EA calls off sale of Thames Lock Keepers' Houses

The Environment Agency has cancelled its plan to sell off some of its lock or weir keeper houses and rent out others. This follows a wave of protests and a petition on the 10 Downing Street website.

In June the Environment Minister Phil Woolas and local MPs met with EA and it was agreed to put the proposals on hold until it has completed "a full review of waterways staff roles and responsibilities, and terms and conditions".

As a result of this review, EA has pledged to ensure that there at resident keepers at all 45 locks and major weirs on the Thames. EA's Howard Davidson said "issues such as flood risk and response to incidents outside normal working hours have been key to our considerations."

EA will still sell five houses that are away from the river, but only after the staff living there have been moved to properties close to locks.

The new proposals, which have to be discussed with staff and unions, have already been welcomed by campaigners and supporters. Cookham lock keeper's wife Kim Benge, who has played a key part in the campaign, said "We are thrilled with the news today. Much work still needs to be done but we are truly delighted with this outcome. The River Thames is a safer place today because of it."

MP Martin Salter, who had compiled a file of incidents at locks and weirs where intervention of resident lock-keepers had saved lives or prevented serious injuries, described it as "fantastic news for everybody who cares about the future of the Thames." He added: "I have no doubt that the weight of public opinion coupled with strong Parliamentary pressure were crucial."

Michael Shefras of Thames User Group (Navigation) said: "We were all delighted to be informed that the proposed plan to sell some of the Lock Cottages has been completely cancelled and that resident Lock Keepers will continue to live in the Lock Cottages. Many Thames organisations worked tirelessly opposing the plan. SOW will continue to work with the Thames User Group (Navigation) who are to continue consultations with the Thames Waterways Staff as they progress the Better Ways of Working process to ensure proper service to all who cruise the Thames."

Budget Bonus for BW

...but is there a sting in the tail?

There was good news for British Waterways in the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Report this week.

As part of the Chancellor's measures to give a "fiscal stimulus" to the economy, a grant to BW of £5m will be brought forward from the planned 2011-12 budget. The money will be used as part of a £33m major works programme to repair a range of historic locks, bridges, embankments and reservoirs and dredge channels in waterways across England and Wales.

This shows an acknowledgement that Britain's historic waterways provide excellent value for money for the nation, generating in excess of £500m to the economy each year.

Bringing forward this chunk of cash means that vital work can be carried out sooner and, hopefully, the employment and commerce generated will do its bit towards helping to re-vitalise the economy.

However, it was also announced that, as part of the Operational Efficiency Programme, a team led by Gerry Grimstone will review British Waterways' model for managing its canal-side property portfolio and assess how best public value might be delivered from these assets.

This is causing alarm amongst many waterway enthusiasts, as they fear that the implication is that BW will be forced to sell off its property portfolio through a kind of "fire-sale" and might not even get any of the money!

The fact that a review has been announced doesn't necessarily mean that the assets will be sold off - although that is always one of the possible outcomes. One argument against selling off property at the moment is that it would not bring in sufficient money, with the current downturn in property prices.

Another outcome might be the placing of BW's property and investment operation into a new private sector company run by BW, separate from the public sector navigation operation, as recommended by the KPMG report.

Other points of view state that BW management is somewhat naive to imagine that they could build up a huge property portfolio to help finance its navigation operation, without that portfolio being eyed up and plundered by governments of one colour or another.

So what do you think? Will the extra cash now help? Will BW end up losing its property assets? What does it mean for the future of the waterways?

Add your comment now to have your say!

New Minister Announced

The new minister who will have responsibility for waterways is to be Huw Irranca-Davies.

Huw is MP for Ogmore in South Wales and was Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Wales Office before getting his new job in the Environment department.

Waterway users will be hoping that Huw will quickly familiarise himself with the many issues that are of great concern, not least the current inadequate funding for waterways. It will also be hoped that he will continue with the encouraging progress made by his predecessor, Jonathan Shaw.

Ministers Moved in Reshuffle

Two ministers closely involved with the waterways have been moved in the Government's reshuffle.

Jonathan Shaw, the former Defra Minister with responsibility for waterways, has moved to the Department for Work and Pensions as a Parliamentary undersecretary of state.

Many waterway groups felt that Mr Shaw took a more positive approach than his predecessor. He helped to set up an inter-departmental group for waterways issues, helping to ensure a co-ordinated approach when issues crossed government department boundaries. He also supported the ongoing update of the Waterways for Tomorrow charter for the future of the waterways.

