Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40
- 52)
MONDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2007
MR JOHN
FLETCHER, MR
NEIL EDWARDS
AND DR
ROGER SQUIRES
Q40 David Lepper: Most of our canals
I suppose were originally constructed to carry freight as an essential
part of our industrial revolution but freight is a fairly minimal
part of the usage of canals these days, as I understand it, and
it looks as if British Waterways is a bit reluctant to see expansion
of the use of waterways for freight, although it is involved,
I believe, in looking at creating non tidal waterways through
the Olympic zone to carry construction materials. What is your
view about the potential of our waterways for increased use to
carry freight?
Dr Squires: If I may, Mr Chairman,
I think one has to not denigrate some of the good work that British
Waterways has done in bringing new opportunities for freight.
Here in London just on the Paddington Arm of the Grand Union Canal
at the junction of the railway at Willesden and the canal and
an industrial road, a new wharf has gone in, a new recycling plant
called the Powerday Recycling Plant, facilitated by British Waterways.
British Waterways has looked in the Lea Valley at the opportunity
for taking Hackney's waste to a recycling plant up the River Lea,
and have been actively involved in organising trials for that.
In relation to the Olympics, British Waterways has been the supporters
of ensuring that water freight can move up to 20-30% of all of
spoil out of the Olympic site, have put forward proposals for
the development of a new lock to make sure that the water levels
in the Olympic site are stabilised, and have been fighting hard
to get a partnership arrangement for that facility. Here British
Waterways has actively identified that there were 400,000 lorry
loads per year that could be removed from the roads of east London
by allowing the rubbish to be taken out of the site by water and
the supplies to be brought in by water, but that required a package
of money originally identified at £17 million but now up
by £2.5 million to about £19.5 million. It is the problem
of getting the partnership together. Ken Livingstone is a supporter
of waterways and put his hand up and immediately said that Transport
for London would put in £4 million of that package. The Department
for Transport put in a freight support grant of £2.5 million
but then you have to find the rest of the price of that facility,
and this is the problem. I think all of the members round the
table will have heard the problems of prices going up on the Olympic
site. The waterway project has not been immune from the opportunity
of a price rise, and we are still seeking that project to be given
the go-ahead. My belief is, looking backwards, the Olympic contractors
move on-site on 1 April 2008; in reasonable terms one would have
liked that facility to be up and running by then. The waterway
freight operators have said they need about three months to get
the systems operating smoothly because, of course, this would
be a new water facility and they have to marshal all of the resources,
the tugs and the barges, so that brings us back from April to
January 2008, and to build a new lock would take, I believe, about
12 months. Now, how many months have we got between now and 1
January 2008 to build that lock? We are coming dangerously close
to running out of time to get the facility up and running. The
problem with everything is that where you are innovating you have
to get the supply chain lined up to organise themselves to deliver
just in time and supply chains, when you are starting something
new, do take time to work up.
Q41 David Lepper: I am grateful for
the list of positive actions British Waterways has been taking
that you have given us, and for your clear explanation of the
sorts of problems that new investment brings with it. Has there
been a history of under investment going back over a long period
which now makes it more difficult for us, if we wish to, for instance,
as part of a platform for dealing with climate change, to make
more use of the waterways for freight than we seem to be able
to?
Dr Squires: I think this is best
answered by looking at the example of Europe. In Europe the Germans
in particular have identified a major transit route from Berlin
through to the Rhine. They had an old canal, the Mittland Canal,
that was built before Hitler came into Germany, and the project
was never completed, but the Germans identified that there were
three factors that were stopping that canal from delivering the
vital transport movement facility that was needed, because water
is the most environmentally friendly way of moving goods. They
saw there was the crossing of the Elbe where they needed a new
aqueduct to be built; there was the problem of low bridges to
get the headroom for the larger loads to be moved, and of course
the economics of waterway freight where the 2,000 tonne size is
recognised as the most economic standard within Europe. Now, the
Germans have set out and have delivered on each of those elements;
they have widened the Mittland Canal, they have deepened the canal,
they have raised the bridges and have built the new aqueduct,
and now they are geared to link Berlin with the Rhine because
they have made the investment. But making investment in the waterways
is a long-term process, and we have never had long-termism in
this country—unfortunately—and there is a distinct
lack of planning to meet the country's needs. One can look back
in this country to the last waterway development which was the
Sheffield and Yorkshire navigation which was enlarged to a degree;
the trouble is it took so long that by the time it was completed
the industry in Sheffield had declined.
