Nick Atty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In both uk.rec.waterways and the canals mailing list (I'm posting this
>to both) there have been a few thoughts and ideas about how the
>waterways actually ought to be funded on the back of the current crisis.
>
>I've been giving this some thought, and feel that this could well be the
>perfect moment to make a move.
I agree. Crises are often the best opportunities to make long-need
changes.
>here are a few thoughts and questions I'd love to here your views on - making
>it as
>simple as possible (but still not simple!):
>
>1) Should we seek to move BW away from direct Government funding?
BW is already substantially "away from direct Government funding". I
believe it should now go the rest of the way.
"Direct Government funding" can be translated as "The ability of the
Government of the day to move the goal posts at any time without
warning". With indirect funding, it is much more likely that any
change would be as the result of an alteration of government policy,
rather than short-term expediency.
BW will continue to need government funding of some kind, as the
waterways cannot support themselves on what they can earn alone. The
question is thus how to provide that funding most efficiently and
beneficially.
>2) Which of the following ways of funding should we be encouraging:
> a) Partnerships with "industry" (pubs, property etc);
BW already has substantial non-boating income from the waterways. In
general, this is benign, although we need to remain watchful for
inappropriate developments being proposed. Note that change along the
waterways is going to occur anyway, so it would be illogical to rule
out this source of income in an attempt to prevent it.
This form of income gives BW substantial control and long-term
security. Much better than the annual grant in this respect. I
believe we should be encouraging its increase by BW.
> b) a transfer of more property to help (Adrian's endowment
> approach);
Well, of course I agree with this <g>. It is really part of (2), in
that it is the means to give BW the use of the extra capital to manage
for income through investment that it needs to replace the grant. BW
is reasonably good at investment, so I have no problem with letting it
do more of it.
> c) some sort of levy on local authorities who benefit (akin perhaps
>to the way police forces are partly funded)?
Local authorities are very short of money. If they were to pay a
significant levy, they would need more revenue themselves, probably
(although not definitely) through property taxation or transfers from
government. I can't see that happening politically.
>3) Should we be seeking a unified navigation authority (I stress
>navigation - EA keeping the status they currently have for BW rivers),
Very definitely. There is much wasteful duplication (between EA and
BW), and EA has entirely the wrong structure and financial authority
to manage waterways.
However, I feel we are talking here about only the *publicly-owned*
navigations, so:
>and if so, which of the following should be included:
> a) EA rivers etc;
> b) Peel Holdings waterways (Bridgewater/MSC);
> c) Basingstoke
> d) Middle Level;
> e) Broads;
> f) Avon Trusts (LANT and UANT) river;
> g) National Trust (River Wey)
> h) Everything?
include only (a), (c) which BW should take over, with a suitable
dowry, (d), (e) just the navigation, not the parks function.
(c), (f), and (g) are private organisations. I dislike expropriation,
let alone confiscation.
>4) Where should the Waterways Trust fit into this?
Who cares?
>5) Where does/should AINA fit into this?
Same role as now, but perhaps a little more assertive.
>6) Where does/should the IWAAC fit into this?
Should monitor the unified NINA (National Inland Navigation Authority)
>7) What have I completely missed?
EA has shown it will fight hard and dirty to protect its turf.
Creating NINA would at a stroke allow an integrated system of
navigation charges. IWA has been asking for this for only 50 years.
I'm sure NINA would/will be built on BW. At its last restructuring,
BW was redesigned specifically as a navigation authority. I think the
design (as a commercial corporation held at arm's length by the
government) is very appropriate, although I want the length of the arm
increased through conversion of the annual grant into an endowment. I
also want it out of DEFRA, although I'm not sure how best it should
report to its shareholder. I believe it would be unreasonable to
expect the government to start again and produce yet another outfit.
It really is most likely to retain BW, perhaps modifying it in minor
ways.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
