HC Deb 21 October 1968 vol 770 cc995-1011

Lords Amendment No. 129: In page 141, line 27, at end insert new Clause ''B": B. No provision of section 104 of this Act in so far as it operates to exclude the jurisdiction of the Courts or to modify the public rights of navigation or the duty of the Board as regards maintenance shall apply to proceedings now pending in the Chancery Division between the Attorney-General as plaintiff and the Board as defendants in relation to the Ashton Canal and that part of the Peak Forest Canal the subject of those proceedings: Provided that on the determination of those proceedings this section shall cease to have effect save for the purpose of enforcing compliance with any order made in the proceedings.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Swingler

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment involves the addition to Part VII of the Bill of a new Clause relating to certain current litigation about two canals on the Board's system, namely the Ashton Canal and the lower Peak Forest Canal.

I know there are a number of hon. Members who have constituency interests in this. First of all, a word about the canals. The Ashton Canal is situated in or near Ashton-under-Lyne, and is about six and three quarter miles long. It has suffered from mining subsidence over a long period of time, and is likely to suffer this still further. The difficulties of maintenance here have been aggravated by considerable dumping of rubbish and vandalism, especially in the industrial areas through which the canal passes. The Waterways Board estimate that the gross cost of restoring this canal to cruising standards would be in the region of £195,000.

The other canal, the lower Peak Forest Canal, runs for about eight miles from

the top of the Marple Locks to its junction with the Ashton Canal at Dukenfield near to Ashton-under-Lyne. As many hon. Members will know, this canal becomes less attractive as it approaches the industrial areas round Manchester. The Marple flight of 16 locks is at present impassable and the Board estimate that the repair of these locks alone would cost about £22,500. To repair the whole eight mile length to cruising standards, including the lock repairs, would cost in the region of £35,000.

That is the situation of these canals, about which litigation was begun shortly after the Transport Bill was introduced into this House. I make no point about that, but it is a fact that litigation in respect of the Ashton-under-Lyne Canal was commenced after the provisions of this Bill with respect to waterways were known and had been published.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak)

Would my hon. Friend not agree that it is purely fortuitous that the action was begun after the publication of the Bill and that there is a matter of merely five days involved? I hope that he will not make a great deal of this.

Mr. Swingler

I am just notifying the House of the historical fact. As my hon. Friend says, it was a matter of a few days after the presentation of the Bill to the House that litigation was commenced.

The reason I rise to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords, is on the merits of the case. First, it is because we see no reason why these two canals should be singled out from all the rest in the canal system for specially favourable treatment. The House has been discussing the application of the new principles to the canal system, the introduction of the three categories—commercial, cruising, and remainder.

9.15 p.m.

Secondly, notwithstanding the litigation, there are discussions going on between a number of interested people and the Board about these canals. There has been a meeting in the last few days to see what can be done. A solution to the problem may emerge as a result of the discussions now in progress. But it was made plain to the British Waterways Board at the recent meeting that three out of the four local authorities through whose area the Ashton Canal runs, including the Corporation of Manchester, do not want the Ashton Canal to be retained as a navigation. The Board was also gig en reason to believe at the same meeting that the fourth council through whose area the Ashton Canal runs holds the same opinion.

I should like to repeat on behalf of my right hon. Friend the undertaking which was stated in another place. The Board will, during a period of three years from the coming into force of Part VII of the Bill, take no positive action concerning these two canals without Ministerial consent which would make their ultimate restoration impossible. The three-year interim period will give the local authorities and other interested bodies a full opportunity to put forward proposals either for restoring these waterways or possibly for taking them over. Hon. Members will be aware that provision is already made in Part VII of the Bill for local authorities and other bodies, by agreement with the Board, to take over waterways which are not included in the commercial or cruising networks. In addition, provision is made in Clause 110 for the local authorities to give financial asistance for the restoration or maintenance of waterways. In this way, adequate provision has been made to enable local initiative and local finance to be used with a view to restoring waterways if a suitable scheme can be agreed by all concerned.

It is by those methods that we think that the issue of the Ashton-under-Lyne and lower Peak Forest Canals should be dealt with. Therefore, we cannot agree that they should be put in an exceptional position.

Mr. Berry

Again, I am very sorry that the Government have not seen the wisdom of the Lords Amendment and are reluctant to accept it. It is an important Amendment. Although my hon. Friends and I tabled Amendments to this effect on Report and in Committee, they were not reached because of the Guillotine. It is therefore important to go into the position with some care so that hon. Members may fully understand it.