Q42 David Lepper: Well, there is
a warning for the future there, I think! Finally, on this issue:
leaving aside for the moment the issues about investment, which
are obviously vital, do you believe that, as our waterways are
at the moment, there is the potential for greater freight use
than is currently happening without major investment of the kind
we have been talking about? If so, who ought to be doing what
to persuade those who need persuading to make use of our waterways
more for freight?
Mr Fletcher: I would just make
the general point that we have not really got an integrated freight
policy which includes waterways. That has to be the first point,
but I am sure Roger will go into some more detail.
Dr Squires: Just looking outside
this building we have a wonderful artery that goes right up to
Oxford. The opportunity for moving freight on the river Thames
amounts to the waste barges that are going past on a daily basis
and little else, apart from some gravel traffic. There is a considerable
potential on the Thames and on the Severn for the development
of freight movement but it requires three things to happen. Firstly,
the channel must be correctly dredged. This is the major problem
on the Severn—that there is potential for developing freight
on the Severn if the depth of water is reliable. Secondly, the
navigation structures have to be maintained to a higher level
so that navigation buoys are there and so one can have a 24-hour
usage, because that is the best way to optimise. But lastly there
is the need to provide adequate wharfage at key points. The Highways
Agency surprisingly is responsible for transferring large abnormal
loads to the waterways, but they cannot do it for the most part
because there are not any suitable wharves for them to use. The
best example is where the M25 crosses the river Thames. In Germany,
for instance, they would have a large wharf at that interchange
facility to get the big loads off the road system as quickly as
possible to take down the waterway, but we have not got the wharf
so we cannot do anything.
David Lepper: The other part of the question
I asked involves, I suppose, whether there should be financial
incentives to industry to use our waterways?
Q43 Chairman: For example, freight
grants. Could you give us examples of where that has been used,
or not used?
Dr Squires: There is a freight
grant and that has been part and parcel of the package of money
that has been put together for the Prescott Lock facility, £2.5
million was coming from a freight grant, but small freight grants
are used. Cemex, a gravel and cement firm, have used a freight
grant to put a new wharf in on the river Severn at Upton and they
are transferring large numbers of barge loads of gravel up the
river Severn, but it needs more money to facilitate some bread
on the water. Unfortunately, British Waterways in their latest
cuts have managed to lose the two senior posts who were meant
to be co-ordinating transport development from their headquarters,
and it is now left to regional officers who have multifunctions,
in other words many other jobs to do, to promote freight. So I
think one has to have a strategic policy from government that
says that investment in environmentally friendly water freight
is a good thing; other countries can do it, why can we not?
Q44 David Lepper: Would you say those
cuts you have mentioned are directly attributable to the current
financial situation of British Waterways, rather than to a review
of how it operates strategically based on considerations other
than finance?
Mr Fletcher: British Waterways
has, we know, been looking at becoming more efficient very consistently,
and many of the recent cuts would no doubt have taken place at
some time—not necessarily every specific one but there would
have been a cut in jobs. What happened was there was a cut some
two weeks before I think it was the beginning of the financial
year in their budget, which is not identified in the Select Committee's
report and there was then the major cut during the year which
the Minister talks about, but the lack of planning which occurred
and the suddenness of it forced a number of redundancies to take
place, whereas it would have taken place in a more structured
way with no need to make redundancies.[2]
Chairman: We will now look at relationships
with government outside the financial boundary.
