Examination of Witnesses (Questions 420
- 424)
MONDAY 23 APRIL 2007
MR BOB
LAXTON MP AND
LYNDA WALTHO
MP
Q420 David Taylor: But what is the
relationship between British Waterways there and people on boats?
Mr Laxton: It is good. It is a
good facility, a high quality facility, improving all the time.
It is pretty expensive but it is a good facility. But I talk,
and we meet and talk to other people and other organisations who
are members of the all-party Group, who are critical for a variety
of reasons of British Waterways, and my take on it is that British
Waterways in the past have not covered themselves in glory in
terms of the way in which they have dealt with users and the consultative
arrangements. Also, they are getting better but they still have
a way to go.
David Taylor: Could it be due to regional
management rather than flaws in the national strategy? I do not
know. I will leave it there.
Q421 David Lepper: Lynda, you have
referred several times this afternoon to property that British
Waterways is responsible for and owns, and you talked about the
need to protect the physical assets of British Waterways. Now,
we have had some concerns expressed to us over the weeks about
some of the property activities of British Waterways. One boater
who has submitted evidence says they are more interested in property
development and corporate survival than looking after boaters
and canals, and the Inland Waterways Association has expressed
concern about unreasonable financial pressures forcing them into
inappropriate dealings to over-commercialise the waterway network
and asset strip. Now, from what your members have to say on these
issues presumably they hear from their constituents as well. Does
the Group have a view on this particular point? Is there a conflict?
Mr Laxton: We do not have a view
but there is clearly a conflict, and that has fed through some
of our discussions. Also, for example, I get quite a reasonable
level of e-mails from people around the country, they know I am
Chair of the all-party Waterways Group and they e-mail on matters
where I often have to get back and say: "Look, I am not here
as some sort of arbitrator between yourselves and British Waterways".
For instance, down in Oxford there is redevelopment of a boatyard
and area where British Waterways had to take a court injunction
to get people removed which was very controversial. Also very
close to where I live, and David will know this, down at Loughborough
there has been some controversy about what I call a dead end section
of a canal where there was a small boat yard and Loughborough
University wanted to build student accommodation, but we need
to set this against the backdrop that there is nationally in the
country which is that wherever you are, where development takes
place, particularly where you have an area that was built 200
years ago with boat yards and wharves and those sort of things,
there is a conflict between people who want to retain the heritage
aspect unchanged and developers who may want to just tear it all
down and build new apartment blocks, and British Waterways sit
in the process, as do Isis, almost trying to in some respects
arbitrate between that and reach a view on appropriate development.
So I think there is a certain inevitability, and there will always
be some conflict in these areas.
Lynda Waltho: One member described
the relationship as always a conflict between preservation and
evolution, and effectively that underlines those problems.
Q422 David Lepper: Is there an issue
at all about British Waterways going for what I might term the
easy options in terms of where they put investment into the network,
and neglecting some of those areas which are more difficult to
maintain, with the danger of some of those more difficult areas
being flogged off?
Mr Laxton: I do not think so.
Lynda would be able to speak with some experience of Stourbridge
which is basically a dead end in effect, is it not, commercially—
Q423 Chairman: It is the centre of
England!
Mr Laxton: The canal is a dead
end, it is a cul-de-sac, and essentially one would say:
"Well, why would British Waterways do that?" Charlotte
Atkins, the MP for Staffordshire Moorlands, lives close to the
Caldon canal and has spoken about that with a high degree of eloquence.
I have been down that canal when you could hardly get a boat down
it and now it is a superb facility, but basically it is in a rural
part of the countryside; British Waterways does not own great
acres of land down there; you would never get development there
because you would never get planning permission for it because
it is in a very attractive part of the countryside; it was restored
by volunteers and it is maintained by British Waterways, and they
have continued to put resources and money in there, and long may
that continue, and long may we be in a situation with areas like
Derby and Sandyacre canal being reopened as part of a ring where
some development can take place. So I do not think British Waterways
can be accused of actually saying: "Well, we are neglecting
this area to sell off this one". I think that would be an
unfair acquisition.
Q424 Chairman: Colleagues, thank
you for your time. There may be things that you would have liked
to have said, particularly because I cut you short, that you might
wish to submit as further written evidence, but what you have
said will be on the record shortly and will be there for all to
see. I think it is very important that we use Parliament to display
sometimes the interest that parliamentarians and others take in
these issues so it was important that we saw you today, and I
am sorry it was only for half an hour but you are busy people.
Mr Laxton: Can we thank you for
giving us that facility and can I leave this information with
you?[1]
You will find it quite enlightening because it gives views from
a real cross section of MPs about what their views and concerns
are on what the future holds for British Waterways. Thank you.
1 Ev 186 Back
| 
