PBCM on the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012
PBCM on the Inland Waterways Advisory Council (Abolition) Order 2012
SP Paper 116 (Web only)
ICI/S4/12/R5
5th Report, 2012 (Session 4)
Public Bodies Consent: British Waterways Board and Inland Waterways Advisory Council
Remit and membership
Remit:
To consider and report on infrastructure, capital investment, transport, housing and other matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment, apart from those covered by the remit of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee.
Membership:
Malcolm Chisholm
Adam Ingram (Deputy Convener)
Alex Johnstone
Gordon MacDonald
Margaret McCulloch
Aileen McLeod
Maureen Watt (Convener)
Committee Clerking Team:
Clerk to the Committee
Steve Farrell
Senior Assistant Clerk
Ruth McGill
Assistant Clerk
Lewis McNaughton
Committee Assistant
Lauren Spaven-Donn
Public Bodies Consent: British Waterways Board and Inland Waterways Advisory Council
The Committee reports to the Parliament as follows—
Introduction
1. At its meeting on 18 April 2012, the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee considered the following Orders—
- British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012
- Inland Waterways Advisory Council (Abolition) Order 2012
2. The Orders are UK Government instruments that the Scottish Parliament has been asked to consent to under the Public Bodies Act 2011. The Parliament’s consent is required because the public bodies in question operate in both reserved and devolved areas.
3. The Scottish Government has provided the Scottish Parliament with a Public Body Consent Memorandum (PBCM) for each Order.
4. The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered both PBCMs and determined that it did not need to draw either to the attention of the Parliament on any ground within its remit.
British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012
Purpose
5. The Order seeks both to transfer the functions of the British Waterways Board in relation to England and Wales to a new waterways charity, and to ensure that the Board continues in existence as a Scottish public body. It is understood that in Scotland whilst legally the Board would continue to be called the “British Waterways Board”, it would operate under the name “Scottish Canals” for most purposes.
6. The Order also proposes a number of consequential amendments relating to the future operation of the Board. These include: reducing the size of the board to take account of the smaller size of the organisation; providing for audit of the Board’s accounts to be carried out by the Auditor General for Scotland; and making various transitional arrangements.
7. The Scottish Government PBCM, together with the Order and accompanying documents, is available on the Parliament’s website.1
UK Government proposal
8. The UK Government considers that the functions of the British Waterways Board in England and Wales would be better exercised by a third sector body, namely the Canal & River Trust (CRT). The UK Government believes that moving the functions and assets of British Waterways in England and Wales to civil society through the creation of CRT would provide benefits, such as enabling local communities to have a greater say in how their local canal or river is run and would result in some savings from efficiencies and other benefits flowing from CRT’s charitable status.
9. As responsibility for inland waterways in Scotland is a devolved matter, the UK Government was prepared to leave it to the Scottish Government to decide whether it wanted Scottish waterways to be transferred to the control of CRT.
Scottish Government position
10. The Scottish Ministers considered a similar transfer as regards the Board’s Scottish functions as proposed by the UK Government for England and Wales, but concluded that the management of the inland waterways in Scotland should remain the responsibility of a public body.
11. In the PBCM, the Scottish Government offered a number of reasons for its decision—
“In Scotland the canals operate in a very different context which meant that the optimal solution for England and Wales did not also represent the optimal solution for Scotland. Key differences including funding sustainability, the nature and usage of the canals, partnership working, the contribution sought from the canals and stakeholder views.”2
12. In relation to the consequential amendments proposed by the Order, the Scottish Government PBCM states that they “are necessary to allow the Board to continue to operate satisfactorily in Scotland, but on a self-standing basis as a Scottish public body with Scottish Ministers having relevant powers in relation to the body”3.
Financial implications
13. The PBCM states that the additional running costs associated with the transfer of services to Scotland would be met by the Board. It is understood that at the time of separation, British Waterways Scotland could be expected to have a balance sheet with a net worth of £30m.4
Inland Waterways Advisory Council (Abolition) Order 2012
Purpose
14. The Order seeks to abolish the Advisory Council across the UK, and to make a number of associated consequential amendments, repeals and revocations. The Scottish Government PBCM, together with the Order and accompanying documents, is available on the Parliament’s website.5
UK Government proposal
15. The UK Government considers that, given the transfer of the functions of the British Waterways Board in England and Wales by virtue of the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 (as above), “there will no longer be a need for a statutory body to provide it with advice for policy development”6.
16. As responsibility for inland waterways in Scotland is a devolved matter, the Scottish Government was given the responsibility for deciding what arrangements to put in place for the Advisory Council as it related to Scotland.
Scottish Government position
17. The Scottish Government considered that the functions of the Inland Waterways Advisory Council should be abolished insofar as they relate to Scotland. The PBCM states that, in the view of the Scottish Government, the Advisory Council’s activities in recent times have been almost wholly focused on work which was relevant to England and Wales but not for Scotland. The Scottish Government believes, therefore, that with the transfer of canals to charitable status in England and Wales whilst Scotland’s canals remain in the public sector, means that “the value of a cross-border advisory body would continue to diminish”7.
18. The Scottish Ministers are of the view that there is a strong network of advisory groups well placed to provide advice on inland waterways and that there is consequently no need to retain the Inland Waterways Advisory Council.
Financial implications
19. The PBCM states that the Scottish Government previously contributed £33,000 towards the annual running costs of the Advisory Council. No provision has been made in the Scottish Spending Review (2012-2015) for future funding of the Advisory Council.8
Conclusion
20. The Committee agreed to recommend to the Scottish Parliament that the following draft motions should be approved—
British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012
That the Parliament consents to the making of the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012, a draft of which was laid before the United Kingdom Parliament on 29 February 2012 and which makes provision which would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament.
Inland Waterways Advisory Council (Abolition) Order 2012
That the Parliament consents to the making of the Inland Waterways Advisory Council (Abolition) Order 2012, a draft of which was laid before the United Kingdom Parliament on 29 February 2012 and which makes provision which would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament if it were contained within an Act of that Parliament.
Footnotes:
3 PBCM on the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012, paragraph 32
4 PBCM on the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012, paragraphs 30-31
7 PBCM on the Inland Waterways Advisory Council (Abolition) Order 2012, paragraph 10
8 PBCM on the Inland Waterways Advisory Council (Abolition) Order 2012, paragraph 19
Back to top