Brian J Goggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Lovely. Now would you mind giving us a sanity check on that? I mean, >apart from yourself, does anyone --- say the Prime Minister or the >Chancellor of the Exchequer, or even a lowly Assistant Principal in >the Treasury's office in Halifax --- think that this is a good idea? >If --- as I suspect --- not, then your proposal (however you define >it) is utterly unrealistic. Hard to believe, I know, but the Treasury does not confide in me concerning its plans. >>Certainly the amount is yet to be debated. Don't forget, though, that >>BW still has a significant backlog (not least of dredging) to catch up >>on too, so there is plenty of room for fudging if the endowment loan >>were too large. And it would be possible to build in mechanisms to >>remedy under- or over-endowing. > >Oh. So it wouldn't be outside government control. So how does thst >differ from an annual grant? What I suggested above was an initial adjustment mechanism, to ensure that the amount of the endowment actually matched BW's requirement once it had been transferred. This would be a one-time adjustment, not an annual one. >>Catastrophes would have to be covered by reserves, or insurance, just >>like most organisations do. > >So your proposal will increase the costs of running the waterways. No. BW (I think) already carries some insurance. The rest of the risk is self-insured, the risk of which is equivalent to a cost but one whih is currently somewhat, er, concealed.. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
