The British Waterways Board: A Neglected Asset?
| Date | 01 September 1974 |
| Published date | 01 September 1974 |
| Author | J.J. RICHARDSON,RICHARD KIMBER |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1974.tb00186.x |
The British Waterways Board:
A
Neglected Asset?
J.J.RICHARDSON
and
RICHARD KIMBER
Dr.Richardson and Mr.Kimber
are
Lecturers
in
the Department
of
Politics,
University
of
Keele.*
The controversy surrounding the Government’s proposals for the re-
organization of water and sewage services in nritain’ thrust the British
Waterways Board
(BWB)
into the political limelight
for
the
first
time since
its inception. The proposals, based on the Report of the Central Advisory
Water Committee
(CAWC)
on the
Future
Manazement
of
Water
in
England
and
Wales:
brought about
a
complete restructuring of the administration
of water and sewage services on
I
April
1974.
Curiously, the terms of
reference of the
CAWC
did not include the canal system and its admin-
istration, even though the system plays an important role in some areas
of land drainage and water supply. The disadvantage
of
including the
canals, from the Government’s viewpoint, ‘would havc been the risk that
widespread interest in canal matters could have caused a divcrsion of the
CAWC’S
efIorts from its main task. Yet despite this deliberate exclusion
from the
CAWC
inquiry, the Government’s Circular which followed the
Report included among its proposals the abolition of the
nwn
and the
transfer of its existing functions to the proposed ten Regional Water
Authorities
(RWAS).~
This decision was taken because the function of the
canals
is
seen in Whitehall
as
primarily amenity and water carrying rather
than as the carriage of freight. The
DOE
saw the canals as slotting into the
RWA
structure, which would have amenity responsibilities
as
well
as
an
interest in canals
as
part of the water supply and drainage system.
No
doubt other advantages of the transfer will have been readily recognized
within the Department.
For
example if the canals were transferred to the
RWAS
the need for a government grant-in-aid to the
BWB
might disappear,
as would the concomitant irritation of the Board’s requests
for
more
investment funds.
However the Circular provoked considerable opposition (including
a
published named attack on the civil servant responsible for the Bill) from
The authors
would
like
to
thank the officers of the
BWB
for their cooperation
in providing information on the Board’s activities. The views expressed are, however,
solely the raponsibility of the authors.
303
PUBLIC
AnMINISTRATION
a
whole range of groups interested in problems associated uith the water
supply ind~stry.~ The result
.of
this criticism was that the Water Bill,
when published in January
1973,
included
a
series of important con-
cessions to the affected interests. Of particular interest in this context is
the decision
to
exclude the
BWB
from the Bill altogether and to allow
it
to
continue its presmt functions. The switch in policy may be explained on
at least three grounds. Firstly the earlier decision to include the canal
system under the
RWA
structure failed to take adequate account
of
the
fact that the canals are essentially
a
nafional
network, whereas the
RWAS
are based on the river basin concept.
If
the canals are to be used cxten-
sively for either amenity
or
freight, then it
is
essential to retain
a
nationally
integrated system. Secondly (and arising from this) the threat to the
existence of the
BWB
meant that the Board’s semi-public fight
for
the
retention of an integrated system was supported by several waterway
pressure groups. These groups had in the past been critical of the
UWB,
but in the face of
a
threat to
a
nationally integrated canal system they
diverted their attack to the
DOE.
Most notable among these groups was the
Inland Waterways Association
(IWA).
It has been estimated that in total
some
I
.75m. people belong to local restoration groups, conservation
societies, cruising clubs and youth organizations working with the
IWA.
Thirdly the Government’s crowded legislativc timetable meant that it
was not prepared to face the controversy aroused by its canal proposals
and thereby risk further delay to the Water Bill when it was presented to
Parliament.
It
was almost certainly felt that the inclusion
of
the canals in
the Bill would have attracted
a
degree of parliamentary criticism totally
out of proportion to the importance
of
the canals in the water supply and
sewerage system. In addition the Government faced the technical problem
that the complexities of accumulated legislation surrounding the canals
would have meant that the Water Bill would have been twice the length
had it included the canals. It is thus not unreasonable to argue that the
Board’s reprieve was
as
much due to expediency
as
to
the logic
of
its own
case.
Whereas most nationalized industries pursue ‘social’ functions to
a
very
limited degree,5 the
BWB
is given important functions in the recreational
field by statute. Moreover
it
combines its recreational/amenity role with
a
profitable commercial function; although the latter, as we shall see in
Section
111,
has met with surprisingly little government encouragement.
I.
THE
BWB:
ITS
ORIGISS
hND
DEVEIAOPMENT
The Board was formally established on
I
January
1963,
and inherited
from the British Transport Commission
(BTC)
the inland waterways,
fleets
of
vessels directly operated
on
them by the
BTC,
and the harbours,
docks, warehouses and other estates associated with the Commission’s
304
To continue reading
Request your trial