It is because of their deep pocket from inner city waterside property developments on land acquired on nationalisation in 1948, that BW has been able buy up everything that has - dare I say - come on the market.

Robin Evans, BW's new chief executive, recently admitted in a press interview that BW had now acquired 17 marinas, only building two of that total. Thus in a few years, from a standing start in the mid 1990s, BW has become by far and away the largest marina operator on the canals.

Taking on board the possibly thousands of canal linear moorings which it already operates, BW is now effectively in a monopoly position on several canals.

BW also now controls most of London's Docklands and, having acquired Cumberland Basin, it now has a complete monopoly of moorings - basin and linear - in central London, as boaters are already discovering, with moorings prices going through the roof.

It is only in west London that the private sector still has a significant presence. And this will soon be challenged by the new large BW Marina at Cowley.

River navigations

Not content with backwaters of the canals, BW has acquired marinas on river navigations it does not control.

It has also acquired Hull Marina on the coast and is alleged to have pitched unsuccessfully for Hartlepool Marina as well. There are allegations of BW having likewise unsuccessfully pitched to acquire a coastal marina in the Bristol Channel.

One wonders just where ambition will take BW next.

BW has put out various smoke screen arguments to justify its actions. The earliest was that it was the white knight, out to save boating facilities that were on their knees and would otherwise disappear if BW did not acquire them.

I have managed to contact one of the sellers whose business was bought "to save boating facilities". Far from being on his knees, he told me BW approached him and he was "very pleased" by the price he was able to achieve.

Indeed he never bothered to contact anyone else to see if he could flush out a better bid.

And I am aware of other private sector operators who have been approached by BW to sell up, who just said No!

And in two cases they were on navigations not under BW's control.

Another argument put succinctly by Robin Evans in that interview is that "The vast majority of waterway businesses are hugely underinvested and banks are very wary about lending to them."

This is simply untrue. The private sector marina operators have not - with few exceptions - "under-invested".

Improved facilities

Speaking for Braunston Marina, we have invested over £1 million in improved boating facilities in the last 10 years, £200,000 last year alone, and we have a budget for this year of £100,000.

Our bank has never turned us down. Indeed the bank seems delighted to lend to us and even featured us in one of its magazines.

And we are not alone.

Excellent new private sector marinas have been recently opened at Barton Turns, Crick, Fazely Mill, Trinity and Ventnor Farm to name a few.

The real reason is a quirk of government. Robin Evans said in that interview that BW intends to continue with this acquisition policy, as "this is one of the few ways in which BW is permitted to earn money".

For some reason, not shared with the Environment Agency on their rivers Thames etc, BW is desperately keen to be in trade, at whatever cost.

Evans went on: "The issue is competing with the private sector on a level playing field."

But it is precisely because BW does not compete on a level playing field that makes marinas so attractive to the company.

BW is extremely well placed to exploit its position as at once a government body, navigation authority, landowner and landlord - and with those substantial funds to invest.

Challenging rates

For BW, marinas are about as good a way of trading as any.

This is now more so, following its recent successful challenge to paying rates on its canals, including astonishingly, its marinas - on the basis that the canals as a whole are lossmakers.

It is incredible that a private sector operator has to pay substantial rates on its premises, even if it leases them from BW, but if BW operates that same marina, no rates are payable!

And, of course BW, does not pay itself a connection charge.

In the case of Braunston Marina, on a level playing field, we would be saving ourselves some £80,000 a year.

This charade of one government department saving at the expense of another - the Treasury - would be comical, were it not to the private sector operators' disadvantage as well.

As a government body, BW is also able to receive EEC grants for building new marinas in "development areas", which are not available to the private sector.

The new BW marina at Newark on the River Trent received just such grants and that marina is now competing with existing private sector marinas less than a few miles away, which never received any, and are still repaying historic debt.

Sinister card In acquiring marinas BW has a more sinister card to play. Due to the 1948 Nationalisation, BW owns much of the land which, in the past, was leased to private sector operators to develop boating facilities, and which they now want back.

Many operators have 25 year leases that are nearing their end - and these BW are seeking to repossess at little or no compensation to the operators, who now see their life's work simply disappearing.

If an assignment is proposed to another private operator, there is the question of dilapidations on what are often historic properties.

If the owner is a freeholder whose businesses started in the 60s and 70s, there is often the unresolved connection disputes with BW. Thus a sale is almost impossible to anyone except BW.

And this disadvantage spills into other areas.

There is a great deal of concern among private sector operators that, once again, BW is over paying staff - in this case their marina staff - to bring them into line with BW pay rates as a whole.

Unfair advantage But it is not only with staffing that BW is putting itself at an unfair advantage to the private sector.

BW's marinas can afford to advertise on a scale the private sector simply cannot. And this ignores any potential crosssubsidy from BW's central marketing - stands at boat shows, free PR, brochure production etc. , etc. .

And this advertising takes them into another area where they now compete unfairly with the private sector, namely narrowboat brokerage - and again with manning levels the private sector can only dream of.

On the back of this BW is now offering insurance and finance services and in so doing are unfairly giving - as the navigation authority - public endorsement to certain financial products to the disadvantage of those they do not.

This important issue is now being raised by aggrieved insurance companies through the appropriate channels of the British Marine Federation (BMF).

Indeed it is BW's now dual role as navigation authority and marina operator that is of greatest worry and concern.

That database of boater information of every boat on their system - where they moor, who they insure with, when the Boat Safety Certificate expires - must be very tempting to put to use for commercial advantage.

There are no Chinese walls at BW and many employees have access to this database.

One private sector marina operator has already told me that one of his moorers was surprised to receive a letter from the local BW office, inviting him to move his boat to its new marina, which was less than a dozen miles away.

Just how did that BW marina get that information?

Milk and honey Even the best run private sector canal marinas are not flowing with milk and honey.

The investment return on the capital tied up in the marina itself is quite low, once the profits from a successful brokerage and servicing operation are put to one side - which the BW operations do not seem to enjoy.

It is hard to believe that the BW inland waterways marinas are operating profitably on any arm's length accounting criteria.

Indeed based on information that has been passed to me, I am convinced that one of its major marinas is certainly operating at a loss.

BW's historic track record on trading is one disaster after another - cargo carrying, hire fleets, all now closed down.

Even employing its own labour force to maintain its canals proved a costly exercise which it has now farmed out to the private sector.

For how long, therefore, will BW continue with its marina venture. And at what cost to the private sector operator and the boater - not to mention the taxpayer?

It is a paradox that in an age when nationalised industries are being de-nationalised everywhere - even in France and Germany - in the UK, which started the whole denationalisation process under Margaret Thatcher, on the backwaters of our canals we now have the opposite.

BW, one of few remaining nationalised industries, is swimming against the tide, by acquiring private sector canal marinas.

This nationalisation is not by parliamentary act. It is by stealth, by the back door and with BW unaccountable to its private sector competitors, the boaters, its other users or indeed, it seems, anyone else - despite using public money to carry out this serial acquisition spree.

Where the Environment Agency's channels diverge from those of BW is that the Environment Agency has made it quite plain that it has no intentions of becoming involved in the building, acquisition or running of marinas on its navigations - Rivers Thames, Ouse, Nene etc.

This should be left firmly in the hands of the private sector.

The EA sees its role as providing and maintaining the navigations; and that, in my opinion, is precisely what BW should also be doing - and not becoming involved in the running of marinas.