House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 May 1993

Column 98

Mr. Robert B. Jones : Many of the actions to which the hon. Gentleman refers happen all the time, without requiring the powers in the Bill. For instance, the money that has gone into the Aire and Calder in Leeds--a splendid development, in my view--was invested as a result of the "corridor studies" that the British Waterways Board has promoted precisely because it recognises the leisure potential involved. I am keen on such investment in my constituency : the Grand Union canal has a good deal of leisure potential, and there has been considerable co-operation between the BWB and local authorities.

Mr. Hinchliffe : I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said earlier. Although I should like to be able to support the Bill, I am afraid that I cannot do so, for the simple reason that I have grave suspicions. I fear that the hidden agenda will prove profoundly unhealthy from the point of view of those who believe deeply in the potential of the waterways.

8.53 pm

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). He implied that his constituents occasionally tried to walk on water ; he also confessed that, on occasion, he had got rather closer to our inland waterways than he had intended.

I, too, am keen to protect the interests of those who live, work and take their leisure on the waterways. When I served on a London borough council in a riparian area, I sought to protect the interests of houseboat owners on the Thames ; I find that the same issues crop up now that I represent a different riparian borough. I was pleased to hear some of the points raised today, including the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister. As hon. Members have pointed out, the British Waterways Board has made a number of

concessions--both while the Bill was in another place, and while the House of Commons was consulting.

Like others, I especially welcome the steps towards greater safety, environmental improvements and the river-worthiness of vessels. Ultimately, lives are at stake--both those of boat owners and those of the people with whom they may come into contact--and I am thankful for the requirement for third party insurance.

I hope that the Minister can confirm my understanding of the position, which has gone a long way towards resolving the problem that led me to put my name to the blocking motion. I feel that, broadly speaking, the inclusion of that requirement in the Bill should be sufficient. My hon. Friend suggested that 90 per cent. of boat owners now have insurance, and I do not think that any hon. Member would think it unreasonable for the other 10 per cent. to acquire it. After all, if an accident occurs, there must be a cost to others, including the boat owners themselves ; if a boat sinks, there will be the cost of clearing it.

Why have such people not already taken out insurance? Perhaps they have not thought about it ; perhaps they considered it unnecessary, because they have not been required to insure so far. Perhaps they had difficulty in obtaining insurance. There's the rub ; such difficulties can arise for a number of reasons. Perhaps boat owners have had problems in shopping around ; that is the suggestion of the British Waterways Board.

Perhaps the boat in question is not deemed a good insurance risk--that is where I start to have my worries

Column 99

--or perhaps the owner is not considered a fit and proper person by the underwriters, who are therefore reluctant to insure the boat under that ownership.

Sir Russell Johnston : There is another, more straightforward, reason : the owners may consider it too expensive in relation to what they perceive as a low risk.

Mr. Bowis : That may well be the reason why they have not taken out insurance in the past, but I suggest that it is right that they should be required to do so in future. What must concern us is the extent to which British Waterways should involve itself in the search for or the provision of that insurance underwriting.

I have raised the subject because I am concerned that British Waterways should not interfere or involve itself with the insurance market, given that there are already enough brokers and underwriters to provide insurance for anybody who should be on the waterways. Of course, someone who should not be on the waterways will not be able to obtain insurance, and the obtainability of insurance will to some extent provide a guide to whether a craft and its owner are right and proper users of the waterways and constitute no risk to others. In response to my concerns and those of my constituents, British Waterways has done its best to reassure me on the subject. It has clearly said that its concern is only with the older boats, which might be driven off the waterways if they could not obtain insurance. I do not think that that is right. Older boats may cost more to insure, but insurance will be available if the risk is reasonable. Older boats in respect of which insurance is not available should perhaps be kept as museum pieces and taken off the water so as not to place those using them, or other people, at risk.

I do not believe that most older boats will come into that category. I know of houseboats on the Thames dating back to the Dunkirk crossing which are perfectly adequately maintained and insured. It should be possible to obtain insurance for most boats of whatever age.

Mr. Cryer : The hon. Gentleman is placing a great deal of faith in the insurance companies' ability to make an assessment. He is referring largely to narrowboats on canals. I know of a case in an area of activity much more important than that, in which an insurance inspector did not know the difference between steel and cast iron, and overlooked very important risks as a result. The idea that insurance companies are absolute assurers of risk is often not borne out in practice.

