Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340
- 353)
MONDAY 12 MARCH 2007
MR ROBIN
EVANS, MR
TONY HALES
AND MR
JIM STIRLING
Q340 Mr Jack: I think I can take
that as a "yes".
Mr Hales: The exception is the
Olympics. There are huge amounts of aggregates going in; it is
an area where, frankly, the roads, almost whatever the cost, could
not have taken it. We have all worked really hard to get this
off the ground and we are hugely excited about it being a showpiece,
but it is exceptional. The Department for Transport have not actually
signed up yet but we think they will and we have gone ahead without
it, so it is yet another risk that we are taking on the chin.
This is the theme that keeps coming through, that we are having
to take more and more risk with less and less resource.
Q341 Mr Jack: That is a little bit
concerning, that your sponsor department, Defra, have not nailed
down the Department for Transport. When I read the press release
and all these glowing comments by ministers extolling the virtues:
"Olympic Minister says the restoration of the neglected waterways
of the Lea Valley will be vital to achieving our commitment to
make London 2012 environmentally sustainable"—I am
falling over looking at the enthusiasm.
Mr Hales: We are doing it.
Q342 Mr Jack: And the Department
for Transport have not signed up yet?
Mr Hales: They should do, but
they have not as of today.
Q343 Mr Jack: What happens if they
do not?
Mr Hales: We will carry the risk.
Mr Evans: That is when we would
expect our Defra colleagues to come in and seriously help us sort
out that issue.
Q344 Mr Jack: So really the question
of freight is: Like to do more, does not make much money, possibility
on some canals, study will give us a better indication but it
is still to a certain extent the poor relation in terms of where
your management time is going, management time focusing on leisure
and property, maximising the assets in that direction?
Mr Hales: We do not expect and
do not think there is anything we can do on our own to get freight
back on to the water. It will require a change by government of
the economics by something like an emission tax or some other
statutory subsidy to put freight back on to the water. What I
am suggesting to you is that rather than that being looked at
as some sort of broad "Let's get freight on", let's
concentrate on those areas of the greatest possibility. The Manchester
Ship Canal—not our water—is clearly a wide canal which
is a possibility; the Aire & Calder is a possibility; it would
be great to see the Severn actually get going as a possibility.
Mr Evans: Just to add something
to what you have said, I would not want you to think that we are
not actively trying to promote freight. We really do want freight
and one of the ways in which we can really help is if planning
authorities' strategic plans said more about water, and we have
a strategic planner who has done road shows to every planning
authority and continues to do them extolling the virtues of water
and making them put water in the plans. Also, when big infrastructure
projects come along it would be really important for the planners
to say: "This infrastructure project can go ahead but 15%
of materials must come by water, if that is a possibility".
We had an example up in Scotland recently where there is a new
hydroelectric station being built and we came on that too late
and were not involved, and simply because the contracts were virtually
let and they could all bring it by road we failed to bring it
by water. If the planners had said: "You can build this but
20% has to come by water—slam dunk, we are there. We are
also working with Yorkshire Forward and trying to get containers
from Humber, Goole, into Leeds. It sounds easy but it is not.
We have them into Leeds but we cannot get them back at the moment
because they are too light and too high in the water and cannot
go under the bridges, and that is quite an issue because you can
say: "Well, fill them up", but that is all money. So
that is where we are working really closely on strategic planning
with regional development agencies. So we are really enthusiastic
but also realistic and it is my job and Tony's job, if we have
a hundred pounds to spend, to see where we can get best value
for it for the public.
Q345 Chairman: That brings me to
a very important point because, as Peter said in the previous
session, the one area where we have been seriously underwhelmed
by evidence is local government. We have gone back to the LGA
and they are now going to put in a late submission but we did
not have one local authority that extolled the virtue of the waterways,
which is peculiar. Take my own, for example. I could have got
them to write something but when you think of all the local authorities
that have waterways passing through them and we have serious regeneration
schemes under way and have had in the past, why do you think local
government has been apparently oblivious to this inquiry and did
not see this worthy of at least a covering letter to say: "Great,
we want more open waterways". Not one. Is that your fault,
or theirs?
Mr Evans: It is certainly not
mine! As you just said, and as you well know, there is a list
as long as your arm of local authorities who are passionate about
waterways, who work with us really closely, where waterways have
helped transform large areas of their cities, towns, and if you
go to them—
Q346 Chairman: So why did they not
write to us?
