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!