"Mike Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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,
That's my aim too. But, logically, it would be BW (renamed if necessary). >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. Get rid of the heritage responsibility, then. That removes one conflict. British Heritage and the local authorities are already responsible for that, so no need for BW to be. And as far as I can see, no-one here believes BW does much of a job of it anyway. Ringfence BW's estates department, and allow it to deal with only BW property not required for operating the waterways. The BW board would decide what property is required, and would be the only body able to transfer property to Estates for development/letting/disposal. That would remove most, if not all, of the conflict IMHO. >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) The reason BW gave up on the longer-term agreement was that it realised that: (a) The government would never sign one, and (b) If it did, it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on I think we should stick to considering ideas that could actually work. >And at least Government grant is >democratically accountable - i.e. accountable to the people who actually >own the waterways i.e. everybody. Yeah, that's worked *really* well recently with that accountable ouftit, DEFRA. > 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. However, the markets *are* all of us. And they seem to react a lot more quickly to public sentiment than politicans do. I know which I would rather trust. >> 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. With suitable dowries, of course. >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. Er, the WI docks started out as the Isle of Dogs canal. And Wood Wharf is goinge to be a major source of money for BW. > But perhaps they should take over the upstream bit of the PLA. Sure. Down to the barrier. >But even better if all this was run by a publicly-funded navigation & >regulatory body with no commercial interest. No no! Don't *ever* mix management with regulation! BW will always be partly publicly-funded, so no problem there. But "No commercial interest" usually means incoherent and financially inept management, I'm afraid. >What do we want? >NINA >When do we want it? >Now. Yes. But, sad to say, "we" appears not to include the management of EA. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