Mr. Bowis : From time to time, new risks may arise, and it may be difficult to find an expert who can give the right insurance advice. But that is not an issue under the Bill.

My only question concerns the extent to which British Waterways should be involved in insurance. I am anxious that, wherever possible, it should leave such matters to the experts and should neither set up an insurance scheme of its own nor make recommendations as between different insurers. British Waterways has told me clearly : "we have no ambitions whatsoever to enter the insurance market". No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) will be able to confirm that that is the case. As I understand it, British Waterways merely seeks to compile a list of underwriters--and I hope brokers,

Column 100

because brokers often have schemes ; I am glad to see my hon. Friend nodding at this point--who offer third party insurance policies, and to make it available on request.

That is much more reasonable than what was originally implied, which was that there might be a scheme--a proposal about which many in the insurance world were concerned. If someone is having difficulty finding insurance, he should first be asked, "Have you looked in the boating and canal publications?", as those publications contain many advertisements for insurance. If people have tried that and still cannot obtain insurance, perhaps a list could be sent to them as a last resort.

I wanted to put on record British Waterways' assurance that it is not interested in entering the insurance market with its own scheme or in pushing one policy as opposed to another--in other words, that it does not have plans to interfere with the insurance market. That assurance having been given--again, my hon. Friend has been nodding as I have listed the requirements--

Mr. Robert B. Jones : I can make it clear that the board's intention is to provide information, which I think is only reasonable. I do not think that anyone has put up a case against compulsory third party insurance, for obvious reasons, but not everyone knows who precisely offers such cover, and to that extent the provision will be advantageous.

Mr. Bowis : That basic information makes for a meeting of minds. I am very much in favour of the insurance requirement, which is to the benefit of everyone operating on our waterways. On the basis of that and the assurances I have been given, I am prepared to withdraw my objection to the progress of the Bill, and to support its advance into Committee.

9.4 pm

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) : I should like to give a little history lesson to the House about my constituency. Ellesmere Port was named after the town of Ellesmere in Shropshire as a result of the canal links that joined the two towns. The canals, of course, then joined the network in the midlands, going through Wolverhampton--which still has a link with my constituency through the name of one of my wards--to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). The network is extensive. At the confluence of the narrow canal, where it meets the Mersey ship canal, is the Ellesmere Port boat museum, which I hope that many hon. Members will take the trouble to visit. I believe that the Minister has already visited it, although I am not sure whether he paid his full entry fee. I will collect it from him on the way out if he did not.

The museum is a centre of national excellence, where pieces of Britain's heritage have been put together to form an important collection of vessels, which, had British Waterways had its way at an earlier stage, would have run the risk of being destroyed and lost to our museum. The collection includes vessels that were horse-drawn, steel and wooden, as well as sailing vessels connected with the Mersey, and steam vessels from both the canal and river network. It also includes an important complex of

Column 101

buildings, which have been preserved by the efforts of a large voluntary network of organisations, without whom Britain would have lost a great deal.

Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the special report of the House of Lords mentions the proposed panel, to which reference has been made. Paragraph 19 starts :

"Fifth, petitioners expressed concern about historic craft." I want to concentrate specifically on historic craft.

It has been put to me by organisations such as the Wooden Canal Craft Trust --to which the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) referred--that there are probably a further 200-plus vessels of potential historic importance located on the sides of canals, which, if not taken into account by a proper amendment to the Bill, could be lost to our heritage. Often, those vessels appear to the uninitiated like a pile of planks, old wooden hulks, but often such pieces of timber reflect important parts of our heritage. It always strikes me when I see the crowds of people walking across the flagstones in Westminster Hall, and looking at the places where various people were laid in state, that the wonderful craftsmanship in the hall is often forgotten, particularly that of the ceiling where great carpentry skills are exhibited.

Many of the hulks are lying by the waterside and are submerged. The fact that they are submerged actually preserves them. The idea of somebody getting a crane and hoiking them out of the water, and leaving them on the canalside or towing them away, is sacrilege. They need to be carefully preserved.