Q45 Sir Peter Soulsby: I have two
questions really. The first is to some extent promoted by Dr Squires'
use of the example of the River Thames, because in earlier evidence
and indeed in the evidence that was submitted to us in writing
the IWA drew our attention to the multiple navigation authorities,
and the example of the Thames is just one where they are talking
about navigation authorities other than British Waterways, and
in fact in the evidence you talk about the fragmented nature of
licensing. Is this something more fundamental than for the convenience
of boaters? Is it more than I think you suggested to us, a question
of having a single licensing scheme? Are there more fundamental
issues about the way in which responsibilities are fragmented
which you may wish to comment on?
Mr Fletcher: I think I commented
in my opening about the fact that the cost of administering separate
navigation authorities in fact means there are at least two major
structures and several much smaller ones, and that is certainly
something where we believe there is an opportunity to become more
streamlined. The fact that there are two major navigation authorities,
three depending on whether you include the Norfolk Broads as a
major one or not, with the Environment Agency, and it is only
a part of their total remit, still having a significant amount
of waterways to manage; the fact that we have two organisations
running in parallel needing to liaise on a large number of issues
does seem to us to be not the most efficient way of conducting
affairs. Although our initial thoughts in that direction spring
from a convenience for the users I will be quite honest that looking
at it from the outside it does seem to be inappropriate to have
two major navigation authorities acting independently.
Q46 Sir Peter Soulsby: Much has been
made in the discussion about the recent reductions in Defra's
support of BW and of the appropriateness of Defra being the sponsor
department for BW. Do you have views on whether Defra is the appropriate
department? If not, who might be?
Mr Fletcher: We have not got a
clear view on that. I think there are a number of issues. Where
it is in government is a function of government but it is also
dependent on personalities and one can never get away from that,
to be quite honest. When the waterways were run by DETR we were
doing quite well, thank you very much. The Scottish example where
they are now under transport seems to be working well. Whether
that would be appropriate to extrapolate to England I am not so
sure, and I would equally have to say that we seemed to do quite
well under one Minister who lasted in the post for quite a long
time, even at Defra. I do not think there is a clear answer to
that but the way things have been mismanaged recently does make
one feel that anywhere would be better than Defra!
Chairman: Could we conclude, then, with
relationships with customers?
Q47 Mrs Moon: Just first picking
up on the issue of navigation authorities, Chair, I am interested
in the fact that you say there is this conflict between where
responsibility lies. If you had to choose to remove one of them,
which would you get rid of? Would you make British Waterways the
sole navigation authority? Would you make it the Environment Agency?
Or do you see some totally new authority? We have a Marine Bill
coming talking about a need for total navigation authority for
all waterways, including coastal. Would you see it going to a
third brand new agency? What is your view?
Mr Fletcher: The Association has
not debated that issue as such, so the comments that I make are
personal, and I would have to say that the Environment Agency
navigation is a very small part of their remit and generally,
I get the feeling that it is therefore not a particular major
part and it tends to be ignored. That ignoring can be quite helpful
if they dump their cuts on to flood defence, which will have an
effect on navigation in the long run but it is not an immediate
effect on navigation so that is useful. I think the style of management
of British Waterways over the last 10 years, while far from perfect
from a user perspective, is one which we would welcome being spread
elsewhere. There are fundamental differences between inland and
estuarial navigations and totally marine navigations, and I think—and
this is certainly totally personal; my colleagues may differ in
their view—I would favour an inland navigation authority
which is based on the present British Waterways but that is a
personal view.
