I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the effect of the cuts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs grant to British Waterways.

Canals play an important part in the life of my constituency. I have enjoyed taking part in activities and events on them, and I am a very keen narrow boater. Last Sunday, on dry land, I walked part of the route of the Lichfield canal with fellow keen supporters of the Lichfield and Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust. I ought also to declare an interest in that I am a proud member of the Lichfield branch of the Inland Waterways Association.

To get back to the cuts, however, the background to this sorry story goes back to last summer. After British Waterways had set its annual budget for the year—a budget already diminished by more than £1 million—the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discovered a large hole in her Department’s budgets. It was a £200 million hole, which no one—including DEFRA—has been able to explain properly. It is clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was equally unimpressed with DEFRA, because he refused to bail it out using the Treasury's contingency reserve.

The various lamentable ministerial explanations of how the funding gap arose could be the subject of an entirely different debate—a point that my hon. Friends have frequently made. Suffice it to say that the gap has had an enormous impact on everyone but the very people who created it, one of whom, to her immense surprise, was not sacked by the Prime Minister for incompetence when she was suddenly called to see him, but was instead promoted to Foreign Secretary.

British Waterways woke up last summer to discover that, as a result of the hole in DEFRA’s budget, it had to make cuts year in, year out, in a totally unplanned manner. It is not good enough for the Minister to say, as I am sure he will later in the debate, that British Waterways was already restructuring. All bodies are always looking at ways to save money. Yes, British Waterways would certainly have made some changes and probably some redundancies. The difference is that they would have been planned and properly constructed, not handed down from on high to be delivered within the same financial year. They would certainly not have been worked out on the back of an envelope, as these cuts apparently have been.

The exact size of the cut that was imposed has been much disputed. The Minister’s oft-repeated line implies that it is just a few million pounds. Only last Monday, the Minister gave evidence to a Sub-Committee of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on that very subject. I shall return to that topic, but it is worth noting that he made an extraordinary announcement, which implied that the British Waterways board was deliberately misleading the Government. I know that British Waterways was told to make the cuts and to plan to spend up to 95 per cent. of its revised budget. It is a sign of the success of the anti-DEFRA cuts campaign that that particular cut was quietly forgotten.

Whatever the exact figure, the impact has been massive. There were 180 job losses this month; millions of pounds of maintenance have been put back; the freight division of British Waterways has been completely dissolved, and, in the centre of canal country, two units have been merged into one, thereby taking British Waterways further away from the very people it serves in running our waterways.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is now a question mark over some very worthy causes in the waterways network, such as the reconnection of the Montgomery canal to the rest of the network? In the long term, canals pay for themselves many times over, so in macro terms the economy is a false one.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Not only is there a question mark over the future of some projects, but a project has actually been stopped, as I shall explain. Incidentally, I have been on the Montgomery canal and it is a beautiful route. Actual cuts have now taken place because of the incompetence of DEFRA.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the manifestations of sheer incompetence has been the increase in mooring fees on the Kennet and Avon canal? One of my constituents wrote to me to say that there has been an increase of 44 per cent. in the mooring fee for their narrow boat. Many people using the canals are not people of massive means; very often they are pensioners. What does my hon. Friend think of that? Is not the problem attributable directly to DEFRA’s incompetence?

My hon. Friend makes his point well. DEFRA’s incompetence is depriving ordinary people such as pensioners and people with restricted incomes of their use of canals, and that incompetence has been repeated year after year. It is quite extraordinary.

On the few occasions on which he has met with organisations involved with the waterways, and notably on Radio 5 Live, the Minister has said that the cuts were just for the one year. They were a disaster, but at least a one-off disaster. Now, however, we know that that is not the case. Indeed, the Minister is now making it clear that the likely budget increase for British Waterways will be based on the retail prices index minus 5 per cent., year after year, and might be even worse. That is my concern, because most organisations can take a one-off hit on their budgets, but the problem for British Waterways is that we now learn that the cuts will be year on year.

No similar organisation is treated in that way: financially crippled through the mistakes of others. I argue that British Waterways, the guardian and steward of 2,500 miles of linear park up and down the country—I use the word “park” advisedly—and custodian of hundreds of listed structures, several ancient monuments and 65 sites of special scientific interest, is a national institution that should be cherished.

Ongoing cuts will have a terrible effect on maintenance of existing canals. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee was told only recently that certain businesses will not operate in future. On the Monmouthshire and Brecon canal there have already been two breaches that have put the canal out of action for a few months.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he must have read my speech, because I shall come to that subject.

The Bridgwater and Taunton canal has enormous problems because the lock gates that would connect it with the sea cannot be used, and the status of the maintenance programme has completely removed any chance of it ever being opened up. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister is now likely to cut such canals on the basis that they have no practical use and exist only for aesthetic reasons? Does he agree that that is utterly wrong?

It is indeed wrong, and I hope that the Minister feels ashamed of himself. He has spent most of the debate grinning from ear to ear, but he has nothing to grin about.

More than 200 million visits are made to the waterways each year, and that number is growing. The waterways constitute a national linear park and some might say that they should be treated as such. Some argue that they should be a national park, while others argue that they should receive UNESCO world heritage site status. When in Washington DC recently on a private visit, I went on the Georgetown canal. Members of the excellent US National Park Service, a part of the US Government's Department of the Interior, told me how much they envy our canal system and how they had themselves been on narrow boat holidays in the UK.

When I have been on canals up and down England and Wales—I have yet to visit Scotland’s canals—I have met Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and Israelis, all of whom had come to Britain for a canal holiday. That generates useful foreign currency earnings and benefits the United Kingdom economy, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) rightly pointed out.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Britain was a world leader in developing the canal system and that there are canals that are world heritage sites, such as Marple locks, an aqueduct on the Cheshire ring in my constituency?

I absolutely agree and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have been through those locks as well—hard work it was, too.

Our inland waterways hit all the Government’s buttons in encouraging outdoor activities and, in particular, encouraging young and old to take part in sport. They are a catalyst of inner-city and rural regeneration up and down the country. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has been taking evidence to that effect and did so as recently as last Monday; I look forward to its conclusions. I know that for every £1 spent in regeneration around our canals, there is a payback far beyond the usual returns. I think that everyone here will agree with that—perhaps even the Minister, who has finally stopped grinning.