In the 1970s, when I lived on the south coast, I watched with great interest the work to raise the Mary Rose from the seabed of the Solent. That task took immense skill, great chemical knowledge and knowledge of preservation techniques, many of which are still in development. It would be wrong to allow such craft to be lost to our heritage by raising them and then leaving them at the canal side. Reference has been made to boats that may not meet standards laid down by regulation. As an experienced boat user, I would argue strongly for improved standards of maintenance and stricter controls for environmental and safety reasons in the construction and use of vessels, whether on canals, rivers or the open sea. Recently, there have been serious accidents when the maintenance of the vessels involved was not taken into account. We should adopt the principles that were applied when the MOT certificate for cars was first introduced. It is important that vessels built before a predetermined date should not be subject to any of the proposed changes. The final sentence of paragraph 19 of the House of Lords report states : "One petitioner responded by saying that historic craft should be exempted as of right, and not at the Board's discretion." I whole-heartedly agree, because the board is not the proper determining body for matters of national heritage.

It has been said that insurance should be a criterion. A number of Conservative Members who are experts in these matters could perhaps advise us, but I suspect that it would be extremely difficult to obtain a fire risk policy on this building, and the same could be said of many vessels, certainly those built before the turn of the century. I understand the argument that vessels which are in use need third party liability cover but one can take the issue to ridiculous extremes. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said that vessels which did not meet certain

Column 102

standards should be removed from the canals and placed in a museum. That reflects badly on his views on the place of historic vessels.

Mr. Bowis : We are talking about third party insurance, not insurance to preserve or protect ancient craft. We would not allow a veteran or vintage car to travel on the roads without such insurance, so it is reasonable to require vessels of whatever age to have the same cover because there is a risk to other people.

Mr. Miller : I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and, of course, such matters must be taken into account. I hope that he will extend his expertise and ensure that every member of the Wooden Canal Craft Trust can receive proper insurance cover through his expert knowledge. I am sure that they would be glad to do so at a proper, not inflated, price. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The central issue is whether British Waterways should decide matters of national heritage. We have heard that vessels that were built without an after-rail would fall foul of the regulations.

Mr. Robert B. Jones : The intention is not that the BWB decides the definition of a historic boat, but that the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council should do so. It comprises people who represent different interests and it is widely acknowledged to be an extremely skilful and expert body on inland waterways which should draw up the criteria. That may meet with the hon. Gentleman's approval. I remember attending an enjoyable meeting of the IWAAC in his constituency.

Mr. Miller : I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has visited my constituency--

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : Was he canvassing?

Mr. Miller : --as long as he was not canvassing. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has beaten me to it. The hon. Gentleman's point is set out in paragraph 18. The panel does not comprise only the board. However, the paragraph does not spell out precisely the make up of the panel. It says of the board : "It proposed that the panel should consist of two Board appointees plus representatives of IWAAC, the Royal Yachting Association and the British Marine Industries Federation. Some petitioners argued that the panel should include representatives of houseboat owners and persons with practical experience of wooden craft."

Mr. Robert B. Jones rose --

Mr. Miller : I hope that the hon. Gentleman is about to tell me that such people would be in a majority.

Mr. Jones : There are two different points. One is about the criteria for historic boats and the other is about appeals when boat standards are not up to scratch. I made it clear that the BWB would be in a minority on the panel for the latter. There are two different points.

Mr. Miller : I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. However, paragraph 19 says :

"Applications for exemptions will be subject to the appeals procedure described in paragraph 18."

That brings us back to the panel. I accept that the BWB would potentially be a minority on the panel, but I am not

Column 103

satisfied that the Bill contains a requirement for a necessary level of expertise and historical knowledge about old vessels to be incorporated into the panel.

It would be wrong not to ensure that every effort is made to keep such vessels not only in good condition, but in good working order and in use on the canals. The boats could help to preserve parts of the canal network through the nature of their use--a different type of use from the use of modern boats and of the pleasure craft currently in vogue. Old craft are an important part of our heritage. My single reservation is that the board has not gone far enough and that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) has not gone far enough. The panel does not go far enough in ensuring that the need to protect our national heritage of boats is met.

9.18 pm

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for missing the initial debate on sport. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) suggested that I was in a tired and emotional state. I was in a tired and emotional state, but that was not why I missed the debate on sport. I had to deal with a pressing family matter involving someone who was seriously ill. I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the victory yesterday of your home team, Featherstone. I hope that next year, we can welcome you to Central Park, after which you will leave in a tired and emotional state.

