Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200
- 206)
MONDAY 5 MARCH 2007
MR JOHN
EDMONDS AND
MR DEREK
GOWLING
Q200 Mr Jack: If you were here earlier
you know the answer that I seek. Everybody says that there is
freight opportunity here, but evidence we have received counsels
us to be realistic. I get the impression that there is not any
hard evidence to work out what the potential would be. I look
at paragraph 13 of your evidence.[8]
Some of the restoration projects suggest that there could be freight
potential, for example obviously the Bowback Rivers and the East
London part of the Olympics projects and the area west of the
Pennines where there could be similar activity, but there are
no numbers or indications of what could happen.
Mr Edmonds: I can give you numbers
for the Olympics. We believe that perhaps 2.75 million tonnes
of material will have to be transported in for the building of
the various facilities. We think it would be very sad if less
than half of that came by water. If we have the lock and enhanced
navigation it is possible to bring in 350-tonne barges compared
with perhaps 20-tonne lorries. The arithmetic is obvious. In terms
of the environment and the quality of life for people like me
who live in London there is enormous opportunity.
Q201 Mr Jack: The evidence given
last week was that the clock was almost at midnight for decisions
to be taken about the lock system to enable this potential to
be realised. I could not get an impression as to who would sit
down and look at the project. I was less able to identify where
the money would come from. With the potential staring us in the
face as you describe so graphically, why is not somebody rushing
to a conclusion?
Mr Edmonds: That was a question
I posed to Dick Caborn at a recent Parliamentary Waterways Group
meeting.
Q202 Mr Jack: What was his answer?
Mr Edmonds: His answer was that
government was making every effort to ensure that this particular
project would succeed. I believe that that is the case. I think
that there is some bureaucratic problem about freight benefits
and so on and reducing the amount of money that the Department
for Transport believes it can commit. Frankly, the prize here
is so enormous that instead of passing the parcel backward and
forwards someone ought to start to unwrap it. Those are the numbers
of which I am aware. IWAAC has been to the Olympic site and been
briefed there. We did that in December. We had interesting discussions
with the ODA and followed them up in letter form. Our suggestion
to the ODA was that when placing its contracts it ought to insert
a carbon footprint limitation. It is not rocket science; it is
not breaking new ground. This is done in Germany and we can do
it here. Instead of doing what we usually do in this country,
which is to default to road, in this particular case waterways
and rail should take up a considerable amount. The ODA says that
50% should go by waterways and rail which leaves 50% to go by
road. That seems to me to be excessive. I suspect that when it
comes to it it will be 50% plus for road and 50% minus for waterways
and rail. Already the aspirations are too low and they ought to
be raised. It would be very helpful if the Sub-Committee said
something very strong on this point.
Q203 Mr Jack: If you have any more
detail about the barriers to progress before we write our report
that you want to submit, particularly in the light of the fact
that you have made a fact-finding trip, that will be extremely
helpful.
Mr Edmonds: I accept that invitation
with enthusiasm.
Q204 Mr Jack: To move to a slightly
wider perspective, if we look at the canal network as it now exists,
in your judgment are there any under-exploited corridors that
ought to have more freight? One of the problems that we have heard
about so far is the conflict between freight and leisure usage.
If there is one bit about which people speak enthusiastically
it is that leisure usage is going up. There is a potential for
freight but we do not know where. Is it realistic in this day
and age of in-time deliveries to be looking for significant new
flows of general freight traffic as opposed to the specific project-related
activity of the Olympics?
Mr Edmonds: I think it is bound
to be project-related, frankly. On the council we have a person
who is extraordinarily well qualified in this regard and, if I
may, I shall ask him to write you a note.
Mr Jack: That would be helpful.
Q205 Chairman: That is a case in
point. Last week we received some technical evidence from the
Institution of Civil Engineers which was helpful in the sense
that it painted the picture as being rather stark. One can talk
about freight, but canals were built in an age when the type of
economies of scale one now wants in the UK and sees on the continent
did not exist. Apart from obvious examples like the Manchester
Ship Canal, which is so well known that we do not need to re-broadcast
it, it would be good to see what other potential there is.
Mr Edmonds: I shall ask John Pomfret
to write you a note.
Q206 Chairman: That would be very
useful. We are looking for more precise evidence, and perhaps
someone will take the opportunity to visit the Olympic site to
see the real potential. As Mr Jack has said, in terms of some
of the practical, operational issues the clock is at 12. Clearly,
this is about money and commitment, but in practical terms what
sort of issue should we be looking to overcome to make this a
reality, if it is to be a project-based response to deliver an
environmental Olympics?
Mr Edmonds: The sums of money
involved at this stage are not too large because so many of the
partners have committed themselves to the lock and refurbishment
of the navigation. What we now need to do is come to a conclusion
and start to undertake the work. The biggest worry of the council
after its fact-finding tour was that within the system there was
enormous potential for slippage. You start with grand designs.
The whole of the infrastructure of the companies that you choose
as your contractors is based on road, not waterways, and so the
slippage occurs in the direction with which people are familiar.
The best way to get over that is to place environmental requirements
in contracts. Provided you do it throughout—I gather there
is no impediment to it in EU rules as long as the contracts are
fairly based for everyone—that prevents slippage. We all
know that the imperative on the ODA is to get the facilities built
and make sure everything is ready in time. Obviously, within that
particularly restrictive timescale things like the environmental
advantage, which was so much part of the original prospectus,
might slip away.
Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much
for your evidence. You said what you said very forcefully and
it will be reported in due course. There may be things that you
wish to add. We look forward to receiving further information
which we will put with the evidence. We look forward to the next
session when we will carry on in the same vein. Thank you for
coming.
8 Ev 45 Back
| 