Phil Woolas who, as Minister for the Environment had overall responsibility for areas that included waterways, has become Minister of State for Borders and Immigration at the Home Office.

As a local MP, Mr Woolas takes an interest in the Huddersfield Narrow Canal, which goes through his constituency. Earlier this year, he travelled on a boat up the locks from Uppermill to Diggle, speaking with boaters about issues of concern to them.

While we wish Mr Shaw and Mr Woolas well in their new jobs, it is sad to see sympathetic ministers move onwards. It takes time for waterways organisations to build relationships with those who make decisions and it takes time for new ministers to gather all the threads of what is going on in their area of responsibility. We hope that enough momentum has been started for recent progress to be continued under new management!

EFRA: Sharing the Costs of Canal Restoration

British Waterways should not be expected to bear most of the financial risk for the restoration of canals, says a further report from the EFRA committee.

The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EFRA) has today published a follow-up report on British Waterways which concludes that if Government wants to obtain the public benefits of canal investment, it should bear the costs.

The report notes that it is estimated that in the first seven years after public investment in waterside regeneration, there are about £6 worth of direct economic benefits for every pound of public money invested. It also notes that these are usually public benefits rather than financial benefits to BW.

The Committee says that canal restoration can produce knock-on benefits such as more jobs and visitor income. But the risks have to be spread more widely among the public sector instead of just BW, which often gets little immediate direct benefit from such work.

The report noted the improvements in the relationship between BW and DEFRA, which had been adversely commented upon in EFRA's original report on BW in 2007. The Committee welcomes the setting up the Interdepartmental Working Group which could lead to a more flexible approach to waterway funding.

The Committee's inquiry was prompted by BW’s decision in February this year to withdraw from the partnership to restore the Cotswold Canals.

The Committee concludes that BW should have consulted its Cotswold Canals restoration partners about its withdrawal earlier, so that they could have had a chance to see if alternative funding was available.

The Committee is "unconvinced" of BW's need to spend up to £600,000 on a report by consultants on its future structure when it is by its own admission short of money. It seems unlikely that there wasn't the expertise within BW, DEFRA or the public sector to conduct the study at lower cost, something which BW should now explain.

British Waterways’ chairman Tony Hales welcomes the report as "an extremely useful contribution to the debate". He adds that the committee's work could only help to enhance the prospect for future waterway restorations.

BW disputes the amount it is paying to consultants, giving a figure of£350,000. The results from this study, due this month, are expected to "set the framework for a debate on the longer term strategy for the waterways in the period to 2020".

(The committee's full report can be read here.)

SOW's View

Will Chapman writes:

The opinion by the EFRA Select Committee that BW should not be expected to carry the risks of canal restoration is clearly good news for BW and goes some way to justify their decision to pull out of the Cotswold Restoration.

BW has a statutory responsibility to keep existing waterways open and safe for navigation. As that is a task that needs £125 million to do properly and as they only have £100 million to do the job it is clear that there is no money to spend on non-navigational matters. This particularly when they have the Mon & Brec to repair and the £10 million costs of last years floods to cover.

EFRA also questions whether it is sound management to spend several hundred thousand on the KPMG structure review. As useful as that study might be, I would agree but I was under the impression that BW initiated the study because they were asked to do so by the former Waterways Minister. If that is the case, should not Government pick up that tab (as indeed they should the cost of containing last year's floods)?

All in all, this announcement is encouraging. It demonstrates a growing realisation that the waterways have a profound impact on the agendas of many other Government departments and we can only hope that the Ministers responsible will recognise this by supporting the Interdepartmental Working Group - another recommendation of EFRA - that has been set up by Waterways Minister Shaw to garner support for the waterways from all its beneficiaries.

EA holds back on Thames Lock Keepers' houses sale

It is being reported that the Environment Agency is putting on hold its plan to sell off 10 houses and rent out 12 others. This follows a wave of protests and a petition on the 10 Downing Street website.

After a meeting with Environment Minister Phil Woolas and MPs Martin Salter and Theresa May, the EA has agreed to put the proposals on hold until it has completed "a full review of waterways staff roles and responsibilities, and terms and conditions".

In a statement, EA said that no action will be taken to sell or rent lock houses until negotiations on the full review are completed. It was anticipated that this will take six months but their guarantee would continue until all negotiations are completed or 1st January 2009, whichever is later.