In the last Parliament, I was one of those involved in the blocking motion in respect of the initial attempt that British Waterways made to introduce the Bill. Once one becomes involved in a blocking motion, it is rather like a parliamentary squeeze of the goolies. Once one is involved in such a motion, discussions take place and, by a hard press or a tweak of the blocking motion, there can at least be a closing of minds in respect of some of the issues on which there were previously disagreements in relation to the Bill's sponsors or the organisation involved.

From the outset, when I was involved in the blocking motion, I made it clear to anyone who wished to listen that I was a strong supporter of British Waterways, and have been so for historical and political reasons. For most of my childhood, I lived 25 yards from the towpath of the Forth and Clyde canal. Indeed, I spent much of my formative years in that canal and was usually dragged out by my mother. I spent my holidays on the towpath of the Monklands canal, which unfortunately has been filled in and is now the M8 which divides Glasgow north and south, east and west.

I represent Makerfield, through the centre of which runs the Leeds and Liverpool canal. I was a member of the development committee for the Wigan pier development which involved British Waterways, the local authority and other organisations. They brought together resources and talents to deal with a once derelict site which, three years ago, became the European tourist attraction of the year. I want to have a close working relationship with British Waterways and to understand the reasons for the Bill. Perhaps tonight we should have been debating a Government Bill on how we can best develop--and not simply protect--British Waterways, both the organisation itself and what it stands for.

Column 104

British Waterways is one of the nation's greatest heritages and tributes. The waterways are one of the most wonderful opportunities which the nation gives up at its peril. For decades, we have failed as a nation to invest appropriately in our waterways or to give the resources to the British Waterways Board to enhance the development of our waterways.

Over the past 10 years, the Government have increasingly put pressure on British Waterways to find the meagre resources that it already gets from the Government from other sources. British Waterways is between a stone and hard surface. On the one hand, it must, and quite rightly so, enhance the waterways for the reasons that have been outlined, but on the other, it does not have the financial resources to do that.

I blocked the Bill in the previous Parliament for several major reasons, one of which related to the environment and a need for British Waterways and the legislation to set out clearly a concept for wildlife and heritage and a plan that would protect, enhance and develop the wildlife and heritage associated with the waterways. The 2,000 miles of British waterways should be part of a linear national park.

The inappropriate sale of assets that took place a number of years ago-- some of those sales were highly controversial--took place when the original Bill was introduced. For that reason, many hon. Members believed that the Bill then was no more than a fig leaf to cover the introduction of privatisation. The British Waterways Board handled that situation appallingly badly in relation to the timing and political explanations.

The board, in its panic to get rid of some of its priceless assets, undermined its credibility in the House and with the users of the inland waterways. Many of the board's efforts since then, both inside and outside this place, have been directed at repairing that damage. It has gone a long way towards achieving that. However, let us be frank about it : much of the pressure for the changes which have occurred resulted from blocking motions supported by hon. Members working with groups outside the House.

Funding is important. If we accept the concept that British Waterways should develop the wildlife, the heritage, the tourism, the transportation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield referred and the employment opportunities for those who work in BW--there is an opportunity for BW to open derelict and unused buildings and land for alternative uses to develop employment in constituencies such as mind--we must examine funding and resources for that development. It was not clear that the previous Bill was simply at attempt to milk the users of canals for the short-term underfunding by the Department of the Environment, with no resources available for the long-term development of the canal system. Therefore, we look forward to receiving assurances that additional resources will be part and parcel of the development of the canal system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield raised the matter of unemployment. Unemployment is important for two reasons--the need to protect employment opportunities for those who work for British Waterways and the need to ensure that responsibility for the core skilled work force remains part and parcel of its overall duties. When the original Bill was introduced, some of us were deeply worried that many of the skilled work force would continue to be replaced through compulsory competitive tendering.

Column 105

I am not opposed to ensuring that British Waterways gets value for money from its staff--just as the unions are not. However, we want to ensure that the Bill is not used as a trojan horse--a vehicle for removing large parts of the core skilled work force. Perhaps the sponsors of the Bill can tell the House whether the agreements reached some months ago between management and the trade unions on employment rights and the nature of the core skilled work force will remain in force if the Bill goes on the statute book.

