VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the British Waterways Board consulted their statutory Advisory Council before deciding to close sections of the Oxford Canal at certain dates; whether they will now reconsider their decision; and whether before announcing their scheme, they considered the damage it could do to all users of these waterways.]
269§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, we understand from the British Waterways Board that they did indeed consult the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council before introducing this experiment. They also considered the interests of all users of the Oxford Canal, but decided that it would be reasonable to try the experiment of temporary closure of a section of the Canal to boats, in order to allow undisturbed water to anglers, before 10.30 in the morning on four specified Sundays this summer. The Board will certainly consider the results of the experiment. including comments from boating interests, before deciding their future policy.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, will my noble friend consider the fact that the Advisory Council had not met before I put down my Question; therefore it cannot have been the Advisory Council that was consulted before the Board came to their decision? Will he look into the matter of who was consulted and find out whether it is true, as I am informed, that it was only a sub-committee? Is he aware that the secretary of the committee said they were not consulted, the chairman said they were consulted, but upon another matter, and two members of the committee said that the decision was made before they were consulted?
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, I really cannot say "Yea" or "Nay" about whether by noble friend had his Question down before different bodies were consulted. All I can say is that on the first date that this trial was made, on Sunday, June 22 this year, the Board's general manager was at the site and witnessed the experiment. His impression was that everything went off very amicably. He much appreciated what he saw, and this experiment was appreciated by the anglers. The boaters also accepted the arrangement most tolerantly and there were no queues of boats at Banbury Lock. So, my Lord, it seems as if this experiment was successful and I hope that my noble friend will be quite satisfied.
§ LORD LINDGRENMy Lords, as anglers are the largest body of sportsmen in the country, are they not entitled to some consideration over other users of waterways?
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, that was the opinion of the Board concerned and that is why this experiment was carried out reasonably early on a Sunday morning when most people would not be on the move.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, will my noble friend consider whether he should point out to the British Waterways Board that the danger of this experiment was that in fact they did not close the waterway, but left the anglers with the impression that they had? Since only two locks at a 20-mile interval were closed, boaters were left with the impression that the waterway was not closed. So two different sets of people were under the impression that they had the use of the waterway when that was not so.
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, I am sorry that although most other people seem to have been satisfied with this experiment, my noble friend is not satisfied. All I can do is promise to convey the sentiments that he has expressed to my right honourable friend.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLLMy Lords, will the noble Lord tell us whether the number of fish was substantially increased as a result of this experiment, as this would seem to me to be the object of the whole affair?