Save Our Waterways Blog

Tuesday 22 June 2010

New Minister Announces, er... Nothing

We now have a new government minister with responsibility for the waterways, in the person of Richard Benyon MP. Some people have expressed high hopes for MR Benyon, as he is a riparian landowner alongside the Kennet and Avon Canal and has an involvement with the Kennet and Avon Trust.

This week, Mr Benyon issued a statement about the waterways. Or rather, he got someone to make the statement on his behalf in the House of Lords. This could be interpreted as indicating that waterways are so low down on the government's priorities that they couldn't even find a few seconds for Mr Benyon to make his statement in the House of Commons himself!

His message gives a rather mixed message. He said that the new Government would continue to look at the possibility of creating a "third sector" model for British Waterways, as this may fit neatly with the government's so-called "big society" philosophy.

However, he warned that nothing could be decided before the outcome of the Government's Autumn Spending Revue, as the Government's main objective was to reduce the deficit.

He gave the same reason for his decision not to proceed with a new Government waterways strategy. (Can he be referring to Defra's "Waterways for Everyone" strategy? What are the implications if this is abandoned?)

Mr Benyon also suggested that any "third-sector" waterway body could include the Environment Agency's navigations (such as the Thames, the Nene and the Great Ouse). This suggestion has been welcomed by the IWA, which has campaigned for a nation waterway "conservancy" but is likely to be fiercely opposed by many boaters based on EA waters.

Today's Budget statement talked of most government departments facing financial cutbacks of 25% so there must be very little hope of any improvement in waterway funding for years to come. If BW is to evolve into a third-sector organisation or if a national waterway conservancy covering BW and EA navigations was to be created, just how effective would they be if they are not set up on a sound financial basis? A half-baked, cash-starved, third-rate new organisation would surely be the worst possible outcome for the secure future of our waterways?

The text of Mr Benyon's statement, as relayed by Lord Henley, can be read in full here.

.

2 comments:

Will Chapman said...

Since Martin's post there has been further clarification.

During the EFRA Question Time that took place in Parliament on 24 June 2010.

First a statement by Richard Benyon, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;

"I am pleased to be appointed as Waterways Minister as I am familiar with the public benefits the waterways provide and I am making this statement to set out how I intend to take forward inland waterways policy for England and Wales. The Government considers civil society has a very valuable role to play in delivering public services as part of our commitment to creating a Big Society. We will therefore be continuing to look in detail at whether a third sector model would be appropriate for British Waterways, including the possible inclusion of the Environment Agency's navigations as the other navigation authority grant aided by Government. My department will be engaging a wide range of stakeholders in this work (and liaising with the Scottish Government). However I must make clear that, given the Government's overriding objective of reducing the financial deficit, no decisions on such a change will be taken until after the forthcoming Spending Review. In the light of this I have also decided not to proceed now with a new Government waterways strategy and I will review the situation following the Spending Review."

Then a question from Tristram Hunt to the Secretary of State, Caroline Spellman:

Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab) asked: What plans she has for the future of British Waterways. The response was:

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon): I made a statement on Monday 21 June on inland waterways policy for England and Wales. The Government consider that civil society has a valuable role to play in delivering public services as part of the big society. We will be looking in detail at options for a third sector model that will be appropriate for British Waterways, including the possible inclusion of Environment Agency navigations. No decisions will be taken until after the spending review.

Tristram Hunt responded: The Minister will know that Stoke-on-Trent is blessed with many things, and among them are the great canals of England: the Trent and Mersey and the Caldon canal, where we recently had the Hanley regatta. In order to become a proper third sector organisation, British Waterways needs an appropriate financial settlement following the comprehensive spending review and a longer contract with Government to replace annual grants. Can British Waterways' property endowment be put in a charity-locked mechanism, so that the Treasury does not sell it down the canal, and we can be assured that, as an example of the big society?

The Speaker responded: "Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that we have the gist of his question."

Richard Benyon replied: "I am grateful for all those questions, and I look forward to debating this matter with the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues to whom it is important. I know that he is particularly interested in the heritage of our waterways. The answer to his question is yes. For the third sector model to work, British Waterways will have to have access to its estate, or a large proportion of it, for it to gear up funding for sustainable funding in the future. I can assure him that it will not proceed unless it is locked in in that way. Those are the negotiations that we are taking forward with British Waterways.”

Will Chapman said...

Further to Martin's post and my update about proceedings in Parliament on June 24th, the big issue as far as I am concerned is that DEFRA seem to have a fixation about absorbing EA navigations into BW.

On the surface this makes economic sense but it doesn't take much inside knowledge to understand that the way EA navigations like the Thames work is greatly different to the operations that BW operate.

If we are to get BW into the 3rd sector, or civil society as is now the current political jargon, then the last thing we need is 30,000+ plus boaters on EA navigations like the Thames, Nene, Great Ouse, etc. fighting a battle to stop such a merger. It would be nothing short of riparian civil war and I think riparian MPs and DEFRA would be flooded with letters from constituents.

My advice is let us all focus on getting BW structured as a charity with its property portfolio asset-locked so that it cannot become fodder for future governments to sell-off as family silver.

BW staff and supporters need all the help they can get to save the canal system without having to worry about absorbing EA navigations and all of the opposition such a policy would attract.