6 pm

Sir Anthony Durant (Reading, West) : I claim to be one of the eccentrics who takes an active interest in boats, who owns a boat and who spends a lot of time with them.

I speak for the Inland Waterways Association in this debate, and I am chairman of the parliamentary waterways group, which position I took over from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones). The IWA has negotiated with the BWB for many months ; there has been a great deal of toing and froing between the two bodies. The IWA has also fully consulted its members.

The IWA supports in principle three items in the Bill : the emergency powers of entry, the standards of construction and insurance, and houseboat regulation. It agrees with these items for safety reasons.

Some people who live along the edge of canals are still worried, however, about the emergency powers of entry. I hope that the BWB will use them only in extremis, when banks have burst and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has asked me particularly to mention this matter, as some of his constituents who live right on the canals are worried about the powers being used too arbitrarily. I hope that the board will bear that in mind. The IWA has received a number of commitments from the board, and they are on record, but the association is worried that they might not necessarily be incorporated in the Bill. So I am here to make sure that they are put on record in the debate.

Five points are material : first, the powers to prevent mooring and to refuse to license boats on the grounds that a mooring is unsuitable--this refers to clauses 17, 18 and 20 in part III. There have been some negotiations on this, and I hope that the promises that have been made will be honoured. The Wooden Canal Craft Trust, another boating organisation, is particularly worried on this score. I understand that clause 25, which deals with powers to dispose of property and subsidiaries, is to be deleted. I welcome that, but seek reassurance that it is to be deleted. The omission of the Inland Waterways Association from the boat standards appeal panel is causing concern. That panel will examine boat standards, and it is right that there should be a meeting of minds of those who run the waterways, those who use them and boat owners so that some principles are established for boat standards.

Those who enforce standards can be stroppy and difficult, and that is a deterrent to some boat owners whose vessels, although beautiful, are old. They were built at a time when the rules were not as stringent as they are now,

Column 89

and it is as well to bear that in mind when examining boat standards. The IWA would like to be on the panel and explain those anxieties.

Clauses 28, 29 and 30 deal with the power to reduce the rights of commercial shipping in docks. We have been given promises about those clauses and want to see them amended. There are to be powers to limit the opening hours of locks on the Severn. It is odd that British Waterways is moving in that direction, when the authority for the Thames is trying to find ways to keep the locks open longer. It is considering electronic equipment so that a licensed boat owner can insert a card in a slot to switch on the electricity and work the lock. Shorter opening hours will deter boating, and I am concerned about that.

Clause 32 will delete from the Severn Navigation Act 1842 the rights on the opening of locks. The clause that seems to be causing most concern is clause 27. Much time was spent on that in the House of Lords, especially debating the rights of those who have ownership rights along a canal. In the Act that created the grand junction canal 200 years ago this year, great consideration was given to the rights of people who lived anywhere near it. It stated :

"Canal may be made through Mrs. Seare's Pleasure Grounds under certain Restrictions. No Lock to be erected within a Mile of Mrs. Seare's Land at Bulbourne without her Consent. No Injury to be done to the Mills of the Hon. Mrs. Leigh."

That Act of 1793 in the reign of George III took great care over people's rights, and I am concerned that clause 27 will work against such rights. The Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union have now agreed with British Waterways about examining clause 27 but the IWA is still concerned about rights.

One of the purposes of the clause is to raise more revenue for the BWB. That has been mentioned in the debate, and it is in line with the plan produced by the Department of the Environment in 1989. Perhaps the clause should not be in a Private Member's Bill ; if people's rights are to be rescinded, that should be done in a public Bill.

As I have said, the IWA is concerned about some parts of the Bill. Many concerns have been allayed because the Bill's promoter and the BWB have been helpful in every respect. I know that their intentions are honourable and that they are trying to improve the system and to assist those who use the waterways and those who live alongside them. I hope that the concerns I have mentioned will be considered by the BWB before it makes its final decision.