I am concerned that British Waterways does not have a true conception of what is required to be done in co-operation with local authorities, other groups in the private sector and the voluntary sector to bring into use derelict land and buildings for a whole series of employment and tourist initiatives, and the need to have added value for its work.

Many vested interests oppose the Bill, such as marina development companies and people with an interest in maintaining a low income from their activities. I do not support those vested interests because I sincerely believe that, if British Waterways is to flourish and develop the sort of strategy that I have outlined, we need to ensure that BW gets part of the added-value income from the development of a canal system. It would be an outrage if we were to force on BW a development strategy involving the use of derelict land and buildings and if the profits from that exercise went to organisations outside BW. To make up the shortfall, British Waterways would attack in financial terms many of the people to which my hon. Friends the Member for Wakefield and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) referred.

We are looking for a partnership on the Bill. There must be an arrangement whereby everyone involved, except those vested interests to which I referred, clearly knows that the resources that are taken from the use of the canal system are pumped back into its development, providing employment opportunities, improving the environment and protecting the wildlife and heritage along the 2,000 miles of system as it stands at present.

I am sure that the Bill will be given its Second Reading tonight, but in getting its Second Reading, I hope that its supporters do not underestimate those of us who have objected to it but have some concessions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said, we want significant improvements to be made when it goes into Committee. We want British Waterways to make genuine attempts to deal with outstanding issues which have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House this evening.

We also want British Waterways to give some commitments about the sale of assets and to say exactly how they understand it. What are its proposals for its portfolio of land, buildings and other assets? Does it intend each of its regions to draw up a transparent business and development plan? Such a plan should be a public document into which organisations in each region can have an input. I do not suggest that British Waterways should have to give away all its business intentions, but it must give a commitment to public accountability in the development of its core business activities and its strategy to deal with under-utilised land and buildings. The communities in each region must be involved in developing plans in the same way as local people are involved in the development of local authorities' heritage and wildlife proposals and unitary development plans. It is

Column 106

the same concept. It is well understood by the public. If British Waterways integrated such a concept into its development and business plans, many of the doubts that people express about its intentions would disappear because people would be part and parcel of the development of British Waterways as both a business and a protector of the nation's 2,000 linear miles of inland waterway and canal. Employment opportunities are vital to Members of Parliament who represent constituencies through which canals pass that have large under-utilised hinterlands attached to them. In my constituency, large areas within the confines of the Leeds and Liverpool canal system could be used to create employment, enhance the activities along the canal and renovate derelict land. The activities of British Waterways, local authorities and private sector developers could be married up to ensure that many of the areas that I represent have a development plan for the next few years so that people can see the way ahead to creating new employment opportunities associated with businesses along the canal corridor.

British Waterways should also be involved in activities in the local community. Appropriate derelict sites could be made available for housing developments. Far too often in the past, developments on the waterside have been at the behest of those with the financial resources to use the environment as part of their back garden. I do not include my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield in that--I have been in his back garden.

I utter a word of caution. In the sale of assets that will surely follow enactment of the Bill, I do not want to see in my constituency developments of housing in areas that are outwith the reach of my constituents, whether it is private or voluntary sector housing. British Waterways should link with local authorities and housing associations to ensure that housing developments provide low-cost housing so that the local community has access to it. It should not merely provide added value for yuppies with weekend condominiums in my constituency, who use their postal vote to vote against me in elections and have no concern for the rest of the community outside the holiday period. I want some clear commitments from British Waterways on such issues.

In the discussions that I have had with British Waterways at regional and national level, its representatives have been nothing other than honest and above board in their dealings. I have no reason to believe that they have ever made any commitments that they do not intend to keep. However, I want to ensure that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) gives a commitment that the Bill benefits not just the British Waterways Board, but its employees. 9.36 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : I have no complaint about the fact that we are debating inland waterways today, but I believe that it is probably a futile debate. I do not see how the Bill can proceed further through the House. The first requirement of the Standing Committee that will examine the Bill will be to satisfy itself that the Bill's objectives cannot be achieved in any other way. Since the last Parliament passed the legislation on transport and works, the Bill could now proceed in a different way.

