It seems we weren't the only ones to spot a lack of substance in the Waterways Minister's statement earlier in the week.
Tristram Hunt, MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central, asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Caroline Spelman) about her plans for the future of British Waterways. Waterways Minister Richard Benyon repeated what he had said in his statement a few days earlier that the government would 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", adding that no decisions would be taken until after the spending review.
Unsurprisingly, Mr Hunt sought more detail, stating that "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". He asked whether British Waterways' property endowment could be put in a charity-locked mechanism, so that the Treasury "does not sell it down the canal".
The minister, in reply, did give some sort of re-assurance: "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."
So he seemed to be saying that if BW is to move to the "third-sector" this would be properly funded, seemingly retaining a large proportion of its property, so that it would be sustainable in the future. He also seemed to be saying that the third-sector move would not take place unless it was properly funded.
As we suggested on Tuesday, a half-baked, cash-starved, third-rate new organisation would be the worst possible outcome, so we suppose we must take some comfort from whatever crumbs of good news appear on the table!
The text of the exchange can be read in full here.
.
Showing posts with label Waterway funding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Waterway funding. Show all posts
Friday, 25 June 2010
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.
.
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.
.
Monday, 7 December 2009
BW to keep Property and go "Mutual"?
There has been a lot of head-scratching over the weekend following an article in The Guardian reporting on an interview with Liam Byrne, the chief secretary to the Treasury. The article reads:
A total of £16bn will be saved by pressing ahead with the sale of public assets from April. Assets for sale will include the Dartford crossing, the Tote, the student loans portfolio, Ordnance Survey and the Land Registry. In some cases ministers will wait for assets to recover their value after the recession. "This is not a firesale," Byrne says. "But this is stuff we will bring to the market when the price is right over the next two to three years." Assets such as British Waterways will be reorganised as mutuals.
So what did this mean? On the face of it, BW is not being lumped in with other assets to be sold off, but it does not promise that BW won't be separated from its property assets, which is a current concern of many people, as witnessed by the Online Petition, now in the "top ten" of current petitions on the Downing Street website.
"Mutual" status suggests something that is paid for or owned by those who benefit from it. How could this idea be reconciled with the fact that only a small percentage of waterway users (boaters and anglers) contribute any money to them directly? The only practical way that the other 95%+ of users can contribute is through taxation.
Perhaps the term "mutual" is misleading and this is just another way of describing the "third sector" model that BW has said it wants to become?
The mystery may have been solved this morning, as the Government has issued a report called "Putting The Front Line First" which outlines how the Government hopes to "drive up standards by strengthening the role of citizens and civic society, to free up public services by recasting the relationship between the centre and the frontline, and to streamline the centre of government, saving money for sharper delivery".
The report states: "We are publishing now a portfolio of assets to discuss ownership options with the private sector, including full or partial sale or mutualisation. We will consider new ownership structures that release value from the government estate by creating one or more public property companies".
A chapter of the report's Asset Portfolio (pages 5 to 7) is specifically about British Waterways and includes the section:
"At Budget 2009, it was announced that BW would transfer its property activities (including
joint ventures) into a wholly-owned property subsidiary – in order to ensure clear separation
of, and focus on, both maximising gains from its property and best management of the waterways.
"This process is being taken forward by BW in consultation with HM Treasury, the Shareholder Executive and Defra. However, the Government recognises that there may be benefits in considering alternative structures for BW’s business as a whole, including its property portfolio. We will therefore consider alternative models for the business as a whole, such as mutual or third sector structures. As part of any such future structure for BW, therefore, there may be opportunities for the private sector to invest in the portfolio.
"Under any scenario, ensuring the continued maintenance and protection of the waterways will continue to be an important objective for the Government."
BW has taken this to mean an end to the speculation about a property sell-off [link]. Many waterway users will find this re-assuring although the property portfolio only contributes a part of BW's income. There would still be the problem of obtaining enough additional funding to maintain our waterways adequately.
And reading between the lines the report does not rule out the possibility of some of the property being sold off over time...
[Click below to add your own opinion.]
.
A total of £16bn will be saved by pressing ahead with the sale of public assets from April. Assets for sale will include the Dartford crossing, the Tote, the student loans portfolio, Ordnance Survey and the Land Registry. In some cases ministers will wait for assets to recover their value after the recession. "This is not a firesale," Byrne says. "But this is stuff we will bring to the market when the price is right over the next two to three years." Assets such as British Waterways will be reorganised as mutuals.
So what did this mean? On the face of it, BW is not being lumped in with other assets to be sold off, but it does not promise that BW won't be separated from its property assets, which is a current concern of many people, as witnessed by the Online Petition, now in the "top ten" of current petitions on the Downing Street website.
"Mutual" status suggests something that is paid for or owned by those who benefit from it. How could this idea be reconciled with the fact that only a small percentage of waterway users (boaters and anglers) contribute any money to them directly? The only practical way that the other 95%+ of users can contribute is through taxation.
Perhaps the term "mutual" is misleading and this is just another way of describing the "third sector" model that BW has said it wants to become?
The mystery may have been solved this morning, as the Government has issued a report called "Putting The Front Line First" which outlines how the Government hopes to "drive up standards by strengthening the role of citizens and civic society, to free up public services by recasting the relationship between the centre and the frontline, and to streamline the centre of government, saving money for sharper delivery".