The Minister of State has already explained the situation of the two canals. The existing legal position is that under the original local Acts covering the canals and Section 17 of the Regulation of the Railways Act, 1873, which once again is the Acts to which we must refer, public rights of navigation apply to the two canals, and there is a duty on the waterways authority, which in this case is the British Waterways Board, to maintain those canals.

In 1961 some people in the area near where those canals flow became dissatisfied with the condition of the two canals. They felt that the British Waterways Board was not maintaining them in a way in which it was bound under Statute to do. For three years discussions took place, until in November, 1964, a meeting was held in which many local authorities and public bodies took part, and it was decided that action must be taken. A sub-committee was appointed to consider the various possibilities.

During 1965 meetings took place, solicitors were approached and the legal position was looked into. In November of that year a letter for action against the Waterways Board was written, but the solicitor of the Board rejected it. After further inquiries had been made, it became clear, towards the end of 1966, that their advice was that action could be brought against the Waterways Board, and it was decided to sue.

During 1967 the various legal formalities, which in a case like this are extremely complicated and inevitably very lengthy, took place, and that is why it was not until December, 1967, that the papers were sent to the London agent with instructions to apply for the fiat of the Attorney-General.

I am surprised that the Minister of State should again today have tried to make a point about the Transport Bill being published before this step was taken. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) quite rightly took him up on that. It is a minor point, and I am surprised that the Minister of State should have thought it was worthy of bringing up in this serious debate.

The Attorney-General was asked for his fiat in December last year. He first referred the case back because he was not sure whether, in view of the Transport Bill, it was right to proceed with the litigation. Opinion from counsel was obtained, he thought about it again, and on 24th January this year he granted his fiat.

The learned Lord Chancellor, in another place, suggested that the grant of the fiat was a matter of very minor importance. I have taken advice on this, and I have the decision of Lord Justice Pearce in the case of the Attorney-General v. Harris, 1961, in which he said: The bringing of the proceedings has shown that in the opinion of the Attorney-General the acts warrant an injunction. This opinion, though ex parte, will obviously carry weight with the court. Where, as in the present case, deliberate and still continuing breaches of the law have been proved, the court will in the exercise of its discretion normally grant an injunction, unless after hearing both sides it comes to the conclusion that the matter is too trivial … That is in another case completely different from this one, but it refutes the suggestion that the Attorney-General's fiat is a minor matter and shows that his granting it means that the case has considerable importance.

Throughout this year meetings have been held. In one case, on 30th April this year, a delegation representing 20 or so local authorities and three hon. Members of this House, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and the hon. Member for Manchester. Blackley (Mr. Rose), attended upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to discuss this. As the year has gone on, more attempts have been made to expedite this case and to persuade the Government either to drop this bit of the Bill or to accept in principle the Amendment which we are discussing. But, in the House, we could not discuss this part of the Bill during the summer. When it went to another place, their Lordships moved an Amendment, and the Lord Chancellor disagreed with it.

Notwithstanding, all this time, the local interest in the area was continuing, as hon. Members from the area will confirm. For example, on the weekend of 21st September this year—only three or four weeks ago—about 600 volunteers from all parts of the country spent their weekend cleaning about a mile and a quarter of the Ashton Canal at their own cost, and took out a tremendous amount of rubbish. This was fully reported in The Times, and it shows how strong is the desire to keep waterways like this in existence.

Then the House of Lords discussed it again and, on 8th October, passed this Amendment. At the same time, the discussions between the two sides had been continuing. There had been further meetings, culminating in the one last week which the Minister of State mentioned.

What are the two alternatives now? Either these canals must be restored or they must be abandoned, which, of course, includes filling them in. On the cost of those two alternatives there is some dispute. The Government say that it would cost £190,000, according to the Minister of State, to restore the Ashton Canal to cruising standard. He has not given a figure for the cost of filling it in. I understand that the Coal Board may contribute towards that.

The Inland Waterways Association—to repeat what I said earlier—has assisted me considerably in my work over this part of the Bill, but it is a completely non-party organisation, which has been at the disposal of hon. Members of all parties. Any information which I have obtained from it has been equally available to all other hon. Members. It works in the interests of the waterways and those who use them, and that is all. That Association says that it would cost £40,000 to restore these canals. It has also made a rough forecast of the sum needed to fill in, including piping, which it says could not be less than £500,000 and might be nearer £1 million. Whatever the rights and wrongs of those two figures, we can at least agree that there is a vast difference between them.