EA also said that any future review of the lock keepers' houses would involve the MPs as well as lock keepers' representatives.

Selling off the silver?

At the end of April, the Environment Agency announced plans to sell off 10 lock keepers' houses and rent out 12 more.

As the reaction to this has been building up, British Waterways has hinted that it may be considering doing something similar. A review just announced will look at ways of getting its historic buildings to make "a greater contribution to the cost of maintaining the waterways network". One idea is to transfer property to "specialist associate company part-owned by BW" (to rent out the houses?) while another idea is to sell some of the property top generate money for canal maintenance.



The problem with selling family silver is that once it's gone, it's gone. You can't sell it again. You don't own your heritage any more.

And what will happen once the lock keepers have been moved out and new owners or tenants move in? They may not be canal fans. They may not like the clanking of paddle gear at 6.30 am and demand restricted opening hours. They may not like boats being moored near their pretty cottages.

And what about the waterways staff themselves? Living on site has always had advantages, such as being able to respond quickly to problems.

If BW and EA had properly adequate funding, they would not even need to consider selling their historic property.

You can help the campaign against the sale of Thames lock keepers' houses by asking your MP to sign Early Day Motion 1587.

More Volunteers?

British Waterways is planning to increase the number of days worked by volunteers on its network from 5,000 to 10,000 a year. A national volunteering manager has been appointed to help this to happen. The volunteers would assisting with projects such as heritage work, vegetation management and clearance of towpaths. [report]

This sounds like an excellent plan. There must be a good number of people who care enough about their local waterway to give some of their time in this way.

However, the volunteers must not replace paid staff! The work they do should be additional to what can be achieved now. Used imaginatively, voluntary work can enhance the work of BW, but we are still going to need experienced, multi-skilled bank staff who can turn their hands to anything from water management to emergency lock gate repairs.

Overgrown vegetation and crumbling heritage are symptoms of inadequate waterway funding. The ultimate solution is more money! Bring on the volunteers, but bring on better funding, too!

Blogging On

It has been necessary to move the "blog" feature across to "Blogger" as the old blog was receiving the attention of spammers! We have copied as many of the entries and comments from the old blog as we could. We hope you find the new version easy to use and look forward to your comments.

We apologise for the technical problems with the Save Our Waterways website over Easter.

Waterways Parliamentarian of the Year

The IWA has awarded its first title of "Waterways Parliamentarian of the Year" to Charlotte Atkins, MP for Staffordshire Moorlands.

Charlotte has secured two adjournment debates on waterway funding, tabled many questions on waterway matters, met with the minister on many occasions and given her time in other ways for the benefit of the waterways.

The award was made at the House of Commons on 1st April at a dinner by Bob Laxton MP and attended by leading waterway figures including the Waterways Minister, Jonathan Shaw MP; the Speaker of the House of Commons, and other distinguished guests.

The twenty MPs present, from all the major parties, had made significant contributions to the well-being of the waterways during the past year, and were contenders for the award.

This most welcome initiative of the IWA's shows appreciation to MPs for their efforts in their key role in helping to fight for improved funding for the waterways.

It is vital that the underfunding of the waterways remains high on MPs' agendas, and it is to be hoped that this event will achieve this. To that end, SOW continues to encourage supporters to write to their MPs, especially with concerns about the effect on their local canals and rivers.

EU Money Floods In

This week came the announcement that the European Commission has approved a payment of £120 million to Britain to cover the costs of floods in England last summer. The money, from the European Union Solidarity Fund, is to cover costs incurred by public bodies in coping with the floods, rather than for insurance claims.

Government ministers have not yet decided how the money will be distributed. It is believed that British Waterways spend around £10 million dealing with the floods, which is money that has had to be diverted away from BW's other spending needs. It seems only right, then, that BW should get its fair share of the cash.

While Treasury ministers are making their minds up, this might be a good time to write to your MP to ask them to ask the ministers whether BW is going to get its share of the EU cash. We know that last year's campaign of contacting MPs had an impact, so questions raised now could help BW to get some if its much-needed money back.

Email your MP now from here: http://www.writetothem.com

Who’s got BW’s money?

There have been big cuts in the funds DEFRA has given BW in the last couple of years, and BW falls behind again this year, as the cash settlement doesn't allow for inflation. So who’s got the money that would otherwise have gone to BW?

