HC Deb 11 July 1973 vol 859 cc1505-6
7. Mr. Harold Walker

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future classification and conseqent annual cost of the South Yorkshire Navigation Canal.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

The future of this waterway will depend on whether the improvement proposed by the British Waterways Board can be justified. I am awaiting from the board more concrete evidence that the waterway would, if improved, attract the necessary additional traffic.

Mr. Walker

When the British Waterways Board writes to the Minister—and it will write to the Minister—will he, with the approval of the chairman, publish the board's letter in the same way as he published his letter to Sir Frank Price? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if he does not accede to the board's request for the upgrading of this waterway it will cost at least £750,000 to put it into condition? This scheme is widely recognised as the acid test of the Government's intentions and attitude towards the further development of commercial inland waterways, and the Government's persistent refusal to approve it has plunged into deep despair those who care for the waterways and their future.

Mr. Griffiths

The acid test of any public investment of this kind must be a reasonable judgment whether it will bring some return. The matter is being examined in great detail. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the losses that have been sustained by that waterway are high and the alternative forms of transport—notably the railway, which runs virtually along the same line—are not used. It must, therefore, be prudent to make a realistic judgment whether public investment in this canal could be justified.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright

Does not the Minister realise that he is wrong in thinking that our transport system does not need to be further improved? Does he realise that our roads are congested, and that this waterway could be a tremendous help for the future by taking traffic off the roads? Further, has the hon. Gentleman considered the amenities of the waterway? Is it to be said that for the want of £2¼ million we are to destroy amenities that we could enjoy for a lifetime?

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. Gentleman and I are at one in wishing to relieve pressure upon the roads, but I remind him that the first-class railway track that runs along the same line as this canal is, regrettably, not used sufficiently for heavy freight. Those who wish to relieve pressure on the roads have the option of moving to the railways. If they are not prepared to exercise that option, it must be a good question whether public investment in an additional waterway would be proper.

Mr. Wainwright

What about the amenities?