That effect can be seen in my own area. I am proud to say that we have the hidden jewels of the midlands canals: the disused Lichfield and Hatherton canals, abandoned by Acts of Parliament in the mid-1950s, severing the northern access to 42 miles of the Birmingham canal navigations, from which British Waterways could usefully increase its income. Closure of the Lichfield canal as a through route has put increasing pressure on passage through Fradley junction, just north of Lichfield, and also in my beautiful constituency. It has been the centre of the grand cross of England’s canal system for more than 200 years. Visiting boaters in the busy tourist season can wait for many hours to go through the locks, when a short distance to the south there is a viable alternative route that is under restoration, but only through piecemeal efforts by hard-working volunteers.

I pay tribute this day to those volunteers from the Lichfield and Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust and from the Inland Waterways Association. I am a member of both organisations. I also praise Lichfield city council, which has granted a lease of land in the centre of Lichfield to enable the restoration work to continue, and Lichfield district council. There can be no doubt that opening the Lichfield and Hatherton canals would solve some of the network’s acute bottlenecks and open up a whole new area for boaters and everyone else to enjoy, yet all that is now being put in jeopardy.

My hon. Friend is right to say that one of the most important things that is put at risk because of the cuts is the links between existing canals, such as the link between the Kennet and Avon canal and the Cotswold canals, just outside my constituency, through the vital Wilts and Berks canal. Does he agree that those links have to be put in place if boating is to carry on developing as it has done in recent years?

We are having quite a tour of the English and Welsh canal system, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point.

British Waterways itself, in evidence to the Select Committee this year, spoke of the potential of the Hatherton canal, which is the canal that links to the Lichfield canal. The route of the Lichfield canal passes close to the centre of the cathedral city of Lichfield. The canal’s restoration would not only bring colourful narrow boats, but provide a leisure amenity for residents and visitors who enjoy the relaxing waterway ambience away from unhealthy and noisy roads. Evidence of that can be seen in Daventry’s decision to have a new canal cut into the very heart of the town to create a focal point for the area. Towns do not make such a decision lightly. They do so because they understand the attraction and potential of both new and old canals.

Early research to justify restoration of the Lichfield and Hatherton canals shows that there could be a boost of £6 million a year for the midlands economy. I urge British Waterways to recalculate the cost of reopening the 7-mile Lichfield canal to the extensive midlands canal network. Once complete, the restoration will deliver huge benefits to British Waterways’ northern Birmingham canals by facilitating access via the Staffordshire and Worcestershire and the Coventry canals. Spin-off benefits from sympathetic modern waterway management as seen elsewhere in the country would enhance the poor post-industrial image still lingering in the midlands. We have only to look at the improved economy along the route of the restored Edinburgh to Glasgow canal system to see just that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the loss of the public money that has gone into these canals in recent years is also a problem? The Kennet and Avon canal had more than £20 million of lottery money, and public money has been spent through organisations such as British Waterways. A further issue is the hours and hours of volunteer time that have gone into the work. That will all go to waste if the canal has to close, as the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust is saying, because some of the lock gates are unsafe. The situation will be disastrous for so much of the economy in so many constituencies in this country.

My hon. Friend is right. A golden opportunity is waiting to be maximised with that canal and many others, but I fear that all that is in jeopardy because of the incompetence of DEFRA Ministers, who have caused the cuts. Already, the Grantham canal is to be closed as a direct consequence of the cuts. Which canal will be next?

The ineptitude displayed by Ministers and in particular by the Minister present here today, who is responsible for waterways, is mind numbing. Our canals need proper stewardship and interest from Government. Until recently, that has been the case and the Government have invested in our canals. That is to their credit. However, the events of the past few months are swiftly unravelling that previous good work.

I am well aware that the Minister will seek to demonstrate, as he tried to do last Monday to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, that thanks to the efficient work of British Waterways the net effects of the cuts are minimal, but that simply will not wash. A 200-year-old structure is not something that can be left to its own devices. It needs constant care and maintenance and we currently have a multi-million pound backlog requiring attention. The safety backlog has been dealt with for the time being, but there comes a time when poor maintenance leads to safety issues. We heard earlier in an intervention of a canal’s banks being broken and water ingress, which, if a narrow boat had been passing through at the time, could have caused great loss of life.

Last winter saw unexpected breaches and failures leading to bills running into millions of pounds. British Waterways is expected somehow to absorb those unexpected costs, plan for the future and engage in expanding the system, yet there is no clarity from DEFRA about what the grant in aid will be in future years. That will not do.

It is time that Ministers woke up to the responsibility and reality of caring for our national treasure. If DEFRA is not prepared or able to take on that responsibility, it should be handed to a more competent Department that can provide that care—perhaps the Department for Transport. Originally, of course, canals and inland waterways were part of our transport system, and in some ways they still are. Or waterways could go to the Department for Education and Skills, as they are an invaluable tool for telling the story of our nation’s history and development. Or they could go to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, with its responsibility for tourism, sport and the heritage of our nation. Or we could even move waterways to the Department for Communities and Local Government, with its important role of regeneration. As it is, waterways are stuck with the leaden hand of DEFRA.

I hope that in his reply the Minister will dispense with the usual excuses and not bother to repeat what he said to the Sub-Committee and blame British Waterways, and that instead he will clearly state what funding will be available for British Waterways over the next five years from the Government. I and others await his reply with interest. I hope that it will be a serious reply, delivered seriously. The Minister’s excuse that the success of British Waterways in its commercial ventures somehow absolves the Minister and his Department of gross incompetence will be believed by no one.

The editor of “Canal & Riverboat” magazine, in an editorial this year, said to the Minister: “For God’s sake go”. Today, I provide an opportunity for the Minister to redeem himself, but I am not optimistic.

rose—

Order. I remind hon. Members that we have 41 minutes to accommodate five Members who are seeking to catch my eye. Hon. Members should bear that in mind when making contributions and particularly, given the number of Members present, when accepting and responding to interventions.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on securing it. I was unable to attend the well attended debate on 6 December, and I should like to talk today about the waterways in the Eccles, Salford and Greater Manchester city region.

I have had dozens of written representations from constituents and friends, as well as face-to-face meetings with them, about the British Waterways budget cuts. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to express my opposition to the cuts proposed in October 2006 and my concern about the future of the proposed restoration of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury canal. I also supported and spoke at the “Save our Waterways” campaign protest at Castlefields in Manchester on 25 November, and I was pleased to join constituents and friends who are members of the Worsley and Eccles cruising clubs in Salford.