The report states: "We are publishing now a portfolio of assets to discuss ownership options with the private sector, including full or partial sale or mutualisation. We will consider new ownership structures that release value from the government estate by creating one or more public property companies".
A chapter of the report's Asset Portfolio (pages 5 to 7) is specifically about British Waterways and includes the section:
"At Budget 2009, it was announced that BW would transfer its property activities (including
joint ventures) into a wholly-owned property subsidiary – in order to ensure clear separation
of, and focus on, both maximising gains from its property and best management of the waterways.
"This process is being taken forward by BW in consultation with HM Treasury, the Shareholder Executive and Defra. However, the Government recognises that there may be benefits in considering alternative structures for BW’s business as a whole, including its property portfolio. We will therefore consider alternative models for the business as a whole, such as mutual or third sector structures. As part of any such future structure for BW, therefore, there may be opportunities for the private sector to invest in the portfolio.
"Under any scenario, ensuring the continued maintenance and protection of the waterways will continue to be an important objective for the Government."
BW has taken this to mean an end to the speculation about a property sell-off [link]. Many waterway users will find this re-assuring although the property portfolio only contributes a part of BW's income. There would still be the problem of obtaining enough additional funding to maintain our waterways adequately.
And reading between the lines the report does not rule out the possibility of some of the property being sold off over time...
[Click below to add your own opinion.]
.
Thursday, 3 December 2009
What's going at Marsworth?
A couple of weeks ago someone noticed that two planning application had been submitted by to demolish the Marsworth yard and build 14 houses on the site. On closer investigation it turned out the applicant was H2O one of BW's property development partners. (To view the applications and submissions visit http://tinyurl.com/yepu8c2 and search for references 09/01945/APP and 09/01946/ACD).
At the time of the discovery just a couple of days remained before the deadline for objections but the reach of the internet ensured within a few hours the word had spread and a number of people and stakeholders put in their objections.
As one might expect, the objections express a mix of concern about the loss of part of our heritage, appearance, style and number of the proposed new buildings and whether the current boating facilities would be retained. One respondent complained about a local press feature which reported a BW representative as saying 'demolition was expected to start on Nov 30th.'
A few of us made the point that the planning process should halt until BW had performed its obligations to consult with its stakeholders on what is clearly a sensitive issue. It wasn't long before Stuart Mills, BW Property Director published an informative clarification in which he apologises for not consulting with a 'wider range of stakeholders' and states that boaters facilities will be relocated (see http://tinyurl.com/5abxc). This was followed by an invitation to local boaters to attend an open meeting on Dec 10th with BW and the developers H2O. The date clashes with the local IWA Chiltern Branch Christmas celebration but at least the proper consultation process is starting.
Ed Fox, PR Officer from BW, added that it's going to be all right anyway because BW have already got 'plans' to sort out the boaters issues and preserve the odd crane and bit of the wharf. But good intentions aside, the fundamental issue is that NONE of this is written into the current planning application(s). BW don't have any planning approval to construct alternative boaters facilities, nor is there any way to legally enforce the preservation of any parts of the old yard based on the current planning application. Some commentators have observed that the suggested site for the replacement boater facilities is itself in a conservation area which, if true, may mean that the chances of getting permission granted are minimal if not zero.
What people don't seem to realise is that the outcome of the planning application dictates only what must happen; anything else can be and usually is avoided. IF the current planning applications are allowed, then neither BW or the developers are under ANY obligation to provide relocated facilities or preserve any heritage, so no amount of bolting of stable doors will change anything.
Our hope is that someone will raise these points at the meeting on December 10th.
At the time of the discovery just a couple of days remained before the deadline for objections but the reach of the internet ensured within a few hours the word had spread and a number of people and stakeholders put in their objections.
As one might expect, the objections express a mix of concern about the loss of part of our heritage, appearance, style and number of the proposed new buildings and whether the current boating facilities would be retained. One respondent complained about a local press feature which reported a BW representative as saying 'demolition was expected to start on Nov 30th.'
A few of us made the point that the planning process should halt until BW had performed its obligations to consult with its stakeholders on what is clearly a sensitive issue. It wasn't long before Stuart Mills, BW Property Director published an informative clarification in which he apologises for not consulting with a 'wider range of stakeholders' and states that boaters facilities will be relocated (see http://tinyurl.com/5abxc). This was followed by an invitation to local boaters to attend an open meeting on Dec 10th with BW and the developers H2O. The date clashes with the local IWA Chiltern Branch Christmas celebration but at least the proper consultation process is starting.
Ed Fox, PR Officer from BW, added that it's going to be all right anyway because BW have already got 'plans' to sort out the boaters issues and preserve the odd crane and bit of the wharf. But good intentions aside, the fundamental issue is that NONE of this is written into the current planning application(s). BW don't have any planning approval to construct alternative boaters facilities, nor is there any way to legally enforce the preservation of any parts of the old yard based on the current planning application. Some commentators have observed that the suggested site for the replacement boater facilities is itself in a conservation area which, if true, may mean that the chances of getting permission granted are minimal if not zero.
What people don't seem to realise is that the outcome of the planning application dictates only what must happen; anything else can be and usually is avoided. IF the current planning applications are allowed, then neither BW or the developers are under ANY obligation to provide relocated facilities or preserve any heritage, so no amount of bolting of stable doors will change anything.
Our hope is that someone will raise these points at the meeting on December 10th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
