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.