As hon. Members will know, waterways played a significant role in the development of Greater Manchester in the 19th and early 20th centuries. After decades of decay, the waterways, like other parts of the UK, began to blossom again after Labour came to power in 1997, and we have big plans in my area to develop them. British Waterways originally announced proposals to restore the Manchester, Bolton and Bury canal to navigable status in about 2001. The canal runs through the Salford, Bury and Bolton local authority areas to Manchester. Those three authorities immediately agreed to work in partnership with British Waterways and the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Society to help to secure the resources necessary to restore the canal.

Waterside regeneration is seen as a fundamental aspect of the regeneration work in Salford. Salford city council has achieved significant successes in that respect, with the highly acclaimed redevelopment of Salford quays, which is now the home of famous landmark buildings such as the Lowry and the Imperial War museum, together with significant retail, leisure, commercial and residential properties. Planned developments at the quays continue to demonstrate the demand for waterside locations, with major new developments planned on all sites adjacent to the quays and the banks of the Manchester ship canal. Such developments include the relocation of the BBC to the heart of Salford and the visionary Salford MediaCity project.

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 that land is currently scarred by industrial decline and lies derelict, neglected and underused. Restoration of the canal would bring major improvements and much needed social, environmental and economic benefits to some of the poorest wards in the country, stimulating new, redesigned sustainable communities and neighbourhoods.

Aspirations for the MBB canal have been raised in Salford, where the canal is seen as a fundamental asset in a number of existing regeneration projects. It runs through the heart of the new deal for communities area and 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 canal corridor’s potential is recognised as crucial to major regeneration in the area. It has been estimated that restoring the canal alone would create 6,000 jobs, lever in more than £200 million in additional investment, provide major recreation and tourist opportunities and link the urban core with the rural fringe, securing two-way benefits for all.

Even before the proposed cutbacks, British Waterways had limited funding to contribute to the proposed restoration. The main asset that it brings to the table is a highly skilled staffing resource, which can co-ordinate the programme to restore the canal, bid for match funding, design and implement engineering works and so on. However, the cutbacks could have an immediate impact on that resource. British Waterways announced about 150 job losses. Those posts have now been lost, and there is the prospect of more job losses to follow. Salford city council is very disappointed at that outcome.

There are at least three narrow boat builders in my constituency, who 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, they are less likely to buy new or refurbished ones. Some months ago, 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 cost of fuel for pleasure craft—so-called red diesel—under EU harmonisation plans. The Minister has kept me regularly updated on the Government’s negotiations with the European Commission to renew our derogation from the relevant EU directive so that private pleasure craft can continue to use rebated gas oil. Sadly, the Commission did not see things as clearly as the Government, and although we fought the good fight, we lost the argument.

It has become almost trite to talk about joined-up government, but joined-up government does not always happen. If it does, however, it leads to better decision making. I therefore urge the Minister to recognise the significant role that investment in canals and waterways can play in urban regeneration and to take early action to reverse or to reduce the impact of the cuts. My local boating community has suggested that the Government consider making available to British Waterways over the next three years a small sum of £5 million to £10 million from capital rather than revenue resources to cushion the impact of revenue grant reductions. I urge the Minister to look at all the options, and I hope that British Waterways and the Government will work closely together to address the major challenges facing our waterways and to ensure that Salford’s exciting development proposals can be realised.

rose—

There are 33 minutes remaining, and four Members bidding.

I shall be brief because I have just a few points.

First, I have a good news story. It is appropriate that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) introduced the debate, because Stourport-on-Severn, which is one of the few dock towns in the country and the place where the Staffordshire and Worcestershire canal goes into the huge River Severn, has just received £3.2 million for the rejuvenation and re-flooding of the Lichfield basins. There is now water in the Lichfield basins, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is a huge catalyst for the regeneration of the town. The money was raised from the Heritage Lottery Fund, British Waterways, Advantage West Midlands and various local, county and district councils. That is a huge benefit. The message, therefore, is that it is relatively easy to raise money for one-off, exciting regenerations.

Of course, funding must be regular because of the maintenance that is needed. A small group of officers from the all-party group on flood prevention went to see a Treasury Minister a few months ago to plead for DEFRA, the Environment Agency and all the bodies that they support to have more money. We met, of course, with completely deaf ears.

It is perhaps not surprising that those people met with deaf ears. Did the hon. Gentleman know that, at the British Waterways annual general meeting in October, Robert Lowson, who was representing DEFRA, said:

“David Miliband took the political decision not to ask the Treasury to fund the shortfall”?

Given that DEFRA did not ask the Treasury to fund the shortfall, it is hardly surprising that the all-party group was met with deaf ears.

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I find that interesting.

To return to funding, income generation must obviously be maximised, but it is impossible to ask walkers and cyclists to pay. Should a cyclist have a licence clamped on his cycle to allow him to go along the path? We cannot do that. Obviously, any income that can be generated is a plus, but this is—I shall be extremely brief, for your pleasure, Mr. Cook—a major political issue.

Everyone knows that there is not enough money in the system to do everything. I believe that everyone supports money going to the NHS, education and the police. They agree that those are priorities. However, if half the population living within five miles of a canal were to be asked whether they would rather have regular money for its maintenance, or Trident, I think that we know what they would choose.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on obtaining the third debate on this issue in Westminster Hall. I suspect that it may not be the last before the campaign is finished, but I congratulate him none the less on bringing us back here to debate this most vital issue. Hon. Members may know that I am probably not the most impartial Member when it comes to discussing matters relating to British Waterways, having formerly been its vice-chairman. However, I shall be as impartial as I can in my remarks today.

Earlier in the week, I attended, as a member, the meeting of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Sub-Committee to which the hon. Member for Lichfield referred. I have looked back to refresh my memory at the uncorrected evidence that the Minister gave at that Committee sitting. Of course it is on the record and hon. Members can read it, but I was and am astonished at the Minister’s extraordinary attack on an organisation for which he and his Department are responsible. He slated British Waterways, he said, for not being transparent, and he repeated that accusation several times in his evidence. In effect he was saying that British Waterways had not been open and honest with him or us about its financial situation. When hon. Members examine the evidence they will see that he went into considerable detail, at some length, about the matter and his accusations.

With my background I shall not attempt to defend British Waterways here today. Frankly, I have not got a clue what it was asked for by the Minister, and what it provided him with. I am sure that it can look after itself and adequately defend itself. Nor have I the slightest interest in a spat between the Minister and an organisation for which he is responsible. I want to concentrate on what his attack signifies. From what he said and from the papers that he provided to the Committee, which included letters and notes that British Waterways had provided to other organisations, it seems clear to me—although he can clarify the matter when he replies—that he has the impression that British Waterways is somehow campaigning on the issues in question, and is campaigning on duff information.

