Examination of Witnesses (Questions 207
- 219)
MONDAY 12 MARCH 2007
MR GAVIN
DEVINE, DR
HEATHER LEGGATE,
MR JOHN
DODWELL AND
MR TIM
WEST
Q207 Chairman: Good afternoon, everyone.
Welcome to the third session of the Sub-Committee's investigation
into British Waterways and associated issues. Our first session
is one which is going to really concentrate on freight for commercial
uses. We have got four witnesses, Dr Heather Leggate, Director
of Sea and Water, Gavin Devine, Director of Sea and Water, well
known to some of us, Mr John Dodwell from the Commercial Boat
Operators Association, who is the Chair, and Mr Tim West, who
is the Parliamentary and Local Government Liaison. If I could
start with a general question to all of you. I think one of the
things which struck us in the evidence we have taken so far, both
oral and written, is that there seems to be a very different view
on what potential there is to be gained from investing in greater
use of freight on the inland waterway system. If I am a potential
investor, what would you say to me are the advantages of me moving
my operation from road to water or, indeed, even from rail to
water, Mr Dodwell?
Mr Dodwell: I would ask you first,
Chairman, where your business was and the reason is this. I think
you can split the waterways broadly into four categories. You
have those off the estuaries, you have what are the British Waterways'
commercial waterways, the Aire and Calder up to Leeds, another
one up towards Rotherham, the River Trent, the River Weaver, the
River Severn and such like, and then you have the smaller waterways.
The smaller waterways are limited in some cases to seven-foot
widths which gives you a payload on the craft of about 20, 25,
if you are lucky 30 tonnes and in considering moving that a long
distance the labour economics are against you. However, if you
are moving it within an urban congested area, such as London or
Birmingham, both of which now have got freight quality partnership
studies going on on what can be moved, then it is a completely
different matter. Coming back to your basic point, I would say
to you "change because it is cheaper". There are cases
at the moment, Bayford Fuels takes oil up to Leeds because it
is 20% cheaper. We have a large amount of aggregates being moved
around the country. The aggregate industry is known for a low
cost product and, therefore, transport costs have to be low and
they do it because it is cheaper. There is obviously the environmental
argument which perhaps Heather would like to expand on.
Dr Leggate: Clearly there are
other concerns as well for businesses, and John has just mentioned
the congestion issue, there is also the environmental issue.
Q208 Chairman: Can you perhaps outline
for us what further environmental changes would make marginal
waterways really come into the game plan of government and business
for much greater use as a freight vehicle?
Dr Leggate: I am not sure we are
talking about environmental changes but certainly when you look
at the statistics, inland waterways as a form of transport is
more environmentally friendly than road and, indeed, rail in terms
of carbon emissions and nitrogen oxide. This is appealing to a
number of players in the corporate sector in terms of their corporate
and social responsibility strategies, and they are looking at
the water because of the environmental impact and also in terms
of congestion because congestion is becoming such a problem in
terms of the roads and lorries on the roads. In fact Sea and Water
did a survey which is about to be published of business attitudes
to water freight.
Q209 Chairman: Is it possible that
you could send us a copy of that because that would be quite interesting?
Dr Leggate: Yes, I can.
Mr Devine: I was only going to
echo what Heather said. The point about water freight being a
much smaller emitter of carbon is well known: the figure is somewhere
between a quarter of the emissions and 20% of the emissions of
carbon per tonne kilometre by comparison with road. As Heather
says, that is increasingly attractive to a number of players and
not just in the traditional sectors of aggregates and waste and
so on, but also in the retail sector for products that are not
time-sensitive. Even for products which are time-sensitive, the
great thing about inward waterways is you can be very certain
about when things will appear, which is not necessarily the case
when they are transported by motorway.
Chairman: Let us look at one particular
potential use and that is the Olympics, Michael.
Q210 Mr Jack: I was interested to
see in the CBOA's evidence that you say in paragraph 2.10: "There
is currently an undoubted opportunity in East London for the development
of freight contracts in connection with the 2012 Olympics"[4],
and then, low and behold, on 28 February British Waterways issue
a glowing press release giving us lots of numbers and telling
us how it is all going to be absolutely wonderful and there are
lots of opportunities. What do you make of this press release?
Is it reality? Is it going to happen? Is it going to realise the
potential or not?
Mr Dodwell: Yes, is the answer.
Q211 Mr Jack: Good, we will move
on to the next question then!
Mr Dodwell: Perhaps the reason
why it is going to happen is that it is a good example of everybody
pulling together. In the press release you can see the Olympic
Delivery Authority mentioned, Transport for London, the local
development corporation and, also, organisations like ourselves,
Sea and Water and a whole host of other people, including Members
of this House, have joined in putting the pressure on to get that
lock built. The contract has been placed for the work, so yes,
it will happen. That lock will be built to take barges which can
take 350 tonnes. The next thing is to make sure it is actually
used. I can give you what I hope is some good news, the aggregate
industries in the area, Cemex, Hanson and the others, have been
pressing for this lock and have been pressing for a quick decision
so they can then gear up to get the craft because they intend
to deliver by water. As you probably know, it is not just the
Olympics, there is the much acclaimed legacy which to us means
there is a 15-year development programme in Stratford City which
is going to be as big as Canary Wharf, so we have got 15 years
of construction work and waste to be taken away. Fingers crossed,
it will be an example of what could happen in other parts of the
country.