Mr Evans: I just do not know,
Chairman, but if you want me to write to them and tell them—
Q347 Chairman: Well, certainly perhaps
some proactive marketing, because it just does not look good.
Mr Evans: Well, Daventry City
Council six weeks ago launched a plan to build a new canal from
the Grand Union into Daventry, because it sees that as the only
way Daventry can have some identity and survival for competing
with Northampton and Milton Keynes, so here is a local authority
passionate about bringing a canal into its town centre.
Q348 Chairman: Do you meet with the
LGA at all?
Mr Evans: I do not. I am about
to set off on a roadshow to meet all the chief executives of all
the major local authorities that we go through, but we do not
have much to do with the LGA.
Q349 Chairman: And that is something
you need to put right?
Mr Evans: We will certainly look
at that.
Q350 Chairman: It would help us because
we might then get a submission from them in due course. If I can
conclude, then, on relationships with the customer, certainly
you heard what I said in the first part when we were talking to
Sea and Water and the Commercial Boat Operators and it was interesting
that they said there was no consultation over the issue of your
winding up of the freight unit. Do you not think it remiss of
you that you did not consult formally with those who, at the very
least, stand to probably do less well because of your unwillingness
to carry on with that part of your business?
Mr Evans: I thought about that
when you asked the question, and whether that was a fair criticism.
I think I am still of the opinion that it is my job to manage
and organise British Waterways in the best way I think fit and
most effective, and I think that was an operational issue for
within British Waterways. We were just changing the way we operated
from having a central freight team to putting accountability into
the nine business units, so I do not think on that occasion it
was necessary to consult with the CBOA. They wrote to me afterwards
and we had a very constructive meeting with them and discussed
ways of jointly working together since then, but I do not feel
on that occasion we were wrong in not consulting.
Q351 Chairman: In terms of the leisure
side of the business I think I just about understand the various
different organisations, but it is a pretty confusing picture
out there. From all the evidence we have received they quite like
the relationship; some individual boat owners have been critical
of BW in terms of what you have said and done about the cuts,
but would you see some benefit in terms of streamlining the way
in which you consult with the leisure industry and, indeed, those
who are volunteers for the various leisure parts of that industry?
Mr Hales: I do not think we can
tell them how to organise themselves. One of their great strengths
is there is a large number of local organisations and they are
federated. The Inland Waterways Association is clearly the biggest
one.
Q352 Chairman: You have IWAAC, but
how much notice do you take of them? Not every organisation has
its own statutory body that you presumably have to consult with.
Mr Hales: There is IWAAC, which
is there to advise government on all the waterways.
Q353 Chairman: But you must talk
to them, surely?
Mr Hales: Yes, we do. The most
important one to us is the British Waterways Advisory Forum which
brings together representatives of the IWA, the cruisers, even
the Horse Boat Association is represented on that, and we meet
twice a year to discuss broad issues and will consult wherever
necessary on individual ones. We are very conscious that the strength
of the waterway movement is in those vital passionate users, particularly
the boating community, and we go out of our way to have close
relationships with them.
Mr Evans: We work really hard
to be open and accountable. We have local meetings; each business
unit has meetings twice a year with local people open to the public
to discuss issues, they can raise anything; we have regular national
boating issues meetings so that people who are enthusiasts who
have particular issues about boating aspects can come along and
talk about those; we have recently merged in with boating and
we have a separate one about towpath issues; we have an annual
meeting with the British Waterways Advisory Forum; we are really
keen. We talk with our customers, we do a lot of market research
to understand what our customers talk about and feel, so this
is very important to us, and I am pleased that the response you
say that you are getting back is that generally it seems to be
working. Of course there is more talking and more consultation
that they would like, and I think trying to get that into proportion
is always the challenge.
Chairman: Gentlemen, I have no more questions
and I am sure as a Committee we thank you for the robust way in
which you have defended what you have had to say. This is not
quite the end of our relationship in as much as you will be no
doubt contributing to our day in Gloucester to find out what is
happening in practical terms. As I say to every participant what
you have said I am afraid will stay said, but there may be additional
evidence you will want to provide us with. We certainly could
do with a copy of the marina book, which I certainly have not
seen and would like to see. I thank you for what you have said;
we will write our report and hope that we may at least keep the
waterways up the agenda. Thank you.
| 