DEFRA Minister Jonathan Shaw has given the figures that reveal all in a written answer on the funding of DEFRA's "arm’s length" organisations [see report]. The figures look complicated, but helpfully show the comparable increases or decreases in real terms allowing for inflation.

It would appear from adding up the figures that BW's funding has dropped in real terms by £8.95 million from 2005-6 to 2007-8. Only WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) comes off worse, with a drop of £13.43 million. The figures for Natural England cannot be compared, as the figures for 2006-7 included the setting-up costs which, of course, were not needed again in 2007-8.

So who's got more money? Over the same period (2005-6 to 2007-8) Animal Health got a real terms increase of £15.1 million, the Carbon Trust £26.32 million, the Rural Payments Agency £35.9 million and the EA got a staggering increase of £127.3 million.
The troubles of the Rural Payment Agency are allegedly one of the main reasons for DEFRA's woes. The Carbon Trust helps businesses and public organisations to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide, a worthy and necessary service, but why should this receive such a big increase at a time when DEFRA claims to be strapped for cash? And why has EA required such a large increase? It makes BW's reduction seem like chicken feed!

A drop in spending power of 8 or 9 million pounds is devastating to a small organisation like BW, but one can't help feeling that it could be absorbed by one of the bigger-spending agencies without anything like the same impact. BW does indeed seem to have been treated unfairly, with the funding axe falling disproportionately on it!

Much of BW's financial shortfall may have been coped with in the short term by cuts in planned maintenance and repairs but this can only lead to bigger bills in future years, repairing failed infrastructure and catching up on the ever-increasing maintenance backlog.

Whose Rubbish Is It Anyway?

A couple of weeks ago we raised the issue of whether local councils should foot the bill to remove rubbish thrown into canals in their area, rather than BW [see blog post].
The lack of clarity about whose responsibility clearing water-borne rubbish should be comes up in a report in the Worcester News. Because the rubbish concerned is piled up against a bridge crossing the River Severn, there is a three-way pointing of fingers between BW, the Environment Agency and Worcester City Council, with no-one putting their hands up to accept responsibility [read Worcester News article online].
We think that since most rubbish in waterways originates from residents in an area, the local council should bear the cost, just as they would for removing rubbish littering the streets. That would leave BW and EA with more money for maintaining the structures of the waterways.
What do you think? Add your own comment.

"Flat Cash" for BW Confirmed

So Defra has at last revealed its allocation of funding for 2008-9 and BW is to get roughly the same as it did last year (as speculated before Christmas). Is that good or bad? Well a bit of both, really.

Why is it good? Because it could have been worse! There might have been a cut in the amount of money as there was last year. This moderately good outcome must be, at least in part, due to the continuing campaigns of Save Our Waterways, Inland Waterways Association and others, and the lobbying of MPs by supporters. It must also be due in part to the enlightened approach of the new Waterways Minister Jonathan Shaw. He has shown a willingness to meet and listen to waterway users and made positive initiatives such as setting up an Interdepartmental Working Group for waterways.

Why is it bad? Because it is still not enough! It is based on the amount given last year after the severe cutbacks had been made the previous year. BW is short of somewhere in the region of £25 million a year. It had to make huge reductions to its maintenance and repair programme this winter and this will only lead to larger repair bills in the future and could lead to further failures such as that at Gilwern.

We need you to keep up the pressure on MPs and ministers! Watch this website for the next stages of our continuing campaign!

Click on "Comments" to add your own opinion!

Talking Rubbish

How fair is it that money intended for maintaining our waterway heritage should be spent on clearing up after litter louts? But that is what happens all too often.

You know the score: lazy, selfish people can't be bothered to go all the way to the council amenity site with their old fridge, carpet, bag of clothing, building rubble, mattress or dead dog, so what do they do with it? Why, chuck it over the wall into the canal, of course. As often as not it will sink, so it's gone. Or at least gone until some unfortunate boater goes aground on it, or picks it up on the prop.

But litter louts don't have to go to the trouble of carting large items of household waste down to the cut - small items of rubbish like a beer bottle, coke can, plastic bag or fast food container are easier to carry, and actually float on the water. Okay, litter louts drop such stuff everywhere, but when they drop them on the street, eventually a council employee will come along and pick them up. But litter floating on the canal just stays there, accumulating. And, being on water, it is much more difficult to remove. So most small items of rubbish stay there and the larger items usually get removed only when they cause problems.

