British Waterways 'Under Review'

[Neil TNC]

One of the functions of BW is to collect our licence fees. I suppose this will continue.?

 

At the moment they take a month plus, if you can't do it on-line...can it get any worse?

[GUMPY]

So who will control the middle management at BW/EA?

There will be a charitable board above the management and local management below

The proposals are out there if one cares to look.

[Neil TNC]

There will be a charitable board above the management and local management below

The proposals are out there if one cares to look.

 

We know all about the proposals, but what will be above the charitable board?...and don't say it will be totally independent, with guaranteed funding stream, because we all know it won't. ISI the "charitable board" will be given a lease on the waterways under it's "control". Even if (big if here) the Civic Society Mutual Trust is funded from the separated property portfolio, it will still need a handout from the govt, with stings attached.

All good plans, but they still have not sorted out where the money is coming from.

[GUMPY]

We know all about the proposals, but what will be above the charitable board?...and don't say it will be totally independent, with guaranteed funding stream, because we all know it won't. ISI the "charitable board" will be given a lease on the waterways under it's "control". Even if (big if here) the Civic Society Mutual Trust is funded from the separated property portfolio, it will still need a handout from the govt, with stings attached.

All good plans, but they still have not sorted out where the money is coming from.

Depends on how big the endowment is....

there are some thoughts that it may be possible to get a bigger endowment then the just the property as this would be more politically acceptable than a grant.

 

I will try and post some musings when I get home.

[Tim Lewis]

I see that BW is one of the Quangos to be abolished according to a leaked government document reported in the Daily Telegraph today:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8021780/Quango-cuts-full-list-of-bodies-under-review.html

 

The list also includes IWAC which has already been announced is to be abolished.

 

Tim

 

 

More detailed list:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_09_10_bbcnewsquangos3.pdf

 

Tim

[david and julie]

Although ridding us of 177 of these bodies isn't a bad start, it still isn't enough, I would have thought the ideal would be to have none at all.

 

Politicians(all colours) are elected to run the country but have - for various reasons - off loaded much of the responsibility onto largely unnaccountable(to the electorate) groups. I don't believe this is right, if a Gov intends to make unpopular decisions it should do so in the open where it can be scrutinised by the electorate. I once read that since the advent of FOI some Quangos have even become limited companies.

 

It is also commonly reported that these groups expanded under Nu-Lab, indeed, some would suggest much cronyism was involved in many of the appointments ( I'm not knocking Nu-Lab for this as I'm sure the others do the same) but quite clearly the coalition isn't going to want such people pursuing policies which may differ from their own.

 

One would hope this is a turning point in the way we're governed - who knows? - perhaps the coalition have the b**** to stand up and be counted instead of hiding behind other people.

[Jo Gilbertson]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_09_10_bbcnewsquangos3.pdf

 

scroll down to DEFRA BW mentioned as being transfereed to third sector, then broads leave alone, EA mentioned last in still 'to be decided section' ....

 

‎* mark after BW entry in leaked memo suggests 'committee' approval for decision already made...

[Teakbank12]

More detailed list:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_09_10_bbcnewsquangos3.pdf

 

Tim

 

 

I started reading this an hour ago & fell asleep !!

I've saved the doc for when i cannot sleep at night, i've found a cure to make me sleep

Really cannot believe how many departments are out there, how did we cope many years ago?

[GUMPY]

We know all about the proposals, but what will be above the charitable board?...and don't say it will be totally independent, with guaranteed funding stream, because we all know it won't. ISI the "charitable board" will be given a lease on the waterways under it's "control". Even if (big if here) the Civic Society Mutual Trust is funded from the separated property portfolio, it will still need a handout from the govt, with stings attached.

All good plans, but they still have not sorted out where the money is coming from.

 

Well the IWA proposal is flawed as regards the funding, no government will

commit to anything outside the life of the current parliament.

Consider the following I know its cheeky but if we don't ask we don't get.

 

THE WATERWAYS NEED AN ENDOWMENT, NOT GRANTS

 

Boaters are demanding that the government not cut the budgets of BW/EA.

However, this isn´t going to work, probably not now and certainly not

long term. For the waterways to survive, they need different, secure,

funding. They need an endowment. The current crisis and restructuring

will be the opportunity to push for this for a long time.