Dr Squires: I think one has to
really emphasise that distinction between the functions of navigation
authorities, because the waterway just outside this House is looked
after by a port authority rather than a navigation authority as
such. Port authorities work under different rules and have different
needs. It could be argued that port authority functions should
be restricted to ports and not to the entirety of a whole navigation
but the PLA will come back and probably tell you that they only
make money in Tilbury and down below the Queen Elizabeth II bridge
and the whole of the problems up-river are a liability which they
would be pleased to get rid of but nobody would fund it, and this
is the problem that we come back to with any authority that is
placed in charge of navigations. Navigations in many ways can
never pay their way. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission some
15 years ago looked at funding of navigation and they identified
navigations inland as being an extensive heritage linear park.
You could never expect a linear park to be funded other than by
a grant. Whichever authority or multiple authorities look after
the navigations, it will come down to the vital factor that this
Committee is looking at, the one of funding, and effective, full
and proper funding.
Q48 Mrs Moon: I remain concerned
because the Environment Agency has functions that cover other
aspects of the waterway, which you have acknowledged are a major
part of people's use of the waterway. For example, fishermen,
the environmental issues, the biodiversity issues are all within
the purview of the Environment Agency. I am concerned that what
we have perhaps is also some conflicting priorities in terms of
the waterways. You have talked a lot about the navigational issues
but those navigational issues may not necessarily be the priorities
of, say, the fishermen or the walkers.
Mr Fletcher: Nevertheless, British
Waterways do manage very successfully a number of rivers. They
maybe do not develop their freight potential as much as we would
wish but British Waterways also run rivers as well as canals,
and do that successfully, and there is the multiplicity of functions
that devolve around them and the necessary liaison takes place.
Q49 Mrs Moon: Running them for freight?
Mr Fletcher: Running them both
for leisure and for freight, and being concerned as well with
flood control and flood management.
Q50 Mrs Moon: I would like to end
by questioning the nature of British Waterways' relationship with
its customers. I appreciate you can only talk about your own personal
experience of them but we have had descriptions of there being
an ambivalent relationship, one of serious conflict, some quite
negative comments, though, on the other side, some people have
said they are good and effective communicators. What is your experience?
How do you feel that they deal with their customers and how could
that relationship be improved and developed?
Mr Fletcher: I think any large
organisation has its problems, and that which is decided at the
top does not always percolate down. My background is in the Health
Service and I had exactly the same problem with district nurses
and district midwives. You can set your policies and it does not
always get down, and if they are diffuse, then it gets very difficult
to manage. That is a problem. I think that British Waterways has
changed remarkably during the period of the last chief executive
and the current chief executive. Of the last chief executive,
I said "Has the leopard really changed its spots?" and
he turned round to me and said, "Judge by results."
There are clearly things that go wrong; nothing in this life is
perfect, but it is a very much better organisation than it was.
You can always highlight difficulties, and one of the major difficulties
that we experience is understanding the contribution which volunteers
can make which is positive and the constraints that are on the
volunteers and, while we understand the needs for the health and
safety constraints, the application of those constraints can sometimes
get difficult. There are all sorts of little issues like that,
but I do believe fundamentally that British Waterways is a reasonable
organisation but always with room for improvement.
Q51 Mrs Moon: Can I say that volunteers
and their input into any project is inevitably under-valued, under-estimated
and under-acknowledged. It is one of the great failures in this
country.
Mr Fletcher: I do not think British
Waterways under-acknowledge them, Chairman. It is the practical
difficulties of those that are employed and those that are volunteering
getting together and make it happen. There is a willingness but
the delivery does occasionally lack cohesion.
Q52 Chairman: Gentlemen, what you
have said cannot be unsaid, but I thank you for your comments.
There may however be things that you would have liked to have
said that you would subsequently like to go on the public record,
and we are always available to take further written comments if
there is something that, following publication, you feel needs
to be further amplified. Thank you for coming along.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you Chairman,
and I am sure we will take you up on that offer of further written
evidence.
2 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Second
Report of Session 2006-07, Defra's Departmental Report 2006
and Defra's budget, HC 132. In fact, the Committee does identify
both British Waterways' budget reductions in its Report in paragraph
33. Back
|
