Where Recovered Licence Fees Go

[US Marines]

I flounced off from Martin's 'Report Unlicensed Boats' thread to contact Ms Jane Thomson of BW who apparently has stated in the BW North West Customer Newsletter :

 

"We are acting in the interests of our canals and customers by reducing the number of unlicensed and derelict craft blighting our waterways. Every penny is being ploughed back into maintaining and improving the network for everyone." (my emphasis)

 

I asked her whether, in the light of her statement above, she could confirm that the money being recovered from boat licences was going into a BW budget pot that was dedicated only to 'maintenance' and/or 'improvement' of the network, or whether it was going into a pot used for other things as well.

 

I mentioned to her that, if the licence money is going into a pot that is used for things outwith these specific budget items, then I would consider that, at the very least, she may have made a mistake in the words she used in the newsletter.

 

She has now very kindly (and I mean that genuinely) replied. She has stated:

 

"Thank you for your enquiry e-mail. Further to your e-mail I can confirm that British Waterways main priority is to maintain the waterways in a satisfactory order. All of the income that we make from all of our activities is directed towards the cost of managing and maintaining the waterways. We do not allocate profit from our Pub Partnership to grass cutting or the income we receive from water sales to dredging, money for wayleaves to clear fly tipping and so forth. Thus any income made from collecting backdated licence fees is directed towards the overall cost of looking after the waterways."

 

I have thanked her for this reply and have asked her to clarify whether the money from collecting backdated boat licences goes into a pot that is used for everything that BW spend money on - including Director Bonuses, for example.

 

I have also pointed out to her that the difference between the licence money and the other items she has mentioned in her reply is that, as far as I am aware, she has not previously stated that all of that money is being dedicated to network maintenance and improvement.

 

As I only sent her this today, she has not yet had a chance to respond to it, but I will let you know what she says in due course.

[Dutch]

Well done this could be interesting

[NB Teila]

I flounced off from Martin's 'Report Unlicensed Boats' thread to contact Ms Jane Thomson of BW who apparently has stated in the BW North West Customer Newsletter :

 

"We are acting in the interests of our canals and customers by reducing the number of unlicensed and derelict craft blighting our waterways. Every penny is being ploughed back into maintaining and improving the network for everyone." (my emphasis)

 

I asked her whether, in the light of her statement above, she could confirm that the money being recovered from boat licences was going into a BW budget pot that was dedicated only to 'maintenance' and/or 'improvement' of the network, or whether it was going into a pot used for other things as well.

 

I mentioned to her that, if the licence money is going into a pot that is used for things outwith these specific budget items, then I would consider that, at the very least, she may have made a mistake in the words she used in the newsletter.

 

She has now very kindly (and I mean that genuinely) replied. She has stated:

 

"Thank you for your enquiry e-mail. Further to your e-mail I can confirm that British Waterways main priority is to maintain the waterways in a satisfactory order. All of the income that we make from all of our activities is directed towards the cost of managing and maintaining the waterways. We do not allocate profit from our Pub Partnership to grass cutting or the income we receive from water sales to dredging, money for wayleaves to clear fly tipping and so forth. Thus any income made from collecting backdated licence fees is directed towards the overall cost of looking after the waterways."

 

I have thanked her for this reply and have asked her to clarify whether the money from collecting backdated boat licences goes into a pot that is used for everything that BW spend money on - including Director Bonuses, for example.

 

I have also pointed out to her that the difference between the licence money and the other items she has mentioned in her reply is that, as far as I am aware, she has not previously stated that all of that money is being dedicated to network maintenance and improvement.

 

As I only sent her this today, she has not yet had a chance to respond to it, but I will let you know what she says in due course.

 

 

Good Job,You are asking the right questions, I`ve mention the BW spin before, `British Waterways main priority is to maintain the waterways in a satisfactory order.` Too who`s satisfaction??

 

Then we have a slight change in perspective ` All of the income that we make from all of our activities is directed towards the cost of managing and maintaining the waterways What % is on the managing and what % is maintaining.

 

Looking forward to BW reply

[US Marines]

Thanks guys - Ms Thomson answered my orginal email within a week, so it hopefully won't be too long before I get a second reply !

[Chris J W]

One thing you have to take into account is that under the sundry Government Accounting / National Audit Office rules and regs it's difficult to put money back into particular 'pots' that have been marked for particular usage.

 

Don't ask me why (and I'm by no means attempting to justify the reasons), but it's one of those 'bang the head against the wall' things I learnt from the various Finance Officers I knew over the years. For instance; say we needed refunding on a DOA printer the money would go back to the central Big Pot and not into the Pot that had Chris' IT Budget written on it.

[US Marines]

One thing you have to take into account is that under the sundry Government Accounting / National Audit Office rules and regs it's difficult to put money back into particular 'pots' that have been marked for particular usage.

 

Don't ask me why (and I'm by no means attempting to justify the reasons), but it's one of those 'bang the head against the wall' things I learnt from the various Finance Officers I knew over the years. For instance; say we needed refunding on a DOA printer the money would go back to the central Big Pot and not into the Pot that had Chris' IT Budget written on it.