8.13 pm

Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : In this debate, I speak as a constituency Member and not as a party representative. My involvement in the issue arises from being the Member of Parliament for the Caledonian canal, which connects the lochs forming the basic part of the Great Glen which gashes across Scotland. The major loch, Loch Ness, contains my well-known constituent, the monster. I hope that there are no suggestions that the monster should be in any way licensed because that would be resisted, not least by the gentleman himself.

Ms Short : Is the hon. Gentleman sure that it is not a she?

Column 90

Sir Russell Johnston : Although the monster has been seen, it has never been heard, and therefore it cannot be female. I say that with due deference to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Ms Short : That is uncharacteristically ungracious of the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he might like to reconsider his remarks. I invite him to do so.

Sir Russell Johnston : I am sorry if I offended the hon. Lady. I had no intention of offending anybody.

The most remarkable thing about the exercise that has brought the Bill to the House is the amount of mistrust among many waterway users of the good will of the board. That has been most noticeable. It is significant that not one of the hundreds of letters that I receive every week has argued that I should vote for the Bill--apart from letters from the BWB. I am speaking not just about last week but about the time since the exercise started. That was not always so and I am not clear about how the change came about.

The hon. Members for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) said that things have got a bit better than they were 10 years ago. When I entered the House nearly 30 years ago, things were quite good. The last time that I had substantial dealings with the board was in the early 1970s when the Laggan locks on the Caledonian canal gave way, leading to the canal becoming blocked. We had much help from the then Minister, now Lord Howell, and there was general good will.

Some hon. Members may recollect Sir Frank Price, who was a chippie sort of chap. He was the chairman of the board and engaged in many consultations. I am not sure how much account he took of those consultations, but he was often to be seen. Over the next decade, there was silence, which I mistakenly assumed to be benign. No one wrote to me to say that the BWB was behaving badly, so I presumed that it was not and followed the generally sound political principle of letting sleeping dogs lie.

However, perhaps it was also germane that the BWB, which until then had maintained regular contact by way of meetings at least annually, also reduced its level of contact. Whatever the reasons and in the case of the Caledonian canal--I cannot speak for the rest of the system--part of the reduction must have arisen from managerial centralisation, which removed decisive, responsible people. One such person was Brian Davenport, a rather fiery chap who was in charge of the Caledonian canal when I entered Parliament. One could contact him quickly and easily. However, control passed to Glasgow ; although Glasgow was not far away in one sense, in another it was quite a distance, and I do not mean simply in terms of miles.

Whatever the reason, the relationship declined and quietly and insidiously soured. I am sure that the present chairman, David Engman, whom I have met three times, is seeking to repair the situation that he has inherited, but I fear that that which is desired has yet entirely to be achieved. Mistrust certainly runs deep, and although much progress has been made in alleviating concerns, many remain. To put it in a nutshell, British Waterways portrays the Bill as being about safety and environmental improvement

Column 91

and many of the punters think that it is about more money for the board and more impositions on them. That fear may or may not be justified.

The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West, who made a fair speech when he introduced the Bill, dwelt for some time on the problems of access. I do not deny that there can be problems, but I do not think that there is a significant general cause for concern. An interesting, almost amusing, exchange of letters passed across my desk--at the end of last month, so it is quite up to date. It was about a long dispute that one of my constituents, Mr. David Stevenson, has been having with British Waterways about land ownership in Gairlochy, which is at one end of the Caledonian canal.

It would be inappropriate to go into too much detail, but I shall quote a letter from British Waterways' solicitor who says, inter alia--all lawyers say that, and this chap certainly writes a good lawyer's letter--

"it seems that the dispute has been escalated by his"--

that is Mr. Stevenson's--

"removing and replacing of the padlock on the gate to a roadway which he and the Board use for access purposes and which runs across the land which is the subject of the dispute. Previously, each of the parties had held keys to the padlock, which is a position we wish to revert to pending the outcome of investigation."