I suggest that in attacking British Waterways the Minister appears to fail to understand the issues that we are debating. There is no need for British Waterways to organise a campaign. The reason hon. Members are here today is not that British Waterways has wound us up—it certainly has not in my case, and I am sure that that applies to other hon. Members too. We do not need British Waterways to wind us up on this issue, and nor do the thousands of people who have demonstrated on the issues and expressed their deep concerns about the future of our waterways network. They have demonstrated not because of figures or other information issued by British Waterways, but because of their fear for the future of the network. They have been protesting, as we have, because of the fundamental importance of the waterways network in our history; because the network was saved by campaigning—the work of individuals, groups and the Inland Waterways Association; and because of the importance of the network in our heritage, education and recreation today. They are concerned about its history and its potential for the future.

There is not a lot of point in the Minister’s repeating to us how much money the Government have put into the waterways. He did that in response to the debate in Westminster Hall on 27 March. Focusing on the figures again entirely misses the point. No one, as the hon. Member for Lichfield generously reminded us today, is suggesting that the Government have not been generous in their support to the waterways in the past decade: they have. Nor is anyone suggesting that British Waterways has not been successful with its commercial activities: it has. Nor, I respectfully suggest, is anyone saying that British Waterways did not need to revise its plan of five years ago and bring it up to date, in light of the Government’s generous support. The concern is not about the figures, whether they are given by British Waterways or anyone else; the concern is about confidence in the future of the waterways. I hope that the Minister will focus on that in his reply.

We do not need a defence detailing precisely what proportion of the financial problem of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is due to the Rural Payments Agency. We need no further explanation of the proportion that is due to other aspects of DEFRA’s mismanagement of its budget. We need to know from the Minister what he will do to engage with those of us who care about the waterways, and to reassure us that the inland waterways are safe in his and DEFRA’s hands. We need to know from him what he and his ministerial colleagues are doing and how they are working to find solutions and restore confidence in the future, rather than going into the minutiae of the figures that have led to the present situation and the lack of confidence.

Like the hon. Member for Lichfield, I hope that the Minister will avoid the temptation to blame others and to muddy the waters with futile disputes over figures. I hope that this time he will give us a clear indication that he understands the issues and will engage with them, not avoid them; and that he will give us a clear answer about what he is doing to respond to our concerns. We need clear answers from him about how he will restore confidence in the future of the vital inland waterways network.

I am grateful to catch your eye, Mr. Cook, and to have the chance to speak soon after the passionate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). It is unusual for us to see him here in the Chamber wearing, as it were, a boater—perhaps holding one of those lovely flowered watering cans that they have on narrow boats. We usually think of him as someone who analyses polls—most recently as someone who found that in a Brown-Cameron contest the Conservative majority would be 133 and the Liberal Democrats would be down to 15, but I must not tempt you, Mr. Cook, by straying there. If, of course, we were having this debate 20 years ago, when I had the honour to enter this House, there would have been a few jokes about wets and dries. I cannot really see my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) as anything other than a dry, but she might be described as a wet for speaking in this debate.

I shall take a leaf from the book of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) and make a few short points. First, DEFRA has become a byword for incompetence. We have been presented with yet another example of money that it has lost—money that has gone down the plughole. We have already had the fiasco of farmers coming to our surgeries and pleading for help with the grant that DEFRA managed to lose, and now we have problems with the canals.

Secondly, this is not all to do with tourism and unnecessary development. Real safety issues are involved. I was struck by the remarks about safety of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). There is a major safety issue in my constituency—the Shenton embankment. Extensive repairs are required on that very important aqueduct, and if they are not done, there could be a breach, in which case the village and surrounding areas would flood. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield referred to the possibility of a narrow boat going over the side. Those are real issues. The people who work the canals know about them, and I ask the Minister please to take note.

My third point is about the importance of the Ashby-de-la-Zouch canal, which runs through my constituency. It runs from Hinckley through Market Bosworth and up as far as Shackerstone, which is a fantastically beautiful village. There has been very important development there. The Trinity marina is a good example of the importance of waterways to tourism and development generally. There are narrow boat companies functioning there. I nearly stayed on a narrow boat for a general election—I told my wife about my idea, but we later decided that we had better stay with the chairman instead. However, opportunities exist to stay on narrow boats.

My final point is that there has been massive investment in Leicestershire, beyond my constituency, in north-west Leicestershire. Obviously, the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) could not attend today, but perhaps I can allow myself to speak for him. Some £3.5 million of county council money has been spent between Donisthorpe and Moira on a very successful development. The next stage is to connect Snarestone to Measham, which is the bit near Shackerstone up to the bit that the county council has developed. Those projects are important, but I fear that the way in which DEFRA has addressed the hole in the funding has very serious implications.

I return to my overriding point: there is a safety issue here. When the Minister rises, will he tell me what I should say to the villagers in my constituency who are looking up at a crumbling aqueduct?

There are now 19 minutes left, and two new names enter the fray. I call Charlotte Atkins.

Thank you, Mr. Cook. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on securing the debate, which is timely because the Minister gave some very dramatic evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Monday about British Waterways. I hope that the debate will give us all a chance to clarify matters and put the record straight. I assure the Minister that I speak today not as a pawn in British Waterways’ campaign to maintain its funding, but as someone who genuinely fears the impact of the cuts in its funding on my local canals—the Caldon and the Trent and Mersey.

In the debate on inland waterways in the west midlands that I secured last month, I pointed out what a success story the Government’s policy towards British Waterways has been. In my constituency, I have seen regeneration funding and the matching volunteer input directed at a project called “Destination Froghall”, through which the first lock and basin of the Uttoxeter canal at Froghall have been restored. That area is now an enhanced visitor destination with access for all and walking paths, which are particularly popular because the Caldon canal runs side-by-side with the heritage steam railway through the Churnet valley. The Churnet valley railway is not only a tourist attraction—only last Saturday, I enjoyed a leisurely meal on the train with friends. The canal and the railway enhance the life of the community and the local economy.

A unique feature of the Caldon canal is the Beatrice Charity’s trip boat, which takes children with special needs and wheelchair users into the Staffordshire moorlands countryside to places that they would never otherwise have the opportunity to experience. It is a wonderful charity that widens the horizons of our most vulnerable children, and it would be devastating if it had to close because of problems on the canal.