Clearing up of this rubbish has to be done by British Waterways from their limited budget. Clearing up litter in other public places is normally the responsibility of the local council, but if the litter happens to end up in the canal, then BW foots the bill. Sensible? Hardly.


But there is some good news in Lancashire. Pendle Borough Council has agreed to work in partnership with BW to help clear rubbish accumulating in the 10-mile stretch of Leeds and Liverpool Canal through the borough. Area committees are to be involved in organising annual litter-picks on the canal in their districts. The council has vowed to get tough against people found depositing litter in the canal with on-the-spot fines. The council is also investigating the provision of extra dog poo bins along the towpath.

The council is not taking on the responsibility for clearing the rubbish, but it acknowledges BW's financial difficulties and is willing to get involved in steps to help. Hopefully other councils will see this as a sensible way forward, rather than just complaining to BW about the state of the waterways, so that more of BW's money can be spent on maintaining the canals.

Perhaps there should be an obligation on councils to remove rubbish from the canals in their areas. After all, it is their local residents who put the rubbish there!

Blow to Cotswold restoration

Cash-starved British Waterways has withdrawn from its involvement in the Cotswold Canals Partnership (see our news report). This follows the diversion of significant funds for the urgent repairs to 16 miles of the Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal in Wales.

"Our existing waterways must take priority" says Robin Evans and, while that is undoubtedly true, it hardly explains why BW is walking away from the Cotswolds scheme. BW has already re-directed the money earmarked for the rebuilding of Vale Royal lock to the Mon and Brec. A large number of other repair and maintenance works scheduled for this winter were also put on hold to save money. Why is BW pulling the plug on the Cotswold Canals at this stage? Could it be that the flattening of the housing market has reduced the expected income from BW's property interests?

This news is very alarming for all waterway restoration groups. But the cutting back of maintenance and repairs is alarming for existing waterway users. If another catastrophic failure should occur, where will BW find the money to sort it out? This all comes back to our main campaigning theme - the need for waterway funding to be put on a secure, predictable and adequate basis and not subject to the dubious fortunes of DEFRA.
Click "Comments" link to add your own comment on this.

Praise where praise is due!

The Inland Waterways Association has announced that it is to give an award to the "Waterways Parliamentarian of the Year" at an Awards Dinner at the House of Commons in April.

The IWA hopes it will become an annual event in recognition of those parliamentarians who have been prominent in their support for the inland waterways over the year.
Among MPs whose names have already been mentioned are Charlotte Atkins and Michael Fabricant, both of whom have been successful in calling debates in the House on behalf of the waterways movement in the past year, although other names are also being speculated upon.

It is vital that the need to remedy the underfunding of the waterways remains high on MPs' agendas, and it is to be hoped that this event will help to achieve this. To that end, Save Our Waterways continues to encourage supporters to write to their MPs, especially with concerns about the effect on their local canals and rivers.

We applaud the IWA for this initiative and think it is good to show appreciation to MPs who have helped to fight for improved funding for the waterways.

Waterways minister Jonathan Shaw MP and Mr Speaker Martin will be attending the evening.

More details of the IWA sponsored event at http://www.waterways.org.uk/News/Pressreleases/ParliamentaryAwards (external link)
One thing that is not mentioned is who the judges are. We await the result with interest.

Minister talks sense!

Phil Woolas, the DEFRA Minister of State, this week answered a question from Bob Spink MP by acknowledging the vital role waterways play in Britain today.

Mr Woolas wrote: “We fully recognise the economic, environmental and social benefits of the inland waterways and the role they can play in supporting Government objectives in health, recreation, regeneration, social inclusion, conservation of heritage and the environment.”

He went on: “British Waterways has been involved in over £2 billion worth of urban and rural regeneration over the last decade and a further £7 billion of waterside regeneration is under way. Its canals also contribute to flood mitigation. In terms of tourism and leisure use, there were 268 million visits to British Waterways last year by boaters, anglers, cyclists and walkers.”

This is an important point we are trying to get across - 268 million visits! There are only around 30,000 boat on British Waterways system, which goes to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of people who enjoy the benefits of the waterways are not boaters! Yet boaters are the ones who are being leant on to help make up the funding deficit through increased licence and mooring fees.

Fishermen make a small contribution through their rod licence, but most waterways users pay nothing at all directly. This is why the government should make sure that the contribution that people do make, through taxation, gets through to the organisations that have to keep the canals and rivers operating.