Steve Haywood <[email protected]> wrote: >There is a perfectly valid argument that the annual grant is better for BW >than the existing system. This is because there is never going to be a >situation where BW can be entirely self sufficient of government grants. >Even Robin Evan's discredited policies of recent years only ever aimed at >being 'largely' self sufficient of the grant. Even if it allowed BW to >retain the property portfolio, ggovernment would still have complete control >over BW's finances. If BW's property income rose, it could and would simply >trim its annual budget accordingly.
I'm afraid that simply isn't so. With a sufficient endowment invested in real estate, BW would have enough income from it (coupled with its other business income and user charges) to run the waterways, income that would adjust automatically for inflation. As to control, getting more independence from the interfering man from the Ministry is one of the intentions behind the idea of converting BW into a charity. After all, you don't often see the government confiscating capital from the National Trust, do you? OTOH, Tony Hales has said that, despite BW's current notional independence as a nationalised industry, he was recently heavily pushed by THFTM to consider closing the HNC to save maintenance costs. >However, if there was a crisis in waterways maintenance the existence of the >property portfolio would allow the government to distance itself from >difficult decisions that would have to be taken. If there was another >serious breach somewhere, for instance, it would argue that it not only >finances BW adequately on an annual basis, but that BW has resources of its >own which it can use as it thinks fit. I think that's *exactly* what we want. >The advantage of the annual grant is that while it may marginally limit BW's >ability for forward planning (which may not be such a bad thing, anyhow), it >does make the government vulnerable to continuing political pressure in a >way that, as boaters, we have proved we can exploit. Dependence on the annual grant is actually a major reason for the (growing) maintenance deficits. It's probably the most important aspect of BW's current set-up to get changed. Waterways are long-term liabilities. So they need to be financed by long-term funding. Rebuilding a lock is a capital expenditure, which will produce returns for decades. So the funding of that rebuilt should be set for decades at the time the project is undertaken. Depending on the whim of annual grant doesn't "marginally limit" BW's planning; it makes it impossible. Annuality requires each capital project to be written off completely in the year it is done. That's simply barmy, and almost always leads to dumb spending decisions, and forces essential works to be put off. >On the other hand BW has proved itself intransigent to pressure under it's >existing structure, Translation: "BW has resisted some questionable ideas from boaters". No bad thing, I feel. However, I think BW has actually evolved rather a lot in the direction boaters want. You seem to like the status quo. Why? It's doing a lot of harm to the waterways. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