In his letter, Mr. Stevenson says :

"Mr. Duffy states the dispute has been escalated by me This is simply not true. One of their customers smashed the gate and despite being pressed by letter on numerous occasions British Waterways declined or refused to have it repaired. Highland Regional Council insisted that the gate be kept shut and supervised in the interest of safety. Therefore I had no alternative but to repair the gate and provide a lock. One of the Waterways supervisors has been provided with a key".

There we have two contradictory statements on a relatively minor matter. The hon. Member for Ladywood said that when she first became a Member of Parliament she received quite a number of letters dealing with smallish matters that should not have reached a Member of Parliament. However, that was an interesting exchange.

I know Mr. Stevenson well and he is an honest man. I do not believe that he would write lies. There is a general lack of confidence in what the board does. The Minister has been categorical, in response to points made by the hon. Member for Ladywood, in denying that there was any hidden agenda on privatisation. However, many people think there is a hidden agenda only if it is one of more regulations and more cost being laid upon them. They are not sure of the board. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made the good point that many of the advantages listed by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West were slowly extracted from the r A. Durant), who is chairman of the parliamentary group, went through the views of the Inland Waterways Association. Its most recent letter refers to the ombudsman. I am not sure what powers this man--or woman : I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Ladywood--this person may have, or the terms of reference under which he will operate. It is

Column 92

interesting that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West implied that that would be done, and soon. That is to be welcomed. There is some division between at least one of the houseboat organisations and the IWA. Many people live in houseboats, of which I think that there are 6,000 or 7,000. Some, as the hon. Member for Reading, West said, are not new vessels. Inevitably, those who live on them fear that they may be subject to regulations that do not bear directly on safety.

Mr. Cryer : The hon. Gentleman raises a point that I raised with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones). Clause 13(2) gives absolute powers to British Waterways to produce

"further general terms as they think fit"

to apply to houseboat certificates. It is a matter of concern that it can simply wave to one side a whole schedule and substitute its own. That worries houseboat owners.

Sir Russell Johnston : The hon. Gentleman is quite right and that bears directly on the trust that I mentioned earlier. One may be prepared to give many powers to someone on whom one can rely to exercise them in a reasonable, fair and trustworthy manner. I am not saying that British Waterways is not, but there is no doubt that many people are suspicious.

The original Bill did not recognise the existence of a separate Scottish legal system, which reflected rather badly on British Waterways. I gather that such changes as it is introducing have now been sent off for approval by the Scottish Office. However, I am not clear as to what powers British Waterways is claiming in respect of lochs. The Caledonian canal is a linking, not a continous, canal, which joins the different lochs. I do not know whether the board wants to impose licensing within lochs and has been told that section 43 of the Transport Act 1962, to which the Minister referred, would enable that to happen. I should like to be assured on that matter. Time is not on our side. I do not wish to detain the House for long. I have expressed my major concerns and I am still not convinced of the urgency of the Bill. I accept that there has been progress and improvements have been made. It was significant that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West praised the improvements more than anything in the original proposition. I remain of the opinion that the Bill can be improved by further discussion. It would also have been better if the Bill could be introduced in a better atmosphere. Many of the things that have been said about what the board is doing concern only what the board has done since last year. They are not embedded in the structure. Therefore, I am still minded to vote against the Bill. 8.27 pm

Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester) : I speak for two principal reasons. The first and foremost is that my constituency lies at the intersection of two major waterways--the River Severn and the Worcester and Birmingham canal. That canal is the only thing that links me with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). It is right that I pay tribute to what British Waterways has done recently on that canal. There was major expenditure--perhaps overdue--on a project to dredge a section of the canal at Lowesmoor, and some important repair works at Diglis.

The river and the canal are important as resources for tourism, sporting facilities and recreational activities. As a

Column 93

major narrowboat operator uses the canal, I feel that it is right to welcome the support that the board has given to a new promotional campaign to encourage the use of narrowboats for holidays. I also look forward with excitement to the time when the board's important plans to develop the Diglis canal basin come to fruition, providing a major fillip to the regeneration of my constituency.