The British Waterways’ funding cuts are short-sighted given that there is still so much more potential for investment in our canal network. British Waterways already has a much expanded network to look after because of the excellent restoration work. In Leek, the Caldon canal corridor feasibility study has set out the potential for the restoration, extension and development of the Leek arm of the canal into the edge of the town. There are also plans to bring the Uttoxeter canal back to life by opening a 13-mile stretch from Froghall in my constituency to the wharf in Uttoxeter. Leek, Froghall and Uttoxeter would all benefit hugely from such a development, as would the whole of the moorlands.

Rural areas, like urban areas, need such regeneration to boost their local economies. However, all that requires real partnership, which the Government wholly support, involving heritage organisations, councils, British Waterways, the Environment Agency and bands of enthusiastic local volunteers. Such volunteers kept the canals alive during the dark days before the Government’s generous funding. The Caldon was reopened in 1974 only because of the dedication and hard work of local volunteers. We do not want to go back to those days of dereliction—I am sure that we will not do so—but it is vital that the Minister is not complacent about the current situation.

Last month, I gave just two examples of where urgent action is required to maintain waterways structures where money has not been forthcoming, and we have heard more on that today. The examples that I gave were the Netherton tunnel near Dudley, where two towpaths were closed, and the Tividale aqueduct, which is a grade II listed, double-span aqueduct whose stone arch parapets are falling down. Those examples are in addition to the essential, but delayed, local repairs on the Hazelhurst aqueduct and its embankment, and on the Long Butts bridge on the Caldon between Baddeley Green and Norton Green. Will the Minister give me an update on all that? I raised those issues last month, but, sadly, although the Minister sensibly diverted from his prepared speech, he did not have time to address them. I hope that he will do so today. I also raised some more general and fundamental points, and I hope that he is now, nearly one month on, in a position to answer them.

The 2004 DEFRA review of British Waterways recommended a contract between the Government and British Waterways to ensure that it would be able to predict its funding and therefore to plan the efficient—I emphasise the word “efficient”—use of its money. A contract would ensure that in-year cuts were not imposed and would allow British Waterways to plan with certainty. Surely that should be a basic requirement of any proper partnership between the Government and British Waterways if we are to get the best possible outcome for our local communities. What has happened to that contract? Will the Government be making a contract in the near future?

I am very concerned that British Waterways’ central freight unit has been disbanded, given that water freight could help the Government to achieve their key environmental objectives by cutting carbon emissions. With the responsibility for freight now passing to hard-pressed British Waterways regional offices, it will not be as high a priority. When did the Minister last meet his Department of Trade and Industry colleagues to discuss the carriage of water-borne freight, what conclusions did they reach and what action will they now take?

With the comprehensive spending review coming in the autumn, has the Minister had the opportunity to talk to the Treasury about waterways funding? We have heard that no application was made to the Treasury for additional funding. Has he discussed British Waterways’ long-term funding with it? I was disturbed to hear that the Minister said on Monday that British Waterways had not been entirely transparent about its funding. If that is the case, will the Minister assure me that he will do all in his power to provide the EFRA Committee with all the information that it needs to get to the bottom of the figures? Will he fully co-operate with the Committee and provide a full audit trail of all the available information on British Waterways’ funding and the projections for the future?

I have full confidence in the Select Committee inquiry into waterways that is being chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I am sure that the Committee will get to the bottom of the issues that have been raised in the debate, if all parties are fully involved and transparent in their evidence. I urge the Minister and British Waterways to do all they can to assist the Committee.

There are 11 minutes remaining and two bidders left. I call James Gray.

Thank you, Mr. Cook. I shall speak very briefly, given the short time that is left. I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in what has been a good cross-party debate. It is interesting that not one Labour Member so far has spoken in favour of what the Government have done. We are all in opposition today with the single exception of the Minister.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If I have wrongly quoted the hon. Lady, she will forgive me, I know.

I praised the Government for their extensive investment in British Waterways, which has created a renaissance of a whole network.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for having told me the interesting fact that she is strongly in favour of what the Government are doing. They are making cuts of about £60 million in DEFRA’s funding for the waterways, which will result in the closure of canals.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I am afraid that I shall not.

I do not speak as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, but I shall carefully examine what the Minister said to its Sub-Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), when matters return to the main Committee, as the debate will be interesting. Nor do I necessarily speak in favour of the Wilts and Berks canal, although it is close to my heart as it runs through my constituency. We seek matching funding with regard to the Cricklade country park, which is a vital constituency issue that will come up shortly.

I am more concerned about a general policy matter that has been brought to my attention; is British Waterways or are the Government to blame for this situation? I again draw the attention of hon. Members to a matter that I raised in an intervention. It has been reported to me that last October, at the British Waterways board’s annual general meeting, Robert Lowson, who I understand was representing DEFRA at the meeting, said:

“David Miliband took the political decision not to ask the Treasury to fund the shortfall”.

He was talking about the shortfall that came about as a result of the downfall of the Rural Payments Agency.

If the Minister is to answer this debate properly, rather than giving us a lot of stuff about how marvellous the Government have been in respect of the waterways, he must answer the central charge: did DEFRA ask the Treasury for special funding to cover the shortfall in the RPA? That is what we did at the time of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis—we got contingency funding from the Treasury, which paid extra money because of the cost of BSE. We need to know just one thing from the Minister—he may want to reply to this in a moment, because I am keen to let others take part in the debate. Did the £62.5 million shortfall in waterways funding and the catastrophic results that we face, which we have all discussed, come about because the Secretary of State took the political decision—the DEFRA spokesman whom I mentioned used the expression “political decision”—not to ask the Treasury for extra funding?

I am happy to try to answer the hon. Gentleman—I have given this answer in previous debates, as he would have known had he cared to read the record. Of the total of £200 million in-year pressures that DEFRA was facing, the amount relating to the RPA was £23 million, which represents slightly more than 11 per cent. of the total. The comparison that he just made about calling on the Treasury reserve was inappropriate. Ministers in the Department rightly took the decision that the situation should be managed within the Department’s own budget and that an approach to the Treasury should not be made. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that of the £200 million pressure on the Department, only 11 per cent. related to the RPA.

I am most grateful to the Minister for his clarification, because we now have it in straightforward Hansard terms: DEFRA and its Secretary of State took the view that they would not ask the Treasury for emergency funding. The Secretary of State decided to take the hit himself within DEFRA. That is now plain, so we know that the cuts in British Waterways’ funding do not result from action taken by Her Majesty’s Government, the Prime Minister or the Chancellor; they result from a particular personal decision taken by the Secretary of State, who is represented in this Chamber by his Minister.