Thanks Chris - the reason I'm asking Ms Thomson about this is because she's made a big point of stating that ALL the money recovered goes ONLY to maintenance and improvement of the network - and it surprised me that she could state such a thing.

 

Like you, my experience is that it is far more common for these funding streams to go into more general pots.

 

I suspect she said something quickly without thinking about it because it sounded good - i.e. it was a 'sound bite' - rather than because its true....which it appears likely not to be.

[greywolf]

well done,very interesting reply.When i worked within the NHS there was a time of year when the dept manager spent big on film etc.He explained when we asked that he had to spend the budget before the financial years end because otherwise he would loose it and the amount saved would be taken off the next years budget. Accounting is crazy sometimes.

Edited October 23, 2008 by greywolf

[Chris J W]

well done,very interesting reply.When i worked within the NHS there was a time of year when the dept manager spent big on film etc.He explained when we asked that he had to spend the budget before the financial years end because otherwise he would loose it and the amount saved would be taken off the next years budget. Accounting is crazy sometimes.

 

Yes, I never ever understood that either, despite several people (well, I say people, I mean Finance Officers) attempting to explain what they considered the logic behind it all. There's a fine borderline, it would appear, between being correctly spend-thrift and being 'accused' (for wont of a better phrase) of bad pre-planning in the first place!

 

Thanks Chris - the reason I'm asking Ms Thomson about this is because she's made a big point of stating that ALL the money recovered goes ONLY to maintenance and improvement of the network - and it surprised me that she could state such a thing.

 

Like you, my experience is that it is far more common for these funding streams to go into more general pots.

 

I suspect she said something quickly without thinking about it because it sounded good - i.e. it was a 'sound bite' - rather than because its true....which it appears likely not to be.

 

I suppose the way you could clarify it would be ... "So, if you get £xxx this year in recovered fees this year we can be assured that there will be at least £xxx in the maintenance budget next year?"

[US Marines]

I have now had a reply on behalf of Ms Thomson from Mr Alan Carter, BW's Business Development Manager.

 

As discussed above, my 2nd email asked for clarification of whether the 'pot' that the licence money went into also included such things as Director Bonuses etc.

 

The reply is:

 

"I can confirm that yes, all funds go into an overall 'pot' which is used to manage and maintain the waterways. In our latest public accounts (available on our website), last year that overall 'pot' was £219.1m (£13.4m or 6% of which came from boat licences). So regarding the statement that every penny is ploughed back into maintaining and improving the network for everyone, this is correct as all staffing costs form part of maintaining the network, however I can understand that this may not have been clear and apologise for this."

 

I have thanked them for this.

 

 

 

 

So, as I suspected, it appears that, when Ms Thomson stated in the newsletter that 'every penny is being ploughed back into maintaining and improving the network for everyone' her definition of what this means includes things like Director Bonuses.......

[churchward]

I have now had a reply on behalf of Ms Thomson from Mr Alan Carter, BW's Business Development Manager.

 

As discussed above, my 2nd email asked for clarification of whether the 'pot' that the licence money went into also included such things as Director Bonuses etc.

 

The reply is:

 

"I can confirm that yes, all funds go into an overall 'pot' which is used to manage and maintain the waterways. In our latest public accounts (available on our website), last year that overall 'pot' was £219.1m (£13.4m or 6% of which came from boat licences). So regarding the statement that every penny is ploughed back into maintaining and improving the network for everyone, this is correct as all staffing costs form part of maintaining the network, however I can understand that this may not have been clear and apologise for this."

 

I have thanked them for this.

 

 

 

 

So, as I suspected, it appears that, when Ms Thomson stated in the newsletter that 'every penny is being ploughed back into maintaining and improving the network for everyone' her definition of what this means includes things like Director Bonuses.......

 

Sadly so I think. Still, good you got the point clarified.

 

I can see their thinking though and a neat bit of "spin" i.e. The organisations sole purpose (say) is to maintain the waterways within it's scope. So all money spent must therefore be in pursuit of that goal be that administering their property portfolio (income?), licence management or indeed a directors bonus.

 

The clever bit is that a statement which says every penny recovered goes to maintenance is true in that context but to you and me it sounds like they mean it goes directly to dredging, fixing locks and bridges etc.

 

In one way it is hard to describe as dishonest but it's not entirely honourable in my book to stretch the truth that far.

[US Marines]

In one way it is hard to describe as dishonest but it's not entirely honourable in my book to stretch the truth that far.

 

You've hit the nail on the head of course !

 

To my mind, Ms Thomson provided a good 'sound bite' for the purposes of getting people to do their job for them whilst, actually and not surprisingly, it meant nothing whatsoever at all.

[greywolf]

You've hit the nail on the head of course !

 

To my mind, Ms Thomson provided a good 'sound bite' for the purposes of getting people to do their job for them whilst, actually and not surprisingly, it meant nothing whatsoever at all.

i can but agree,thanks for the time spent clarifying the matter.