The second reason why I support the Bill--here I have one eye on the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), although I have no pecuniary interest to declare--is that I have long taken an interest in marine issues, and have worked close with the British Marine Industries Federation. I want to inform the House of the federation's welcome for the general terms of the Bill, but also to express its single reservation.

I can now say that if it comes to the vote I shall support Second Reading. The federation is generally happy with the balance that the Bill now strikes, although there still needs to be careful scrutiny in Committee. Of its four parts, 39 clauses and three schedules, clause 27 still causes real concern. It is important to remember that boating interests have always supported the concept of the Bill, but they have had serious worries about some of the additional issues raised by the inclusion, without consultation, of certain provisions in the Bill.

I agree with many hon. Members who have spoken that, sadly, British Waterways does not always enjoy a reputation for a sympathetic approach to uts users. I suspect that that stems from the fact that it is not just a navigational authority, but a landlord. It has a monopoly position when negotiating with existing clubs and trade operators. It probably needs to make much more effort to foster a relationship of trust with those users, in the interests of our inland waterways system.

The Bill, although good and important in many ways, originally raised a number of concerns, but all those have now been satisfactorily dealt with bar one. We did not always think that that would be the case ; it has been achieved by a process of hard negotiation. It has resulted in a happier position and a better Bill. We now have the undertakings and the statement of intent that we have always sought.

The users never set out to be petty or unreasonable in the concessions that they sought. They have always been aware of the costs involved and have been anxious not to cause undue expense to British Waterways, and therefore the taxpayer. We can only wish that there had been consultation before certain objectionable measures were included in the Bill. However, as I have said, there now remains only one outstanding concern, and that is clause 27.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) said, the history of canal construction is complex. Each required a canal Act to enable it to be constructed, which meant different concessions for each landowner. My hon. Friend cited some of those. The clause would cancel those historic rights--such as the right to construct wharves, slipways, cuts and moorings for boats. The problem has been exacerbated by the lack of trust felt by many small entrepreneurs on the canal system towards British Waterways. It has to be said--and I understand it--that the British Waterways estates department justifiably has a remit to maximise profit, but that often leads to feelings of intimidation among small operators.

Column 94

It is not surprising that there is still concern about the clause because it will affect not only the majority of freehold canal operators but all future ones. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) that it is profoundly un- Tory to cancel the rights of lords of the manor in such a cavalier way. Those rights permitted canalside landowners to establish their businesses by constructing facilities and using the canal in the course of their business. That ensured that the canal owner could not operate as a monopoly. Again, I look at the hon. Member for Bradford, South and see in clause 27 the shades of railway privatisation debates to come.

In recent times, ignorance of those rights, coupled with British Waterways' erosion of them, has resulted in exactly the unreasonable and coercive behaviour that the rights--some 200 years old--were designed to prevent. It is important to realise that, unlike British Waterways lessees, freehold businesses have no legal protection, such as is provided by the Landlord and Tenant Act or by arbitration. We have heard tonight that an ombudsman will be established for the British Waterways board and its customers. That is a welcome development. In Committee, we may decide that the establishment of an ombudsman will provide sufficient reassurance about the extinguishment of the rights contained in clause 27. I hope that that proves to be so.

However, at present no ombudsman exists for the canal operator who feels that he is under duress from British Waterways. His rights under the enabling Acts offer the only security upon which he can rely. British Waterways is now seeking to extinguish even those rights. Until some alternative legislation or ombudsman is in place, those rights should not only remain but should be revitalised and given greater recognition through the Bill.

Modern-day businesses do not object to paying their way and contributing to British Waterways, providing that that contribution is fair and reasonable. British Waterways offered evidence to the Select Committee in another place on its reasons for wishing to extinguish those rights. Amendments will probably be tabled in Committee to satisfy those concerns while also giving comfort to the freehold businesses that they will be allowed to operate on the canals. I support most of the Bill's provisions. I hope that my concerns about clause 27 will be dealt with in Committee, perhaps through the establishment of an ombudsman or by some other method. I urge the House to support Second Reading.