When the Minister stands up, he must answer the accusation that he and his Department, rather than the Government, British Waterways or anyone else, took the decisions that will lead to the terrible cuts that we have been hearing about this morning. I look forward to hearing him try to defend his position.

There are now seven minutes remaining.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on raising this subject, because many of my constituents are concerned about it. The Llangollen canal runs through my constituency, and I suspect that he might have been on it—I am sure that he has been over the Pontcysyllte aqueduct, which is like flying over the Dee valley.

I want to make two points. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the aqueduct is up for UNESCO consideration for world heritage status. I am concerned that cuts in the funding of British Waterways will have an effect on the bid, because it might appear as if the Government are not concerned about it. That would be a grave mistake.

Secondly, and possibly more importantly for the tourism potential in my area and for the tourism revenue that we are obtaining at the moment, should two breaches in the canals in Wales occur within a short time of each other, miles of canals might be put out of commission for a long time. That is a grave concern for the users of the canal in my area. I hope that the Minister takes both those points on board.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on securing the debate. As fellow west midlands Members of Parliament, we share an admiration for the way in which enthusiasts have played such a vital part in regenerating our inland waterways and in all the regeneration and tourism benefits that that has produced. That is particularly true in the west midlands. Today feels like groundhog day because on 27 March the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) rightly secured a similar debate. I am delighted that we again have the opportunity to discuss this important issue. The hon. Member for Lichfield has brought out some salient points, to which I hope to make reference.

The exact size of the cuts has been debated. I understand that they are in the region of £7.5 million this year, and up to £60 million over the next five years. Hon. Members have also discussed the incompetence of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the £200 million fine resulting from the mishandling of grants to farmers. That has been attributed to overspend on preparations for avian flu and to Treasury changes to the accounting rules, although I do not think that it matters what caused the problems. We must work together to ensure that the impact is kept to a minimum.

It is important to pay tribute to other organisations. Several hon. Members have referred to British Waterways, heritage funds and lottery funds. In the west midlands, Advantage West Midlands has rowed in—I hope that I may use that expression—with a £400,000 grant to increase access to and awareness of the waterways, and to enhance visitor moorings and amenities.

Everyone is working together to try to minimise the blow, but the situation is worrying because the Environment Agency has lost £25 million this year alone and the jobs of 180 British Waterways workers have been lost. All that pales into insignificance when one considers the effect that the situation will have had on all the volunteers. The staff are vital, but they could never begin to cover the amount of work that needs to be done to maintain our waterways were it not for the wonderful and sterling work done by enthusiasts. They do the less exciting jobs day in, day out and year in, year out.

The effects of the cuts are disproportionate to the amount involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) remarked that the cuts are a false economy because rubbish and weeds are clogging up the canals, making them not only less attractive but less popular and, most importantly, less safe. There is a £119 million maintenance backlog, and many fear that a number of canals are in danger of closing.

Our waterways are such an important asset. People can use them for green holidays—that at a time when we are being encouraged to reduce our carbon footprint. I cannot think of a greener way to spend a holiday other than to take a cycling holiday, and even cycling holidays can be carried out using our waterways. Three hundred million people a year visit our waterways, not only boaters, but people who like to walk and cyclists, and that gives rise to regeneration in pubs, hotels and so on.

We should not forget that canals also carry water. In fact, half of Bristol’s water supply is carried along the canal network, so it is important. In addition, an important meeting was held recently on the opportunities of exploiting freight.

The Minister will probably quote the document, “Unlocking the Potential—a New Future for British Waterways”, which the Government published in 1999 and which refers to £70 million of investment in waterways. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Government have poured a large amount of investment into the waterways. However, there is an underspend. Arguments about whether that is due to Government incompetence, changes to Treasury accounting rules or other factors are irrelevant. We need to work out how to deal with the problem now.

Will the Minister comment on something that I read when preparing for this debate: that DEFRA has underspent its budget by £747 million since it was formed five years ago? I quote that figure because it puts the cuts into perspective. In a spirit of helpfulness, I suggest that it would be possible to fund the immediate shortfall out of a contingencies budget and allow British Waterways to plan for future cuts. The hon. Members for Staffordshire, Moorlands and for Lichfield alluded to in-year cuts, and that is perhaps the unkindest cut of all because British Waterways has not been given the opportunity to plan for it. Will the Minister discuss with his colleagues a way to row back on the decision and give British Waterways and the canal trusts, which care so much about our inland waterways, the chance to minimise the blow and to plan for the future?

It is a pleasure to have you counting us down this morning, Mr. Cook.

This is the third debate on British Waterways in Westminster Hall since the in-year cuts were announced last autumn, and I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on securing it. He is a member of the Inland Waterways Association and has a long track record of supporting canals in his constituency and beyond. Like many hon. Members, he has been out there campaigning to save the waterways and their user value, which the Minister has left in jeopardy. My hon. Friend has been especially active in campaigning along the Lichfield canal and at Fradley junction.

Yet again, the strength of feeling among hon. Members today is of concern for the future of our waterways, and we have heard excellent speeches from both sides of the House, particularly from my hon. Friends. In the last debate, the Minister displayed a reluctance to deal with some of the important points that were raised and focused instead on British Waterways’ projected income and how it might have been more than it expected in 2002. His performance on Monday in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Sub-Committee on British Waterways was something else. The Minister claimed that he had been given a series of important figures relating to British Waterways’ finances only on Friday night, and had been applying “greater and greater stridency” in his approach to obtain them. If it turns out that his Department had previously been made aware of the figures by British Waterways, will he apologise?

The Minister has known about the problems facing British Waterways for many months, especially as they have been highlighted by hon. Members so prominently in debates here in Westminster Hall since the in-year cut was announced. It seems to be a rather convenient coincidence that one working day before he had to give evidence to the Sub-Committee the figures magically appeared, especially when British Waterways had been in close contact with the Minister and his officials for many months. In fact, the Minister did not confirm that the organisation had been in daily contact by telephone, but we know that he has met British Waterways representatives once a month for the past six months—six times in the past six months. It is extraordinary that the figures could be produced only the day before he was due to appear before the Sub-Committee.

The Minister made it clear in the Sub-Committee that he thought that there were problems with the current long-term plans and financial arrangements. In the 27 March debate, he said that DEFRA was awaiting proposals from British Waterways for a regulatory reform order to this effect. Can he provide a progress report on that reform order?