To come to last week's meeting, what the Minister of State did not mention was that there is now, and was at that meeting, an offer before the Waterways Board from the various parties concerned to take over the waterways at a figure of £7,000 multiplied ten times—

Mr. Swingler

indicated dissent.

Mr. Berry

I am surprised that the Minister of State shakes his head.

Mr. Swingler

We may be talking about different things. The Waterways Board has been trying to reach agreement with the riparian local authorities. I know that there has been an exchange of correspondence with other local authorities as well, but as I said my information is that three out of the four major riparian authorities are not in favour of the restoration of the canal. That is our information from the Board.

Mr. Berry

I am not disputing that information, but I suggest that interest in the waterways anywhere is not confined only to the riparian authorities. Indeed, we moved an Amendment in Committee about the interests of other local authorities nearby, whose inhabitants use the waterways. The Minister then resisted it, but in another place it has been changed, and one of the Amendments with which we are agreeing this evening is on precisely that point.

9.30 p.m.

There are 18 local authorities in this offer, although I appreciate that the canals do not run through the territory of most of them. But they are concerned because people living in their authorities would like to use the waterways.

I am surprised that the Minister has not referred to this offer. The meeting was held last Wednesday just after the House of Lords had finished their discussions of the Bill, and I thought that that was the moment at which those who attended the meeting should be allowed to express their views. There were some legal representatives of the authorities concerned who expected to have the chance to put their views, but the Chairman of the Waterways Board declined to allow them to remain at the meeting even though the Waterways Board solicitor was there and remained there.

Mr. Swingler

I am sorry if there has been a misunderstanding, but my information is that the Waterways Board initiated the meeting deliberately with the riparian authorities to see whether in the first place agreement could be reached with them. We are entirely in favour of local authorities outside the area being involved in any agreement, but it is difficult to make progress without the consent of the local authorities through whose territories the canals pass. In the first place, therefore, the initiative had to be to try to reach agreement with the riparian authorities.

Mr. Berry

I do not follow that. I should have thought that the Waterways Board wished to dispose of these lengths of waterways if it could find other local authorities and other people prepared to take them over. They have quite rightly been described in rather disparaging terms. Surely the Board wants someone to take them off its hands for ever, saving it the cost of upkeep. I should have thought that it would jump at the idea instead of exploring only the position of local authorities who, as they must have known already, would not undertake the responsibility. They could have had first one meeting and then another.

Time for this offer is running out. The offer could not apply after the Bill becomes law because the actions would have ceased. These people are anxious to settle it now before the Bill becomes law. Surely the Waterways Board should have treated the matter rather more urgently than seemed to be the case at the meeting last week.

Does the Board intend to pay to fill in and pipe these two canals? If so, the Minister surely must be able to tell us what the cost will he. I gave a figure between £500,000 and £1 million. Is that figure correct? Is it not time that the Minister gave a figure?

In another place on 8th October the Lord Chancellor unfairly raised the question of the timing of various stages of the action. Having referred to correspondence, he said, The next thing the Board heard was that after the Bill had been introduced a writ was issued. I am sure that he did not mean to mislead the House. There was so much interest in the subject among those concerned with waterways that the Board must have known what was going on. When the Bill was introduced it must have been known that a writ also was in the offing. The Lord Chancellor continued, But the fact is that the action had not started, and they did not even apply for the Attorney-General's fiat which has to precede the issue of a writ, until after Vie Bill had been introduced. A little later he tried to argue the rights and wrongs of passing legislation affecting this action and said that there … is no reason why Parliament should not pass legislation which is in the public interest … That is the least doubtful point. Some hon. Members consider that parts of the Bill are in the public interest while others are not. We agree to differ. He should not have been so categorical. Later he said: … it would surely be absurd to preserve the old régime in relation to these two unnavigable canals alone. Why are these two canals unnavigable? That is what this case is all about. He went on: The House should, therefore, reject this Amendment which seeks to preserve the old régime for two lengths, totalling about 15 miles out of 2,000 miles of nationalised inland waterways. What is wrong with taking an interest in 15 miles of waterways? They are as important as any other length for those who want to use them. Following that argument, he said: That, it is submitted, is a sound basis, and the mere fact that after the Bill was introduced this action was started is not a good reason for making an exception for these two canals".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th October 1968; Vol. 296, c. 1086–9.] That argument no longer holds water.

