Adrian Stott wrote: > My view is that the model (i.e. a publicly-owned arms-length > corporation running on commercial principles) now represented by BW is > the most suitable way to manage the waterways. As this corporation is > bound to loose money, it will require financial support from the > government.
I almost agree with you so far. The only point of difference is the phrase "arms-length". I'd prefer to see more direct public control. See below for my reason. > However, this support should be secure in the long-term, > and would best be provided by a (significantly larger) real estate > endowment to replace the current undependable annual government grant. This is where we really disagree. I think that whoever runs the waterways, whether it's BW or my pet idea, a National Inland Navigation Authority, they've already got enough conflicting interests in trying to balance navigation and heritage guardianship. To add another layer of conflict by making them run as a commercial concern (as has already been done, and which would go even further under Adrian's scheme) is, to my mind, a gross mistake, as we have already seen in recent years. The danger is that the commercial tail begins to wag the waterways dog. This has been exacerbated by having the BW board dominated by people appointed from the commercial sector. I know that BW feels that annual government grant is unreliable, and so it is. But a longer-term financial settlement, of perhaps five years, under a defined service contract (as was discussed and, sadly, rejected a while ago) would smooth out the jagged graph. And at least Government grant is democratically accountable - i.e. accountable to the people who actually own the waterways i.e. everybody. Whereas a commercial funding mechanism is not answerable to anybody except the markets and, for all Adrian has tried to persuade me in the past, I still think that in the long term these are no more predictable the Government grant. I feel it highly likely that the outcome of the present investigation will be little different from the status quo. The difference between Robin Evans' approach and Adrian's are actually quite small. Both approaches are rooted in the thinking of the commercial sector of the world, who are exactly the people who are being asked to come up with recommendations. > Of course, there should be only one national inland navigation > authority, and BW should take over the navigations now being run by > EA. And any other that are in public ownership, like the Broads and the Basingstoke. And they should get rid of their bit of London Docklands(if anyone would have it!), which is by no stretch of the imagination a navigation. But perhaps they should take over the upstream bit of the PLA. But even better if all this was run by a publicly-funded navigation & regulatory body with no commercial interest. What do we want? NINA When do we want it? Now. -- Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus III web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Defend the waterways. Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