Q212 Mr Jack: Let me move on because
you have given a very good indication. I do not suppose there
are any numbers we can attach to it in terms of the size of freight
movements which would be diverted from road?
Mr Devine: The capacity is up
to 7,000 tonnes of construction materials a day during the construction
phase, and that is approximately 140,000 lorry journeys to be
taken off the roads—and that is 4,000 tonnes of carbon.
Q213 Mr Jack: I raise a speculative
thought that there ought to be a mechanism of giving you some
carbon credits which could be sold or valued to recognise the
transfer to help pay for this type of investment. Has anybody
done any kind of clever work? For example, could this be part
of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme?
Mr Dodwell: I saw in the previous
evidence you raised the point, Mr Jack, so I am pleased to have
a chance to answer it. So far as I am aware, in the whole transport
sector there is not the equivalent of carbon trading as there
is, for example, in power stations. There may be a lot of commercial
reasons why people would resist having a carbon trading scheme
but it exists in other industries and I would welcome the EU pushing
it into the transport sector because there are significant carbon
advantages, as you have heard from Gavin.
Q214 Mr Jack: Let us move on because
that same paragraph which you wrote enunciated what you gave in
your introductory comments about those parts of the canal system
which you thought had the best chance of developing new freight
movements, but what was lacking was any indication as to the potential
in terms of tonnage or substitute road movements. I think one
of the frustrations is—and I know British Waterways are
going to give evidence now—if I look at page 30 of their
annual report, effectively what we have got is about a quarter
of a page throughout this quite big document which is devoted
to freight and that is it. You think there is potential, what
is it? Do you think BW are committed enough to realising that
potential?
Mr Dodwell: In terms of potential,
let's look at three recent traffics. By recent I mean in the last
three, four, five years. Lafarge now move 250,000 tonnes
a year from a gravel pit near Newark round to Wakefield. Cemex
move about the same tonnage on the River Severn around Tewkesbury,
around Uxbridge there is about 60,000 tonnes a year which started
two or three years ago. There is a new wharf at Willesden on the
Grand Union Canal when it runs into Paddington, of particular
significance because it is 26 miles there without any locks. That
has a construction waste recycling plant there and has already
been receiving some construction waste by boat. The expectation
is they will crush concrete to make a secondary aggregate and
mix it with what we call "primary aggregate". That will
mean bringing some thousands of tonnes a year into that wharf.
Q215 Mr Jack: All of that sounds
very good, Mr Dodwell, but the facts which have been elicited
from a parliamentary answer show that in 2000 we had 4.3 million
tonnes of waterway derived freight, but that had dropped to 3.4
million in 2005.
Mr Dodwell: You are referring
to an answer on 27 February?
Q216 Mr Jack: Yes.
Mr Dodwell: Good. The main reason
there is Ferrybridge Power Station. Ferrybridge Power Station
used to receive coal from Kellingley colliery. It had got too
much sulphur in so they stopped taking some two million tonnes
a year. The new owners have put in a desulphurisation plant. The
operators of the craft have kept them. They are a large public
company, they would not keep them for no good reason. The expectation—and
it is no higher than that—is that traffic will resume, maybe
not at two million tonnes a year because in the meantime they
have received imported coal. That is the reason for the big drop.
Q217 Mr Jack: From your standpoint,
do both of you think that BW is committed to freight, bearing
in mind, as I understand it, they closed down their specialist
freight department and farmed the work out into various unnamed
regional offices? Mr Devine, you are bursting to give us the answer!
Mr Devine: British Waterways faces
some challenges in the form of the resources which it has been
given this year and going forward, and, in our view, it is also
answerable to the wrong government department. In that context,
we believe that it is unlikely to prioritise an area of work which
it perceives as small, and possibly of the past, in advance of
something which makes it a great deal of money, which is property
development and, indeed, what they are charged by ministers to
do, which is to provide access for leisure users. Freight comes
down the list of priorities, and it is our belief that in a situation
where British Waterways faces an extremely challenging resource
position it will not prioritise freight under those circumstances.
We believe the closure of the freight unit is a manifestation
of that.
Q218 Mr Jack: Mr Dodwell, what is
your view?
Mr Dodwell: The closure of the
central freight department is disastrous. We have taken it up
with British Waterways.
Q219 Chairman: Did they consult you
about it or was it a fait accompli?
Mr Dodwell: There was no consultation
at all or none which I am aware of. One was aware of rumours but
there was no consultation. The difficulty is Defra have made it
clear to British Waterways that they have got to cut their cloth.
There was a parliamentary question in December, I think 19 December,
at DfT which said it was up to British Waterways to decide how
to spend their money. Those of you who have been in Parliament
a long time will recognise the formula but, in practice, if you
do not give someone the money they cannot carry out a policy.
British Waterways' problem is if the Government will will the
money, will will the means, they can then do it. The transfer
of freight work to the regional people, the regional freight champions
as they are called, in our view will not work because they have
lots of other things to do, whereas the two people who are losing
their jobs were 100% on freight. The regional people are lacking
in knowledge and experience, and they will no longer have access
to a central fund of knowledge to help them.
4 Ev 60 Back
|
