Memorandum submitted by The Association
of Waterways Cruising Clubs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs
(AWCC) represent the interests of over 20,000 club boaters. We
are the "self-help" people within the boating fraternity.
We are involved in the practical cruising of the inland waterways
network. Our concerns cover the social aspects of boating and
the affect that reduced resources will have on retired people
on fixed income and the ability of the young to enter the sport.
We summarise our additional comments to you
in this supplementary Memorandum as follows:
— The AWCC regret that British Waterways
has found it necessary to withdraw from the partnering arrangements
for the restoration of the Cotswold Canals, as this may now place
serious doubt on the project;
— However, we sympathise with the dilemma
in which BW find themselves and believe that maintenance of the
existing track does take a higher priority;
— We agree that the "Mon and Brec"
should be repaired as quickly as possible, because much of the
rural economy there now depends on it; and,
— We would like to see the Select Committee
prompt the Government into clear thinking both about the future
structure on British Waterways and how wider rural regeneration
objectives are to be met and resourced.
INTRODUCTION
1. The Association of Waterways Cruising
Clubs (AWCC) exists primarily to foster the interests of cruising
on the inland waterways. We have a direct interest in the continuing
regeneration and development of an integrated system of waterways
in the UK and its organisation through the major Navigation Authorities
(NAs). We are an Association of over one hundred cruising clubs
with more than 20,000 affiliated members. We represent the interests
of self-help people within the boating fraternity and promote
our cruising aims through a policy of mutual assistance exercised
through our clubs. We enter consultations and negotiations with
British Waterways (BW) and the Environment Agency (EA), and other
bodies at national, regional and local levels. We join with other
national waterways user associations as an Associate Member of
the Parliamentary Waterways Group (PWG). The AWCC has a positive
view of the future development, maintenance and use of the waterways,
which we have expressed before previous sittings of the Select
Committee over several years.
2. The AWCC previously provided evidence
to this Select Committee Inquiry (Seventh Report of Session 2006-07,
HC 345-I) in the form of a Memorandum dated 14 January 2007 and
a Supplementary Memorandum dated 13 March 2007. We now provide
a further Memorandum, as invited, for the one-off evidence session
to examine BW's regeneration and restoration role, with particular
reference to BW's decision to withdraw from the Cotswold Canal
Partnership.
BACKGROUND
3. In the late summer of 2006, Robin Evans,
Chief Executive of BW, met with the Chairmen of AWCC, IWA and
NABO (at their request) to discuss the crisis caused by the in-year
reduction of cash grant by DEFRA. After some detailed discuss
on the actual situation, Robin Evans asked in a spirit of genuine
enquiry, "what shall I do"? After further discussion,
it was agreed all round that the closure of canals already open
should not be an option. The position of restoration and rural
regeneration in BW's priorities was discussed at some length.
Our consensus was that these aspects were also important and needed
to be considered in the scheme of things, but in the final analysis
they took a lower priority than maintaining the existing track.
However, we concluded this part of the discussion by telling the
Chief Executive that the Cotswolds restoration was an important
strategic link and should be the last thing to be cut. This was
because so much effort had been put into developing the partnership
arrangements and that they would be almost impossible to put back
together if cut or delayed. He agreed with us at the time.
THE COTSWOLD
CANALS PARTNERSHIP—ASSESSING
PRIORITIES
4. The decision by BW to withdraw from the
partnership has provoked much discussion within our membership.
There is clearly much annoyance that BW has found it necessary
to pull back from a firm commitment entered into with many partners.
There is a general desire to see the restoration of this important
strategic link through the heart of the English countryside. There
is a genuine appreciation of the benefits to rural regeneration;
to the rural economy, and to tourism, and we wish to see the project
completed, however long it takes. We point to such projects as
the Wey and Arun as an example of what is being achieved under
adverse circumstances. However, the AWCC believe that when the
going gets tough, as is now the case, the top priority that BW
must give to the use of its scarce resources must be to maintaining
the existing track, which includes canals already restored and
opened.
5. Which is the more important, Cotswolds
or Mon and Brec, is a question that featured in our minds? It
is so easy to say that the isolated section of canal that is the
Mon and Brec, may continue to give technical problems and that
throwing money at it is not a good use of scarce resource. However,
that was not our general view. The Mon and Brec shows exactly
what rural regeneration is all about. It is a popular and picturesque
waterway and many people's livelihood now depends upon it. It
is fairly clear to us that the repair work now needed, albeit
expensive to carry out, has to be given priority and the work
done promptly.
WIDER CONCERNS
6. There is clearly an amount of displeasure
in some circle with this and other decisions made by BW and some
have called for more controls to be placed on BW, as was evident
at the last Parliamentary Waterways Group meeting. The chairman
of IWAC in reply very specifically said that there should be a
loosening of Government constraints on the management of BW, eg
to allow BW to borrow on the open market. Targets should be set
and the management of BW should be left to get on with it. We
very specifically agree with the IWAC Chair and would deeply regret
any increase in Government or Parliamentary control that may arise
from the investigation of the current situation. Our view should
be very clear from our previous submissions that the removal of
the nationalised industry constraints and creation of BW as a
public corporation in 1999 was a massive step forward in the efficient
organisation of a treasured public asset. The AWCC believe that
there should be no turning back on this way forward. British Waterways
should continue within public ownership, but be allowed an even
more efficient structure appropriate for the 21st Century. We
look forward to the discussion soon to be had in the British Waterways
Advisory Forum concerning the BW Strategic Review.
7. The AWCC appreciate that rural regeneration
is an important Government priority and believes and agrees that
their objectives should be taken seriously. However, the message
that we would like the Select Committee to send to the Government
is that it should consider in the widest context how these objectives
are to be best met and where the resources to meet these objectives
are to come from. In the meantime, BW should not be overly criticised
for sticking to their primary objectives.
8. Personal Note. I was brought into waterways
campaigning some years ago when I was responsible for a Whitehall
department procuring applied research. It was at a time of diminishing
resources and there was a need to strictly prioritise planned
research on absolute need rather than a nice to have basis. It
can be a heartbreaking task to tell a scientist and his team that
their work, which may have occupied several years of their lives,
is no longer required and can no longer be afforded. It is these
sorts of tough decisions that are currently required and, on behalf
of the AWCC, I hope that the Select Committee will take a positive
role in ensuring an appropriate future for British Waterways.
David Pearce
National Chairman
Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs
March 2008
|