To the Sub-Committee the Minister stated that he was now aware that British Waterways has altered its arrears elimination target, but on 16 April he made no mention of the change from the December 2012 target. Why did that information come to light only last week? What is the correct figure for British Waterways’ maintenance backlog? Is it the £97 million claimed by the chief executive, or the £107 million claimed by the chairman, or does the Minister have a different figure now that he has studied the figures? He told the Sub-Committee,

“well, here you have to decide whether you are going to believe the Chairman or the Chief Executive”,

and then quoted those figures. When he made the in-year cut, why did he not engage in the rigorous examination of British Waterways' financial situation, business plan and modelling, which he now claims he is doing, and why was that not done before, when the accounts were signed off?

In a written answer the Minister stated:

“As a matter of good financial management, DEFRA keeps its budgets and spending under regular review and challenge”.—[Official Report, 7 November 2006; Vol. 451, c. 1068W.]

Given the difficulties he claimed to have had in obtaining figures from British Waterways, does he think that DEFRA's previous reviews and challenges of British Waterways were not sufficient? It is no good him saying that it is about British Waterways having more money than it expected in 2002.

Why did it take the Minister so long to get the figures that he needed? He seemed to imply that British Waterways was being obstructive, but in the past few months there have been two Westminster Hall debates and he has also answered a number of oral and written questions. He has had plenty of opportunities to get the answers he was after.

In the Sub-Committee, the Minister was very critical of British Waterways’ financial modelling and the use of its predictions of a financial settlement from DEFRA over the next five years of RPI minus five. He described that as the worst possible scenario. That modelling gives British Waterways a £55 million reduction over the next five years. Can the Minister confirm whether that will be the case; and if he cannot, can he let us know when the decision will be made, and whether the comprehensive spending review is still on track to be concluded this summer, as he has previously asserted?

I apologise for not being present for the first part of the debate. I was attending a private Bill Committee upstairs.

The Macclesfield canal, which is part of the Cheshire ring, is an important facility in my constituency. I am picking up the point that my hon. Friend has just made. A member of the Macclesfield Canal Society has indicated that the cutbacks affecting British Waterways could well undermine the massive amount of voluntary help that is available to it because that help needs some top-up from British Waterways, although the sum involved is fairly modest. Is my hon. Friend concerned about that?

My hon. Friend always makes excellent points, and that one is no exception. Many hon. Members here today have mentioned the importance and value of the contribution that those kind and generous people make to British Waterways because they love the canals. I shall say a little more about that in my closing comments.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and what is more alarming is finding out the facts behind the stories that we have heard from the Government so far. In the Sub-Committee’s evidence session, the Minister referred to a letter, which I think he said would take 20 minutes to read out. I just wonder whether he has given that letter to the Sub-Committee and whether it is in the public domain. I am sure that he has given it to the Sub-Committee, as he nodded helpfully. However, I do not know whether it is in the public domain; I have not been able to see it. I asked British Waterways if it would let me have a copy, but perhaps to protect its Minister, it would not pass one on to me, thus showing a degree of loyalty for which he should perhaps be grateful.

Was the Minister aware that British Waterways had already informed his Department when he accused the chairman and chief executive of deceiving him about BW’s plans? If he had the information, or if he was really suspicious about being deceived, why did he not take any action against those two people? He can do so. Alternatively, is it true that his Department had the information but he was simply not aware of it? I am sure that if that were the case he would not have made such strong accusations against British Waterways. He said:

“I slate them for not being transparent and saying when they found out they got it wrong.”

If he knew that the information was in his Department, will he apologise? It may turn out that he got it wrong. Is it true that he does not know what is going on in either his agency or his Department, and that as a Minister he does not have the control that he should have?

The Minister’s hon. Friends have suggested that he has lost control of his office, so will he apologise and get a grip? Does he recognise that the public, boat owners, canal users and taxpayers expect the Labour Government to run their Departments properly, and that when he goes to a Committee and admits that he does not know how public money is being spent, they have every right to be angry about his failure?

I must be careful not to push the Minister too far. It is far easier if my opponent is a Minister who publicly admits that he has lost control of his job and then gives evidence to a Committee to prove it. I suspect that that is why people will vote Conservative on 3 May.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on securing the debate. I am aware of his long-standing interest in our waterways, and of the particular importance of the Lichfield and Hatherton canal that runs through his constituency.

I welcome the opportunity to restate in a more accessible form my responses to the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Monday evening. In fairness, this morning’s cries of outrage from the Conservative Benches were wholly absent during the 20 years when successive Tory Administrations refused to invest in the network, turning it into a dilapidated shambles, in stark contrast with the £542 million that this Government have invested during the past decade.

However, I pay tribute to many Members for their remarks, and in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), whose knowledge of the waterways network is extensive and comprehensive, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins).

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South said that it does not need BW to organise a campaign to protect the waterways, which is absolutely right. People demonstrated because they care about the future of the waterways. My hon. Friend focused us, saying that the concern is about people’s confidence in the future of the waterways. That is precisely why I was not prepared to sign up to a long-term settlement with BW, as I was urged to do, until I could see clearly the way in which such a settlement would bring the network to a gradual, timetabled conclusion in steady state.

My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands asked us to conclude a long-term contract. Let me make it absolutely clear that I wish to do so, but on a clear and transparent basis where we know the required estimates of the network’s remediation and maintenance programme. Unless the estimates are clearly and properly articulated, it is neither possible nor right to conclude such a long-term contract.

I recognise that my evidence to the Sub-Committee came as a surprise to many hon. Members, who now seek further information. I do not intend to prejudge the Sub-Committee’s findings, but I am happy to set out my position more clearly. I put on record that the British Waterways management of our canal system has been a tremendous success. It has the ability and vision to continue to deliver public benefits, including leisure, recreation, tourism and—of paramount importance—regeneration, as many Members have said this morning. BW’s record speaks for itself: its canals and rivers are in better shape than they have been for 30 or 40 years.

Following 20 long years of under-investment, BW has in the past decade turned around the fortunes of the waterways. It has a strong track record in managing the waterways and its associated assets, and it has fostered excellent relationships with local authorities and private sector partners. I want to see BW continue to build on that, using its property portfolio to increase its income in order to reduce its dependency on grants. I am confident that we have the right board, management, chairman and chief executive to do so. I had an insight into BW’s effectiveness and ability to engage in partnerships when I met a range of its development partners earlier this year.

It is clear from the weight of correspondence, parliamentary questions and debates just how much concern and interest there is in the fortunes of the waterways, and I wish to ensure that BW has sufficient resources to fulfil its statutory duties. To that end, I sought greater clarity on the strategy and financial projections that BW uses to work up its maintenance programme, notably its target of 2012 to clear its statutory maintenance backlog. Any well run organisation should set itself challenging targets, but they must be realistic.

