Memorandum submitted by United Kingdom
Major Ports Group (BW 83)
1. We understand that in connection with
their inquiry into British Waterways (BW) the Committee would
like the views of the UK ports industry on the scope for making
greater use of BW for the inland movement of freight. The United
Kingdom Major Ports Group has nine members who operate 41 ports
in the UK. Most of these ports are in estuaries, and in many estuaries
such as the Thames, the Humber, the Forth, the Clyde, the Mersey
and the Severn there are links into the BW navigation system.
The most important, from the point of view of the Committee's
inquiry are the Thames, where the Port of London Authority is
the harbour authority and the Humber where Associated British
Ports are the harbour authority.
2. As other witnesses to the Committee have
pointed out, water transport is generally regarded as the most
environmentally friendly form of transport, particularly in relation
to emissions of CO2. Ports are anxious to maximise the amount
of traffic which moves by water, whether by coastal shipping or
inland waterway, and we wish BW well in their attempts to attract
additional freight traffic.
3. According to the Department for Transport
statistics, inland waterway freight accounts for about 1.5 billion
tonne/kms per annum. This is less than 1% of the national total.
We do not have access to any statistics which show the total tonne/kilometres
moved on the BW system, but since the DfT figure includes traffic
moving on other inland waterways such as the Thames, the Severn
and the Manchester Ship Canal, it is clear that BW freight traffic
can account for only a tiny proportion of total freight movements
in the UK. Certainly, it is our members' impression that only
a tiny proportion of freight passing through UK sea ports continues
its inland journey by canal.
4. The reason for this is that, regrettably,
the width and depth of the BW canals are so constrained that they
are unable to accommodate other than quite small barges, carrying
only a few hundred tonnes, which makes it very difficult for the
waterways to compete with road and rail. An increasing proportion
of freight movement involves the use of containers, but it is
scarcely possible to move containers by canal in this country.
Regrettably there is no ready solution to this problem, since
the investment necessary to widen and deepen our canals would
be out of all proportion to the likely gain in freight traffic.
5. Our reluctant conclusion therefore is
that the scope for increasing movement of freight on BW rivers
and canals is severely limited. There are however exceptions.
One notable example is the Prescott channel which it is hoped
can be used for construction traffic for the Olympic Park, but
such opportunities are likely to be infrequent. We would also
caution against any suggestion that the Government should increase
the amount of financial support available to assist movement of
freight by inland waterway. Such support is already available
through the Sustainable Distribution Fund, but, to the extent
that additional resources were available, coastal shipping would
offer more promising possibilities than inland waterways.
6. We trust these comments are of assistance
to the Committee. If we can assist further we would be happy to
do so.
John Dempster, Executive Director
The United Kingdom Major Ports Group
March 2007
| 