I still hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. They should enable this case to be brought. It is not for me or any of us to judge who will win. We should merely allow the case to be brought so that justice may be seen to be done. There are no political grounds involved. On economic grounds, those who are prepared to spend their money on these waterways should be allowed to do so, and so save the Board from a continuing drain on its resources. On amenity grounds, the canals should certainly be restored. On local grounds it is clear that the local authorities involved wish to use the canals again. That has been shown clearly. Whether or not the offer is accepted is not the point. The point is that this action has been prepared for many years and many people have shown great concern about the condition of these waterways. Regardless of the Bill, the time has come when these people should have the right to have justice done and for the courts to judge whether or not these stretches should once again become part of the cruising waterways of this country.

Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley)

I have a special interest in this matter, being Chairman of the North-West Sports Council and having previously participated in a deputation to the Ministry. This problem is of limited application. It has been suggested that if the Government were to yield in this case they would have to do the same in every other case, but all other cases are not the same as this one. In this event there is a strong body of opinion concerned about the future of these waterways. A large number of people are now participating voluntarily in an enormous amount of work for the restoration of the canal. I recall going there and seeing the work being done by youngsters on the lock gates at Marple. The work is a tribute to them, particularly since they gave up much of their leisure time to do it. There is no question of Parliament deciding the wrongs and rights of the issue if the Amendment were accepted. It would only result in the courts being free to decide the issues involved.

Faced with a problem of this sort, it seems wrong that a three-line Whip should restrict hon. Members on what is in no sense a political matter. It is very much a local and legal one. No question of confidence in the Government or in a political policy arises. This is a local matter of some importance to those concerned with the provision of amenities in the North-West, and I resent the imposition of a three-line Whip on this occasion.

A matter of principle is involved. It is dangerous for Parliament to pass legislation after the initiation of legal proceedings. It is a quibble to talk of the five days' interval, because these proceedings were then pending. A great deal of time, trouble, energy and expense goes into preparing proceedings as complex as these. If legislation is passed, the expenditure involved in preparation is lost, because these proceedings are started on the assumption that the plaintiffs will win and will therefore get their costs. Parliament suddently intervenes at this stage, and all that work and expenditure are of no avail. I do not say that there are not cases in which Parliament may intervene, but I do not think that this is a case of such public importance that Parliament should intervene to frustrate the workings of justice.

It is said that £195,000 would be required for the restoration of this stretch of waterway, but it has not been acknowledged that the local authorities concerned have already pledged themselves, so I understand, to make up any difference between the amount which the Waterways Board is prepared to spend in any case and the sum of £195,000 that has been mentioned. All this will frustrate the tremendous amount of voluntary work, which is so good to behold, by so many people in this area.

It is only because of failure to observe the statutory obligation that we face this situation at all. This issue must be decided by the courts, if that is not done, what we are doing is legislating retroactively with regard to an obligation which was at that time on the Waterways Board and which will be removed, not in 1968 but in respect of an obligation which existed before then.

The Ashton Canal and the Peak Forest Canal do not appear in Schedule 12, and because of past neglect, now compounded by this legislation, it looks to me as though the people of the North-West Region will be deprived of this amenity. I stress the value of this amenity, not only to those living in the area or above it or immediately adjacent to it but to those in my constituency and in the conurbation of Manchester who are increasingly able, because of the motor car, to have access to the countryside and enjoy their leisure time in such areas as this. As well as sailing in a boat, there are other ways of enjoying a canal, such as walking along the towpath or angling, as one sees on this stretch. In an area where there is as much dereliction as we have there we want to be a little adventurous and visionary in looking at the few natural amenity possibilities there are in the North-West, and to see that when we have these we do not despoil them or do away with them, but develop them for the generations to come.

I once said, and I shall repeat it in spite of the attitude of the Manchester Corporation, that, strange as it may sound today, I should have liked to have seen the Ashton Canal running through the heart of Manchester, with a marina where one could moor boats, and going on to the Peak Forest where the amenity there could also be enjoyed. This mat- ters, because we in this party have always said that we are concerned about the quality of life for the people. We remember the famous pamphlet, "Leisure for Living", and if we really believe in that we have to provide these things which, as people's leisure increases, will become more and more important.

This is a matter of some principle and importance. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has done so well in pioneering this excellent Bill through Parliament, will think again about this Clause, and will realise that there are many hon. Members on both sides who are concerned about this amenity and the legal principle involved in what is essentially retroactive legislation.