I was surprised and not a little annoyed that, despite repeated requests, I did not receive the full information until last Friday evening in the form of a letter from the chairman and a spreadsheet setting out BW’s projections in 2002 against its actuals to date and its business plan for 2007-08 and 2010-11.

Will the Minister give way?

I shall do so in a minute.

The information includes grant and commercial income, and both documents have been made available to the Sub-Committee. The table showed that by 31 March, Government grant in aid to BW was £8.8 million more than the projection in BW’s 2002 plan. It also showed that despite BW’s assumptions—some might say, pessimistic assumptions—about future grant levels starting next year, which it calculated on the basis of RPI minus 5 per cent. to show a £48 million loss of grant by 2012, commercial income over the same period was due to rise by some £78 million more than it forecast. That leaves a net increase in BW’s projected total available income by 2012 of £30.1 million—that is, £30.1 million more than it projected in its original plan. Despite that, BW no longer believes that steady state for the network can be achieved by 2012 and has revised its maintenance assumptions.

I should in passing pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), who set out clearly some of the critical questions that need to be answered. He did not make an unreasonable speech, but here is the critical point that I should like to make in response. What we discovered on Friday evening—in fact, what I received on Monday morning, as I was on ministerial business over the weekend—was that the revised maintenance assumptions now show that 15 per cent. of the assets will still be in classes D and E by 2016, instead of only 10 per cent. of the assets being in classes D and E by 2012, as we had previously been led to believe.

In his letter, the chairman advised that a number of factors other than grant would cause the target for the elimination of the backlog by 2012 to be achieved later than anticipated. Among those was the fact that no account had been taken of the wider population of BW’s assets that needed maintenance. Among those assets are what the chairman referred to in his letter, which I have made available to the Select Committee, as the non-principal assets. He confirmed that BW’s calculations of the maintenance programme took account of the principal assets that needed maintenance, but not of the non-principal assets.

Will the Minister give way?

Will the Minister give way?

There is time, and I shall give way shortly.

A number of assumptions were made, not all of which have been borne out. They have meant that in BW’s view the 2012 target cannot now be achieved. It gave me no joy to receive that letter, although it clearly and unequivocally set out the information that I had requested for so long. However, the letter clarified that BW had underestimated the true cost of the maintenance and upkeep of the waterways in its original projections.

The fact that BW’s assumptions were wrong, however, is not the issue for me. We are talking about a highly technical, 200-year-old network and it is understandable that assumptions about the costs of maintenance can change over time. What caused me concern was that I had waited for the information for as long as I had. It should have been made available earlier, both to me and to stakeholders.

I thank the Minister for giving way, but we are again experiencing a muddying of the waters, with confusing figures that do not answer the concerns that we have expressed here and that others have expressed outside about what he is going to do to restore confidence in the future of the inland waterways. He has told us that he was surprised and annoyed that BW did not provide him with the information before last Friday, but how many times over the past six months has he met the chairman and chief executive of British Waterways to demand those figures?

I have met the chairman and the chief executive, I have had telephone conversations and there has been correspondence between our offices. I cannot tell my hon. Friend how many times I have asked for those figures, but I assure him that on many occasions I have specifically requested the timetable and the assumptions upon which BW could move to steady state.

Will the Minister give way?

I shall of course give way in a moment.

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the important thing is that we have clarity about an end point, when all of us can be satisfied. I wish to move further in my remarks and to address the points that he made about what is going to happen, because that is the important issue. However, I have on many occasions asked for clarity on the timetable and on the assumptions on which steady state could be achieved. I had not, before now, received the information that 15 per cent. of the assets would still be in classes D and E by 2016.

Hon. Members will have noted that the Minister did not answer my question about how many times he had met the chairman and chief executive of British Waterways over the past six months. If the Minister’s assertion that he was surprised and annoyed when he finally received the figures is to have credibility, he needs to demonstrate to us that he made some serious attempts to get those figures from British Waterways. Crucial among the actions that we might expect him to have taken would be to have met the chairman and chief executive to demand those figures.

Briefly.

The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the case that over the past two years he has met the chairman and chief executive on precisely two occasions?

I am absolutely confident that I can correct my hon. Friend on that score, because I have met the chairman and chief executive on more than two occasions. However, as I have already promised the Select Committee, I shall make available a full audit trail of the requests by my Department to British Waterways, as the hon. Member for Leominster requested, so that the Sub-Committee can see for itself the requests that have been made on the matter and my insistence that there should be clarity about how the network can move to steady state.

To be clear, I have not sought to evade my hon. Friend’s question at all. I have met the chief executive and the chairman of British Waterways on many occasions over the past year—not the past two years; I have not been in this post for that long—and my Department has been in correspondence with them to seek precisely the clarification that I have outlined to the Chamber today.

Will the Minister give way?

Will the Minister give way?

I shall press on, but I shall try to give way before the end.

Now that we have more transparency over the true cost of the upkeep, I am confident that BW and I can work together to agree a way forward that will manage the waterways in a sustainable manner, which will include gaining greater self-sufficiency. I look forward to sitting down with the chairman in the coming days to discuss the issue further, which my office has already been arranging with his. Let both sides stop belabouring the problems of the network that divide us and explore the single problem that unites us: how to construct a viable and vibrant future for this national asset.

BW has been a success story over the past 10 years. My discussions with Robin Evans and Tony Hales over past months have given me an insight into the tremendous contribution that British Waterways makes to the public good. That must now be our focus, in order to ensure that the success story that BW has been over the past 10 years continues.

My concern is about safety at Shenton, which I raised. Notwithstanding the cuts, I wonder whether the Minister might not make provision for special operations where safety is affected.

The hon. Gentleman and others asked about specific problems in their constituencies. I am happy to write to all those who have raised specific concerns, whether they be those that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands raised about Caldon and Netherton or those that the hon. Gentleman raised. The hon. Member for Lichfield spoke about the Grantham canal, which he said had been closed as a result of cuts. The Grantham canal is in fact a remainder waterway, part restored, but there is an active partnership to continue developing it with BW. However, I should be happy to write to him and to pursue such matters, although they are of course issues for BW’s programming, and it is appropriate for BW to make priorities within the network.

The Minister told us that 15 per cent. of assets were in classes D and E and would remain there until 2016, instead of 10 per cent. being in classes D and E by 2012. What will be the bill to shift those assets, how many of them were principal assets and is RPI minus 5 per cent. still—

Order. We must proceed to the next topic for our consideration.