APPENDIX 1
A REPRESENTATIVE
SAMPLE OF
MPS RESPONSES
IN FULL,
ILLUSTRATING THE
SITUATON IN
DIFFERENT SETTINGS
MPs were asked to quantify their post bag, indicate
how this compares to previous communications on waterways and
to a usual level of concern on a issue, and to list the issues
raised.
Tim Boswell MP
Thank you for your email about forthcoming evidence
to the EFRA Select Committee. In order to assist by getting a
rapid response to you, I make the following brief comments:
1. In terms of my current constituency I
probably have one of the longest stretches of rural waterway,
including the Grand Union from Cosgrove via Stoke Bruerne (the
Canals Museum) and Blisworth and Kilsby Tunnels to Braunston;
then on the Leicester Arm; and also long stretches of the Oxford
Canal as far as Aynho, where I am personally a "riparian"
landowner. I have commented that the canals are Northamptonshire's
"seaside" and I have long supported their potential
for tourism and localised development.
2. In normal "traffic", I might
receive about one letter a quarter on waterways issues, usually
on some local maintenance problem.
3. Since the DEFRA "cuts" were
announced, I have had at least a tenfold increase in correspondence,
and on 3 March attended and addressed a very large rally of boat
owners at Braunston.
4. While I acknowledge that this partly
reflects disquiet at the level of user charges, I feel it is at
least equally motivated by concern at the potential decay of the
network. I have felt that, whereas for some years we have been
"going forward" in terms of the maintenance backlog
and with the possibility of new major schemes and canal restoration,
now we are back in reverse gear. While no doubt this can be endured
for a year or two, it would be a serious dereliction of duty and
the waste of a great national asset if it persisted.
Ian Stewart MP
I have had written representations from six
constituents (including a Salford City Councillor) and a few dozen
representations in person from constituents concerning the BW
budget cuts. This is easily the largest number of representations
I have received on any "waterway" issue since my election
in 1997.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment
to express my opposition to the proposed cuts in October 2006
and my concern about the future of the proposed restoration of
the Salford, Bury and Bolton canal. I also attended and spoke
at the "Save our Waterways Campaign" protest on 25 November
at Castlefields, Manchester.
My constituents have made the following points:
— They believe that these cuts have
been imposed to help fund mistakes Defra has made in the management
and distribution of farm subsidies. It would appear that British
Waterways (BW) and the Environment Agency (EA) now have to pass
on some of the cost of these cuts to users of canals and rivers.
— Our canals offer a popular leisure
facility and their development in recent years has transformed
many areas not only in the North West, but for example Birmingham
City centre.
— Canals and waterway users can provide
a significant boost to the local economy.
— In my constituency there are at least
three narrow boat builders. They are naturally concerned about
the impact on their businesses and employees of a reduction in
funding. If people have reduced opportunities to use their boats,
then they are less likely to buy new ones.
Role of waterways
In Salford and Manchester we have seen investment
in canals and waterways kickstart urban regeneration and redevelopment.
Waterways played a significant role in the development of the
Greater Manchester area in the 19th and early 20th century. And
after decades of decay, like other parts of the UK, since Labour
came to office in 1997, they have begun to blossom again. In my
area we have seen considerable development and we have big plans.
(Salford Council is twinned with Narbonne in France and when representatives
of the French city council visit Salford this July, one of the
events scheduled to entertain our guests is a narrow boat regatta
with jazz music.)
The proposals to restore the Manchester, Bolton
and Bury Canal to navigable status were originally announced in
approximately 2001 by British Waterways. The MBB Canal runs through
three local authority areas, Salford, Bury and Bolton and these
three authorities agreed immediately to work in partnership with
BW and the MBB Canal Society, to help to secure the resources
necessary to restore the Canal.
Waterside Regeneration is seen as a fundamental
aspect of the whole regeneration framework for Salford. Salford
City Council has already achieved significant success in this
with the highly acclaimed redevelopment of Salford Quays, now
the home of famous landmark buildings such as the Lowry Centre
and the Imperial War Museum, together with significant retail,
leisure, commercial and residential property. Planned developments
at the Quays are continuing to demonstrate the demand for these
waterside locations with major new developments planned on all
sites adjacent to the Quays and the banks of the Manchester Ship
Canal, including the potential relocation of the BBC to the heart
of Salford.
Salford City Council therefore welcomed the
restoration plans for the MBB Canal as a real opportunity to add
several miles of waterside development potential to land in the
area. Much of this land is currently scarred by industrial decline
and lies derelict, neglected and underused. Restoration of the
Canal would bring major improvement through some of the poorest
wards in the country, bringing much needed social, environmental
and economic benefits to these areas and stimulating new and redesigned
sustainable communities and neighbourhoods.