9.45 p.m.

Sir A. V. Harvey

My constituency of Macclesfield is directly involved with these canals. I went with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) on the delegation to see the Minister of State. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has made a very constructive speech in which he referred to the amenities of the Ashton Canal. The North-west needs such amenities. It is an enormous area with a population of 4 million and much of the area is very drab.

When the Minister of State opened the debate he did not do the subject justice. He should communicate with some of his hon. Friends who come from this area, or should go there to find local opinion about it. There is evidence of strong feeling on this matter in the North-West. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) who also made a very constructive speech, understands this problem in detail. The Inland Waterways Association's excellent briefs have been open to all hon. Members. This is not a party issue, although there is a three-line Whip today.

Not an enormous sum is involved, but many hundreds of thousands of people are concerned about this matter. The Inland Waterways Association is one of 30 plaintiffs whose number includes 18 local authorities which are involved in an action in which I understand the Attorney-General, on behalf of the public, is sueing the Waterways Board and alleging that it has failed in its statutory duty to maintain the Ashton and Lower Peak Forest Canals. Part VII of the Bill has the effect of repealing the law on which the action is founded. Attempts were made to amend the Bill, but they were prevented by the Guillotine from being debated in this House.

The Minister of State has referred to five days, but I am not interested in the five days interval. I am interested in the fact that the House was not able to debate this matter. I am not a lawyer, but I consider that the House of Commons ought not to be playing the rôle of the courts which, so far as I can see, is what is happening tonight. On 8th October the Bill was amended in another place. There should be an opportunity to prove the case of the Waterways Association. Many matters are in dispute, not only legal matters. For example, the restoration of the canal, it is said, will cost approximately £200,000, but the Association says that it would cost £40,000. There is a wide gap there. To fill in and pipe six and a quarter miles would cost £750.

Mr. Mapp

Several of us live in the neighbourhood and can judge the usage of the canal, if not of the local agitation. Can the hon. Member say if the figure of £40,000 is supported by professional opinion?

Sir A. V. Harvey

It may be £60,000. I am not in a position to say, but it certainly is not so much as £200,000. No doubt, the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) will make a contribution to the debate if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye.

To fill in and pipe six and a quarter miles would cost at least £750,000. The Board has undertaken, through the Lord Chancellor, not to commence redevelopment of the waterway for three years. That will further increase the cost to the Board. The Board has received, or is entitled to, compensation by the Coal Board. It suggests £200,000 as the cost of restoration if the action proceeds to trial and succeeds. The Inland Waterways Association is prepared to make itself responsible for restoration of the canal to a navigable condition. In so far as it exceeds the sum to which the Board is committed, the Association would welcome participation of the Board in a consortium, but would wish the consortium to take over the waterway entirely. It would indemnify the Board against all liability on payment by the Board of a capital sum at, say, 10 years purchase of the net annual deficit.

If the deficit cannot be immediately calculated as agreed, then it could be determined by arbitration. The Association's offer is conditional on any arrangement giving it control of expenditure it is prepared to incur. It would also require the benefit of subsidence claim to be assigned to the consortium or any payment which has been received to be made over to the consortium.

I ask the Minister of State to have second thoughts about the matter. It is very complicated. Whatever the exact figures are, the case affects hundreds of thousands of people. The Press has reported that 700 volunteers are clearing part of the canal of motor cars, prams, and so on, in their spare time, in pouring rain.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) has just handed me some notes stating that the Ashton Canal figure is £41,000 and the Lower Peak Forest Canal £29,000. These are contractors' costings, if it is of any interest to the hon. Member for Oldham, East.

I hope that before the debate ends the Minister of State will give the House a real assurance that the matter will be gone into further to see that it can follow the normal course.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson

I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) on their speeches. I think that they have made the case and that it is, perhaps, unnecessary for me to address the House. Nevertheless, there are one or two points which should be spelled out and one or two points which should be reiterated. The history of this dispute was outlined by the hon. Member for Southgate and I will not weary the House by repeating it. I want to give the House details of more recent events.