8.36 pm

Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield) : I speak as an inland waterways enthusiast and someone who has fallen into the Leeds and Liverpool canal at Foulridge and also in the River Calder, and it is not a particularly pleasant experience.

I declare an interest as a riparian owner. That sounds very posh, but as anyone who has seen my back garden can testify--such as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)--that is not the case. I live at the side of the River Calder and I want the river to be fostered, developed and improved--as I believe it can be. There is tremendous potential on our rivers and inland waterways, both in west Yorkshire and elsewhere.

I am a founder member of the West Riding Narrowboat Co-operative, which celebrated 10 years of

Column 95

existence only a few weeks ago. It is a tremendous example of collectivism in action. The co-operative has gone from strength to strength in owning boats and operating them on the inland waterways of both England and Wales. Therefore, I have been both a user and an enthusiastic supporter of inland waterways for many years and can take a user's perspective of the Bill.

I have supported the efforts in West Yorkshire to restore particular canals, such as the Barnsley canal which is partly in my constituency. I commend the efforts made in West Yorkshire and elsewhere. As the Minister said when he quoted from Waterways World , great strides have been made to restore neglected and abandoned waterways.

I am aware that initially there was strong opposition to some of the Bill's provisions. In particular, there was concern about the implications for various users not just of the waterways, but of facilities in the general vicinity such as towpaths. Cyclists, walkers and those who enjoy fishing have been concerned about the probable effects of clause 27. Many of those concerns were expressed in another place and Members from all parties have received numerous letters of concern. In particular, boat owners are concerned about the increased cost implications of insurance, safety and standards of boats that will be required under the Bill.

I would not argue against improving safety or environmental standards--I have seen pollution. I spent a holiday on a hired boat in the constituency of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), and I was appalled to see a hire base pumping raw sewage from hire boats directly into the canal that connects the two locks. I hope that that practice has long since ended. I raised that matter when the water privatisation Bill was passing through the House.

Many boat owners are concerned about the way in which, over the last eight years in particular, the cost of renting land and water has dramatically spiralled. In my constituency, owning a boat is not necessarily the preserve of the better-off. A number of my constituents are pensioners who are not particularly wealthy, but who spent many years' savings purchasing a small narrowboat or motor cruiser. They find that the cost of continuing a hobby to which they look forward in their retirement is excessive.

Many community groups also use the waterways. The West Riding Narrowboat Co -operative was originally formed by purchasing a boat owned by a group that offered intermediate treatment to youngsters on the edge of offending. There are many examples in West Yorkshire and elsewhere of people from deprived backgrounds, the physically handicapped, and others with different problems gaining tremendous personal benefit from holidays, weekends or even day trips on the inland waterways. We should not forget the important role played by such groups when considering legislation such as the Bill. My constituents advise me that the cost of a cruising licence for the Aire and Calder can be anything between £300 and £350 per year, per vessel. Mooring costs can be anything between £350 and £600 depending on the length of the craft. It is possible for boat owners and users on the

Column 96

Aire and Calder to pay £1,000 annually before they set foot on the water--I mean, set out on a journey in their boat.

My constituents emphasise that they are receiving fewer and fewer services for that increased cost. They do not see that additional income being reinvested in improving the waterways in that area. The contrary is true. More and more work is being put out to private tender, with the involvement of non-experts in the highly skilled work of maintaining inland waterways.

Mr. Cryer : My hon. Friend refers to a fear that has been expressed to me by canal users--that the old lengthman is disappearing. He was a skilled man who knew the canal and was able to take remedial action before anything drastic occurred. That occupation is dying out. There is now extensive use of private contractors who often do not have the expertise and background to do the work. They do a pretty poor job, and then more money must be spent later to remedy defects. Many canal users are expressing concern about the deterioration in maintenance standards, yet the Bill gives the British Waterways Board the power to prevent moorings at points that it considers unsuitable, perhaps because of that very lack of maintenance.