Aspirations have been raised in Salford for
the MBB Canal as a fundamental asset to a number of existing regeneration
projects. It runs through the heart of the New Deal for Communities
area, is potentially a key component of the Chapel Street Regeneration
project, the Urban Regeneration Company's plans for Central Salford,
the Newlands Programme in the Lower Irwell Valley and the Regional
Park proposals for the Croal Irwell Valley. Unlocking the potential
of the Canal corridor is recognised as crucial to major regeneration
in the area. It has been estimated that restoring the Canal alone
could create 6,000 jobs, lever in over £200 million additional
investment, provide major recreation and tourist opportunities,
and would link the urban core with the rural fringe, securing
two way benefits for all.
Articles on the benefits of Waterside Regeneration
litter the pages of planning, economic regeneration and housing
journals every week. It is possibly one of the most important
regeneration stimulants in the country today. It is therefore
very worrying to see that the very bodies that are in a position
to do most to stimulate this resource are facing such severe cutbacks.
There are a number of factors affecting the
restoration proposals of the MBB Canal. British Waterways have
identified this canal as one of their top national priority waterways
for restoration. However a significant funding package is required
to fully restore the MBB Canal. Early indications are that the
minimum funding required would be around £36 million. It
was originally hoped that up to 50% of this could be found through
the North West Regional Development Agency (NWDA), but even this
has not yet been secured. With such core funding in place it would
be possible to seek support funding from a number of other sources
such as National Lottery, or links to other regeneration funding
programmes.
British Waterways, even before these proposed
cutbacks, had limited funding to contribute to the proposed restoration.
The main asset BW are bringing to the table is a highly skilled
staffing resource, coordinating the programme to restore the canal,
bidding for match funding, designing and implementing engineering
works etc. The cutbacks could have an immediate impact on this
resource. BW announced job losses of 180 before April this year
with the prospect of more to follow. I know that Salford City
Council is very disappointed in this outcome and would welcome
a re-think of the proposed cutbacks to the BW budget.
In 2006 I wrote to the Financial Secretary to
the Treasury on behalf of constituents who were alarmed by the
prospect of a significant increase in the fuel costs for pleasure
craft, the so-called "red diesel" under EU harmonisation
plans. Towards the end of 2006, I received an update from the
Minister to say that the Government had formally applied to the
European Commission to renew our derogation from the relevant
EU directive, so that private pleasure craft can continue to use
rebated gas oil. It has become almost trite to talk about joined-up
government, but it doesn't always happen and it does lead to better
decision making. Investment in canals and waterways can have a
significant role in urban regeneration and I hope that early action
can be taken to reverse the cuts in funding for our waterways
agencies.
Martyn Jones MP
Thanks you for your email of 3 April regarding
funding cuts to British Waterways.
As you will be well aware, the constituency
which I represent in Parliament—Clwyd South—relies
quite considerably on tourism as a major component of the local
economy.
One of the principal tourist attractions in
Clwyd South (and the whole of North Wales) is the Llangollen Canal.
Indeed, this particular canal is one of the most popular waterways
in the whole of Europe.
It is understandable, therefore, that the proposed
cuts in the budget of British Waterways by DEFRA have generated
considerable concern amongst my constituents. This concern has
been reflected in the amount of correspondence I have received
on this issue, from individuals and community groups locally.
Their primary concerns (some of which I entirely
share), include the fear of undermining the work of British Waterways
in regenerating the canal network locally over years. This is
understandable, as the canal has brought considerable benefits
locally in terms of employment and income.
Constituents have also expressed concerns that
the huge amount of work undertaken by voluntary groups in restoring
the network over recent years. They believe this work could now
be undermined by the cuts, and they have fears that the canal
could fall back into a state of disrepair and decay.
They have also articulated concerns relating
to British Waterways' capability in the future of coping with
emergencies such as breaches of canal banks etc., should the cuts
be made.
Another point that was raised in correspondence—and
one which I strongly support—is related to the use of the
canal network for freight transport.
The environmental benefits in removing some
freight from our roads are not only self-evident, but in my view
this is an aspiration that should be taken much more seriously
for sound economic reasons.
Whilst tourism will always remain the "engine"
that drives the canal network in the UK, the potential and opportunities
for wider use of canals for freight transportation, should be
explored considerably more than it has to date.
However, with British Waterways facing cuts,
it is difficult to see how that potential could be fully explored
and realised.
Correspondents have also leveled accusations
at DEFRA, that it is offsetting huge EU fines as a result of late
payment being made to UK farmers.
— Earlier this year, I attended and
addressed a very well attended demonstration event held at the
Trefor Canal Basin in my constituency. The attendance at this
event, I believe, reflected the level of community support for
the canal network locally. It showed me as the local MP, the recognition
by my constituents of the tremendous asset and potential that
the canal brings to their area.
Finally, the current debate over funding comes
at a crucial juncture for the Llangollen Canal in particular.