Column 107

I know that the understanding was that private Bills before the House before that piece of legislation was introduced should be allowed to continue their passage, but the British Waterways Bill has been lying around for a long time and should not be allowed to proceed. I hope that the Committee's first action will be vigorously to examine the Bill. I hope that it will conclude that the Bill must be thrown out because it falls outwith the Standing Orders of the House, in that it can be promoted through legislation other than a private Bill.

If we are to proceed with it, the House must insist that the concessions given today and in writing by the board are contained in the Bill. I was always told that I should never trust a statement by a Minister when debating a Bill, as Ministers could come and go, and if I wanted to be safe I should ensure that commitments were written into the legislation.

On the subject of private legislation, I was told that an undertaking given by a promoter was as good as an amendment to the Bill. However, I have had a bitter experience, as an undertaking given during the passage of the Bill to set up the Manchester metro--that my constituents would not suffer a fares increase--was not observed. When challenged, those representing Manchester metro argued that they had not given the undertaking, which was given by the original promoter, and that the two were separate organisations. When the Committee studies the Bill, it is important that any concessions should be written into it.

Why is the Bill necessary? We are told that there are two vital safety matters--one involving people at the side of the canal and one involving boats. I find that suggestion amazing. From 1947, when inland waterways were nationalised, until the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, no one appears to have encountered the problem of not being able to carry out necessary work in the event of possible flooding. We were given the example of the recent flooding of the Lancaster canal, but we were not told of any problems in obtaining access. The landowner sensibly allowed workmen on to the land to carry out the remedial work to protect the property.

As I understand it, there is not one example of people being denied access. It is important to ensure that access is available for people to make the canal safe and to stop further flooding, but that has not posed a practical problem. If it had, why was a narrow Bill not introduced as soon as that problem occurred in order to solve it? That argument is an excuse for the Bill's other provisions.

Mr. Robert B. Jones : I am not sure about access being refused, but I certainly know of examples of people having to pay through the nose because some rather greedy landowners saw an emergency as an opportunity to extract large sums of money. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not satisfactory.

Mr. Bennett : I accept that people should not extract greedy sums, but not everyone agrees about what "greedy" means. Changing the law is not necessarily the best way to deal with the problem. Then there is the question of the safety of boats, and especially of third party insurance. We have heard no real horror stories to suggest why that needed to be dealt with

Column 108

urgently. It has certainly not been established by the leisurely fashion in which negotiations on the relevant part of the Bill have taken place.

I want to concentrate on the problems of towpaths and the rights of way along them. Unfortunately, there is a hotch-potch of provision. When they came to register footpaths and bridleways, some local authorities took the view that there was no need to include towpaths along canals in the definitive maps, because they were part of the national heritage so there was no need to record them. Other local authorities did record them. The results often depended on voluntary bodies. In any event, some towpaths and bridleways, and the public rights of way along them, have been recorded, and others have not. People outside are worried that they may lose the right to go along towpaths. I know that certain undertakings have been given--that there will be no charging or restriction of access along towpaths, although this may not apply in certain dockland areas. I should like that written into the Bill.

A conflict of interests is involved. Fishermen use canal towpaths near my constituency ; other people walk along the towpaths ; boating communities, some of whose members use bikes to travel along towpaths, are also involved ; others again need to use towpaths to get their boats through locks. The interests of horse riders and mountain bikers must also be taken into consideration. Balancing all these interests is difficult, and I should like to be sure that rationing towpath use as between the various groups will be done without introducing charges. I hope that words to that effect will be included in the legislation before it goes any further.

Several hon. Members have referred to historic boats, and two of my constituents are very worried about this aspect. In negotiations, it took a long time to extract any undertakings, and the Bill's promoters could go further to reassure these people.

I was pleased to hear the Minister's categorical assurance that the Government will not push privatisation, but I remain a little worried that the BWB might sell off bits of its land, particularly on sections of the canal that are closed.

The old Stockport branch of the Ashton canal goes through my constituency. It was handed over to the city of Manchester and to Stockport in the early 1970s, before I represented Stockport, North. Manchester decided to keep it as a right of way, but filled in the canal. Stockport filled in the canal and broke the right of way. A group is trying to reopen the canal and has a good chance of re-establishing the section through Manchester, but it will find when it reaches the Stockport boundary that the canal has been built across, and it will be virtually impossible to reopen it. That is sad, because it would have been an amenity for the area.