Mr. Hinchliffe : My hon. Friend is right. There are many examples in West Yorkshire of the deskilling of the waterways. I know a number of people who have worked on the inland waterways for many years. The skills, expertise and experience that they have acquired are such that they can anticipate problems--they do not have to be told what the problems will be. When we lose those people, they will be gone for ever. Private contractors are no substitute if they do not have the background to do a proper job.

I concede that a number of the original objections to the Bill have been met by the board during the Bill's progress through another place. Nevertheless, I emphasise that a number of serious concerns remain, and they have been raised today by hon. Members in all parts of the House. They must be addressed today or when the Bill goes into Committee.

Clause 23 states that the board shall

"have regard to the desirability of preserving for the public any freedom of access to towing paths and open land and especially to places of natural beauty".

The Bill does not clearly state that fees for access to towpaths will not be permitted by the legislation. Although the Minister and the promoter have given reassurances, it is unsatisfactory that they are not written into the Bill at this late stage.

There are real fears that access will be restricted. We saw that happen with the water privatisation legislation, which restricts access to areas of open country, including in Yorkshire, where the public were once free to walk, exercise and enjoy the fresh air of the countryside. We are seeing also the re-emergence of battles over access to open moorland that I thought had been won in the 1930s. Private owners are increasingly restricting ramblers from free access to areas that walkers have used for generations. The area between my home and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), on the other side of the Pennines, is at the centre of one such argument. The Derbyshire border has been the

Column 97

subject of campaigns over many years. It worries me that, at some future date, the public will have to pay for the basic right to walk along inland waterways towpaths.

As to clause 25, I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks concerning privatisation, but having seen what has happened to the waterways over the past decade or so, I believe that commercial obligations on the BWB will increasingly take precedence over its waterways responsibilities. We have seen already the pressure from the Exchequer to reduce the money that the board receives from central funding, which led to huge increases in the costs to users of the waterways. That has also placed pressure on the BWB to consider new ways of raising money, other than by doing the job that it was established to do.

Despite the Minister's categorical assurance today, I believe that privatisation will be the next step and that the Bill is a thinly disguised paving measure. I hope that I am wrong, but given the Government's record, and the direction of almost every measure that they have introduced, I see no reason to believe that privatisation will not be the end result. I suspect that I shall be proved right. It is clearly the Government's intention to commercialise the BWB even further, to enable it to pull out even more from state funding of the inland waterways system. That saddens me, but it comes as no surprise. Even more worrying is the fact that the Government have no coherent political strategy for the use of our inland waterways, and the immense potential offered by our rivers and canals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) referred to the transport potential ; in my part of West Yorkshire, that potential is immense--or would be, if people would take the trouble to sit down and think it out. Of course, the process is slower, but there is not necessarily any need to rush : different cargoes require different time scales. I am saddened by the increasing movement of goods from rail, canal and river to road, which is merely building up a huge environmental problem for the future.

There is also an economic potential. Tourism, for instance, has hardly been mentioned. My area, like others, was an industrial area until the Government came to office. We used to have coal mines, but we no longer see coal being transported on the canals ; thanks to the Government, we now have industrial museums. All the same, waterways tourism has huge potential in such areas as west Yorkshire, if only the Government would recognise it. I am thinking of the restoration of canalssuch as the Huddersfield narrow, the Rochdale and the Barnsley.

A few years ago, the Inland Waterways Association carried out research into how much people spend when travelling through areas such as mine on boats. It found that they spend money in shops, supermarkets, restaurants and public houses. People help such areas by investing in them. I believe that I shall live to see the real achievement of the Pennine ring in the next 10 or 20 years--the achievement of a ring of waterways that will enable people to spend a fortnight travelling through the south and the north Pennines. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is the finest part of Britain. It is about time more people had the privilege of viewing it from the local waterways.

British waterways have an immense amount to offer. It saddens me that the Bill does not address the real political challenge.

Next Section

Home Page