Memorandum submitted by Louis Jankel
The Committee will take oral evidence from both
Defra and British Waterways (BW) to examine BW's regeneration
and restoration role, with particular reference to BW's decision
to withdraw from the Cotswold Canal Partnership.
BW have clearly stated that their withdrawal
from the Cotswold Canal Partnership is because of reduced funding
and the need to husband existing revenue streams.
I respectfully suggest the Select Committee
may need to consider the quality of husbandry exercised by BW
over their revenue.
A/
1. I refer The Committee of their conclusion
number 13 (page 43 HC345-I, Seventh Report). It notes The Committee's
disappointment that BW did not share their intention of introducing
mooring tendering process.
2. I refer to The Committee of their HC345-I,
Seventh Report), page 27, paragraph 74 "Our views" to
"6" British Waterways commercial activities. It commences
with the phrase "British Waterways is under immense pressure
to generate income:".
3. In a stakeholder briefing dated 25th
June 2007, BW state "The Government's Framework Document
for British Waterways" published by the DETR in February
1999 remains their current policy document to which they continue
to work. The relevant paragraph "2.6" is relevant.
B 1/.
1. Since the report of 31st July 2007, British
Waterways have introduced the Mooring Tender trial to universal
opposition. Commencement in late October was rather later that
originally planned. Having been supplied with what information
was available under the Freedom Of Information (FoI) legislation,
I have extrapolated the figures and determined that British Waterways
have, to the end of February 2008, managed a nett loss of revenue
of some £300,000. This figure is set to grow exponentially
as the chronically ill prepared trial staggers from one crisis
to the next. British Waterways seem to have set this trial as
a matter of principal and refuse to countenance any trial suspension
to stop this haemorrhaging. The loss is set to achieve as much
as a half million pounds in the trial's first year. Immediate
suspension of the trial and a return to the previous system would
ensure that the loss could at least be pegged at the £300,000.
2. BW in a directors' briefing dated 30th
April 2007, they were informed that the trial set-up costs would
be "£20,000 web site software programming, £6,000
legal contract . . ., £5,000 promotion, plus staff time".
Six months later BW stated set up costs to be was nearly £180,000.
3. In the briefing's next paragraph BW stated
they "are" preparing a cost- benefit analysis (CBA),
which will be completed after the trial. I was always of the impression
that a CBA was produced to establish the viability of a proposed
course of action. A CBA after any proposed trial would be better
described as a fiscal report on the outcome. From the gaps in
the information provided to me under FoI, I doubt any meaningful
CBA is possible.
B 2/.
1. Nobody can disagree with the need for
BW to husband their recourses in a way that takes notice of the
taxpayers' money, the stakeholders' needs, the health and safety
(H&S) of the infrastructure and The Heritage of Inland Waterways.
What we need is a review of the balance practised by the current
BW board. If you ask the stakeholders, of which I am one, they
will tell you that BW, are wherever inconvenient, ignoring stakeholders'
needs and obfuscating their Heritage responsibilities. Their considerations
of H&S are to undertake the minimal work they can get away
with. This is leading to an increasing maintenance problem that
will eventually bite BW, the taxpayers and treasury collective
posteriors. BW's income does not satisfy the current maintenance
situation and proposed reduction in Grant in Aid (GiA) will only
exacerbate that position.
2. There is a government policy directive
for BW to protect the heritage of the Inland Waterways. This includes
an indisputable need for British Waterways to be involved in their
canals' restoration.
3. I expect the committee are anxious to
uncover the precise BW policy on heritage.
4. As a single example, I question the effort
and time British Waterways have expended on this mooring trial
project against the time and effort invested in trying to avoid
this terrible peremptory act of vandalism of removing the Cotswold
Restoration funding.
C 3/
1. The relevant paragraph 2.6 in "The
Government's Framework Document for British Waterways" published
by the DETR in February 1999 calls for "directly charge its
customers for benefits received consistent with prevailing market
rates" it goes on "and only resort to grant-in-aid to
fund activities where, in agreement with the Secretary of State,
there are wider social benefits or it is impractical or not cost
effective to charge directly for services provided".
2. I understand that Defra were involved
in the discussion to remove the grant to the Cotswold restoration.
I understand that others are requesting the detail of these discussions
under the FoI. The question I ask is if the above provision from
the Government framework was precisely invoked of the Secretary
of State.
3. What is more apposite for this specific
clause that such items as the Cotswold restoration.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Withdrawing the funding for the Cotswold Restoration
Fund is a BW statement of their priorities.
BW's blind determination to force through the
mooring tendering trial into fact, despite, in its first five
months, it has already cost them £300,000 is also symptomatic
of the BW priorities and fiscal competence.
BW have lost objectivity as to what their core
function is about. They are guardians of the British canals—not
guardians of canal-side property.
This is the second EFRA Select Committee special
call within 12 months. Does this not say something about the course
British Waterways are paddling? "New", "broom"
and "clean" are three words that come to mind.
Louis Jankel
March 2008
| 