At Ashton, on the edge of the constituency, is the Portland basin. It has been nicely restored ; the local authority and British Waterways have put in a great deal of work to make it attractive. The Huddersfield canal goes up the valley, but a section of it has been filled in and turned into a car park, and then partly built over. All this breaks down our route heritage into small sections and destroys the unity of the longer routes. I hope that we will be given undertakings that there will be no such piecemeal selling off of canal sections.

I welcome the appointment of an ombudsman, but I am concerned about the proliferation of ombudsmen. There is

Column 109

a danger of overlapping responsibilities ; people are often confused about which ombudsman they should consult about problems. We should consider new legislation, so that all the roles could be incorporated in a national ombudsman. That would be better than setting up new ombudsmen for particular areas.

Sir Anthony Durant : I am a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner, which is looking at this matter. We are examining all aspects of the ombudsman's role.

Mr. Bennett : I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The Committee should not allow ad hoc ombudsmen to be set up. Part of the argument for not setting one up for housing associations is the legislation that is required to do it. There is a strong case for a private Member's Bill to allow the national ombudsmen to extend their powers by agreement to other areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is keen to take part in the debate, so I shall conclude on the issue of crime. I am worried that more is not being done to stop crime along the canals. There have been some rather sad incidents, especially in the north-west, and some rather nasty vandalism. Such happenings cause great distress to boat owners and destroy part of our historic past. We must examine ways to improve security along the canals. The Bill is unnecessary and many people who are keen to use the canals to best effect would be happy if it progressed no further. Perhaps we should consider simpler legislation or regulations. 9.46 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for his speed and precision, which enables me to speak about the Bill. He mentioned the Transport and Works Act 1992 as an alternative route to regulate the operation and use of canals. Earlier in the debate, I spoke about the enormous powers that the Bill gives British Waterways. Section 3(1) of the 1992 Act states :

"The Secretary of State may make an order relating to, or to matters ancillary to--

(a) the construction or operation of an inland waterway in England and Wales ;".

Scotland is clearly excluded. The Secretary of State can therefore instigate mooring regulations and access to canals. Section 3(1) (b) of the 1992 Act specifically gives power to make orders for the carrying out of works that

"intefere with rights of navigation in waters within or adjacent to England and Wales, up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea". The comprehensive powers were deliberately incorporated in the Transport and Works Act to simplify a complicated pattern of primary legislation contained in Acts that were passed over the past couple of hundred years. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish and I were on the Committee that examined the Transport and Works Bill nd we knew that the present Bill was going through the Lords. In Committee, the overlapping of the two Bills was mentioned. The 1992 legislation has only just come into operation. We have not seen how effective it will be and a private Bill in parallel with the operation of that Act is entirely unnecessary.

Clause 13(2) deals with houseboats and is an example of the powers that the Bill will confer on the BWB. At least

Column 110

12,000 people--probably a good many more-- live on houseboats, so we are dnot dealing wil leaves this place, having gone through all its stages, it is out of our control. It has gone.

People may ask what the sponsor said, but the BWB could say that, while he may have given promises in good faith, it has the powers laid down in what will by then be an Act. Although they gave their assurances in good faith, the chairman and the managing director of the board may have retired by then, and different people will be in charge. All that will be left will be the Act of Parliament, so people will turn to it. When houseboat owners complain that their conditions have been changed, the BWB will be entitled to say that it has the power to do that, because, as clause 13(2) says : "The Board may from time to time following consultations with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council and such organisations as appear to the Board to represent a substantial number of such owners of houseboats as may be affected by the proposed further general terms prescribe such further general terms as they think fit, in addition to or in substitution for those set out in the said Schedule 1, and any houseboat certificate issued or renewed after that date" shall be on such terms.

That means that the House of Commons--apparently it has been agreed down the Corridor--is giving the BWB power to alter all of schedule 1, which is a considerable part of the Bill running over two and a half pages of close text. The BWB, a quango, can remove from primary legislation all that text because the House of Commons will have given it that power. I do not accept that proposal.

I do not accept that Ministers, who are at least accountable to some degree in that they come here and answer questions and occasionally drift across to take part in debates--

Next Section

Home Page