Mention has been made of a meeting which took place on Wednesday. My hon. Friend the Minister of State suggested that a solution may emerge from this meeting. This was the impression given in the other place on 8th October when the Lord Chancellor quoted a letter from the Chairman of the Board. I hope that the House will bear with me whilst I read part of this letter, because I think that it is very important. This is the assurance which the Lord Chancellor gave Members of the other place in quoting from the letter: My Board feel strongly that in the impending new circumstances the time has now come when a fresh look should be taken at this hitherto intractable problem. My Chairman, Sir Frank Price, is arranging to visit the Ashton Canal on Wednesday, October 16, and in the afternoon he would very much like to hold an informal exploratory meeting with the local authorities directly concerned. The meeting is being arranged at the Town Hall, Manchester."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th October, 1968; Vol. 296, c. 1088.] The impression which I am sure that hon. Members will draw from that letter is that the Board was acting in a very conciliatory way and attempting to bring about a solution acceptable to all interested parties. We gain an entirely different impression from the meeting. We learn that about 18 local authorities which are not riparian authorities were excluded from the meeting. This partly indicates a conciliatory attitude. The legal adviser to these 18 authorities was also excluded.

At the meeting there was no mention of the proposals which were contained in the plaintiffs' letter dated 9th October. This letter, written by the plaintiffs in a very conciliatory way, forms the basis of a compromise which I think would be satisfactory both to the Board and to the amenity and local authority interests. It is significant that no consideration was given to the letter. I should like my hon. Friend to say a little more about how he thinks a solution will emerge in view of the Board's present attitude. I shall quote one paragraph from the letter. There has been reference to it already, but the House should know the precise terms of the agreement: What our clients and those associated with them are prepared to do is to make themselves responsible for the restoration of the canal to navigable condition and to meet the cost of restoration in so far as it exceeds the sum to which the Board are in any event committed. In other words, there is a clear indication of a realistic approach by the local authorities: they know that the Board has considerable demands on available funds and they are not committing it to any sums in excess of its present commitment. But here is the nub of the problem. There seems to be some dispute about the extent of the Board's commitment. On the one hand, I am told that some of the local authorities feel that the Board will meet the cost of fill-in, while, on the other hand, the Board feels that the local authorities will meet the cost of fill-in. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will state categorically whose responsibility it is.

We have heard already today that the somewhat unhelpful attitude taken by the three local authorities Cheshire, Lancashire and Manchester would, perhaps, be a little different if they were called upon or required to meet part of the cost of fill-in. We have had some details of the cost of fill-in. It is an appreciable sum, and the House should know what the sums of money involved are about which the three authorities are concerned. The Rochdale Canal was closed in 1952. I am informed that it is 2¾ miles long, and I have had quoted to me the astronomical figure of £430,000 for fill-in. I am told that Manchester has declined to do it because of the astronomical cost. That is purely an estimate, but we have some actual figures. The cost of fill-in in Glasgow of the rather wide Monkland Canal, 2½ miles long, was £320,000 over that length. We have heard that the cost of fill-in in respect of the Ashton Canal is £100,000 per mile and the total cost, given that the estimate is accurate, is over £600,000.

These figures should be compared with the estimates produced by the two interested parties. There is a disparity between the two sets of figures, but I think that it is easy to explain. For the Lower Peak Forest Canal the Board's estimate is £35,000 and the authorities' estimate is £29,000. For the Ashton Canal the disparity is rather greater: £195,000 from the Board and £41,000 from the amenity societies and local authorities. The disparity here is to be accounted for by reference to the high labour cost which the Board has taken into account. As has been explained, a great deal of the labour will be provided by volunteers. My hon. Friend the Minister of State cannot ignore the evidence put to him from both sides of the House showing that there are many people who willingly sacrifice their weekends to undertake this rather uncomfortable task. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has ever done it. I have, on the Bucksworth Basin, and I know that is not a very pleasant way of spending a Sunday afternoon.

However, as I say, many people are prepared to undertake this work. The cost of labour is very high. I put it to my hon. Friend, therefore, that, although there may be a slight underestimate on the part of the local authorities and amenity societies, the sums involved are nowhere near, on the one hand, £195,000 or £35,000, on the other.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State will accept that we should in all that we do in the House and in our legislation attempt to maximise the return to the community. If the Board were prepared to enter into the sort of agreement which is outlined in the letter, the return to the community would be far greater than by undertaking fill-in, whether paid for by the local authorities or by the Waterways Board.

I accept that the Amendment may not be as judiciously worded as it might be and that there are flaws in it, but I put it to the Minister that, if it is allowed to stand, the Waterways Board will be likely to adopt a more conciliatory approach in relation to the very reasonable approaches which have been put to it than it has been so far.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.