As the APPG is aware, the Pontcysyllte Aqueduct
was one of three UK nominations made to UNESCO by the Department
of Culture, Media and Sport for consideration as a World Heritage
Site.
This in itself recognises that the aqueduct
is regarded as one of the world's most renowned achievements of
waterways engineering. Thanks, in no small part, to the genius
of its engineer, Thomas Telford.
Should the Aqueduct's nomination be successful,
the potential not just in terms of status, but the impact on the
local economy in relation to jobs and prosperity, would bring
considerable benefit to the locale.
Therefore, cuts in funding at this stage of
the nomination process would undermine the Aqueduct's chances
of securing World Heritage status, as it would undoubtedly send
the wrong signals to UNESCO as to the seriousness of the British
Government in supporting its own candidate.
The issue of Pontcysyllte Aqueduct has demonstrated
that there is a contradiction between the aspirations of the DCMS
and budgetary priorities of DEFRA in relation to the canal network
in my constituency.
I believe this contradiction that has to be
resolved as a matter of urgency.
I believe Government now has a responsibility
to address this dilemma, not just for the benefit of my constituents,
but for the wider interests of heritage within the UK as a whole.
David Heyes MP
My constituency has a rich canal history. In
the centre of Ashton-under-Lyne, the Portland Basin is a vital
hub in the national canal network at the confluence of the Ashton,
Peak Forest and Huddersfield Narrow Canals. The Ashton canal itself
runs through Droylsden to Manchester to meet the Rochdale and
Bridgewater canals, forming part of the Cheshire ring. In recent
years we have seen the successful refurbishment or restoration
of all of these canals and, most recently, Millennium funding
has enabled the restoration of the Rochdale Canal through Failsworth
in the Oldham part of my constituency. There is also a very active
Hollinwood Canal Society's work to restore and ultimately reinstate
that canal and link it back into the network.
In a speech I made just last November about
my Private Member's Abandoned Waterways Bill I congratulated the
government on its commitment to the future of inland waterways,
which was clearly stated in the Transport White Paper and the
"Waterways for Tomorrow" document. This latter explained
that the Government "wants to promote the inland waterways,
encouraging a modern, integrated and sustainable approach to their
use." The document highlights the benefits of inland waterways
in terms of leisure and recreation; heritage and the natural environment
and regeneration.
I have constituents who play a very active part,
as volunteers, in the restoration and maintenance of canals. They
tell me that at one time British Waterways had a significant backlog
of health and safety issues but that these have now largely been
addressed, with the assistance of DEFRA funding. There is, however,
still a considerable list of structures on our waterways that
require ongoing maintenance and I am told that it is this preventative
work that British Waterways have been able to focus on more recently
with the funding provided by government.
Against this rather positive backdrop it is
therefore disappointing that the current debate has become necessary.
British Waterways has faced a series of cuts in funding this year
that amount to £9 million—a 15% cut in its grant-in-aid
within the current financial year. This will have a detrimental
impact on the ongoing maintenance programme.
Within the limited funding available British
Waterways have concentrated on the highest priorities for maintenance—for
example structures such as aquaducts that are liable to collapse
without intervention, embankments at risk of subsidence that could
lead to breaches in the canal, lock gates requiring refurbishment
to prevent failure. Any of these events can, and in parts of the
waterways network already have, happened and in each case the
cost of repair far outstrips the cost of preventative maintenance
and the affected waterways remain closed for months if not years.
These failures can also present health and safety issues to members
of the public. Fortunately when a lock failed just a few years
ago in my constituency in Failsworth on the Rochdale Canal no
one was injured despite the fact that two boats were in the lock
at the time.
It is this preventative work that is threatened
by these cuts to British Waterways. This is clearly false economy.
Without essential maintenance problems will worsen, becoming increasing
expensive to rectify and in many cases what is currently a maintenance
issue will become a health and safety issue. I do not want to
see the good work of British Waterways to date undermined to the
extent that they return to the days of a Health and Safety backlog.
The Inland Waterways Association suggest that
DEFRA has made cuts to British Waterway's grant in aid so that
it can pay a large fine to the European Union for failing to pay
farmers promptly through the Rural Payments Agency and to address
overspending on other systems and projects, mainly relating to
farming. It seems unfair that the agreed funding to British Waterways
is being retrospectively clawed back though no fault of British
Waterways to be used to pay for failings within DEFRA.
I understand that DEFRA ministers will be making
settlements with the Treasury in the next few months that will
have implications for DEFRA funding for several years to come.
I urge ministers in both DEFRA and the Treasury to ensure that
British Waterways funding is restored to former levels and that
the importance of this work is recognised so that this is not
seen in the future as the pot of money that can be readily raided
if difficulties arise elsewhere in DEFRA budgets. This is vital
if government's commitment to the benefits of inland waterways
in terms of leisure and recreation; heritage and the natural environment
and regeneration is to be honoured.
| 