 

The canal companies went broke because waterways can no longer survive on

boating income. They have to have government support, which is justified

by the benefits they provide to non-customers (and to non-boaters).

 

Waterways need reliable long term funding, because they need proper

maintenance every year. If it is skimped, the catch-up always costs more

when it is eventually done than if it had been done on schedule, and

waterway usability and safety suffer in the meantime. Maintenance plans

for long-lasting structures must also be long-lasting, and dependable

income that is just as long-lasting is needed to implement them.

 

Government grant cannot be dependable. It is set politically each year,

based not on need but on competition. If the government feels a higher

funding priority, the waterways grant will be cut, and waterways are

always lower priority than hospitals or schools. So the grant has kept

being cut, and will continue to be.

 

The idea of a "ten year contract" for the grant is a scam. Even if there

were such a contract, we couldn't depend on it's being honoured if the

government's finances got worse. But, on the other hand, if the

financial picture did improve, the government could use the contract as

an excuse not to increase funding for the waterways, as they had signed

up for a lower amount long-term. Heads we lose; tails the government

wins. This is an idea to avoid.

 

Fortunately, grant is not the only form of waterways income. BW makes

considerable money from developing and leasing its property, which pays

towards operating its waterways. It could make much more, if it had more

property.

 

The government has a lot of property.

 

So there´s the answer. The government should transfer (on perpetual loan

at a trivial annual rent) substantial additional property (not

necessarily near the water) to BW/EA, as a capital endowment. This would

be added to BW's present holdings, and managed for profit and income. BW

already has a real estate team, which would not need major expansion to

deal with a bigger portfolio. And, despite what some commentators

believe, the current team generally does a credible job.

 

The endowment would be protected from disposal (i.e. BW/EA would be

required to maintain its value and live off only its profits and income,

and not be allowed simply sell it off gradually to fund current

expenditure).

 

The transfer would not be classed as government spending, but as a loan.

This would still have to show on the government's books, of course, as

would the loss of the current income it generates for the Treasury .

However, that is politically more acceptable (and less visible and

understandable to the public) than the budget for annual grant. In other

words, it can be presented in a politically-palatable way.

 

If the endowment were big enough (at least £1.5 billion, I estimate; the

government's commercial real estate portfolio is many times as large as

that), the annual waterways grants could be cancelled completely, which

could be promoted as a politically-valuable government spending

reduction.

 

This endowment would provide the secure income the waterways need.

Revenue from long-term property leasing is surprisingly robust, even

during a financial downturn, and profits from redevelopment are good in

non-downturn times (development is de-emphasised or deferred during

slumps, of course). It would provide the most secure form of revenue the

waterways are ever likely to find.

 

In theory, the government could take the endowment back at any time (i.e.

cancel the loan), but it would have little reason to compared to the

strong annual temptation to cut the grant.

 

The restructuring of BW/EA into a new entity is something the government

now wants to do. It wants the support of the waterways community. The

design of the new organisation and its financing, have to be designed and

agreed in the next few months. This will probably be the best chance we

have in our lifetimes to push for a the better financing the waterways

need. It isn't an opportunity for blackmail, as the government doesn't

want to do it that badly, but it does provide us with a much better

bargaining position than usual.

 

It is already clear that the proposed grant levels for the new outfit

are going to be too low to maintain the whole network. It is possible to

demonstrate this unarguably.

 

So the suggested tactic is to provide that demonstration during the

negotiations, and to offer the endowment as the politically-acceptable

and suitable solution to the problem. This might be accompanied by

publication of the idea that some waterways will have to be closed

(returned to "remainder" status) if the proposed grant is all that will

be forthcoming. BW thinks it can make more operational savings, and get

new revenue from charitable donations, but it seems even it recognises

this cannot plug the gap.

 

Tactically again, we should aim for an endowment big enough to provide

revenue both to fill the funding gap, and to replace the current grant

entirely. However, we should be prepared (confidentially) to fall back

to getting one big enough only to fill the gap, while keeping the

proposed grant. Say £200 million. For now, that is. If we can get an

added endowment now, that will be the precedent for increasing it later

when times get better.

 

A crisis is almost always an opportunity. The waterways must make sure

to take full advantage of this one.

[luckyjack]

you can bet your money on the following happening

 

1 BW & EA top bods get very large payouts in return for shifting side ways into some other well paid management role far away from any peeking boaters and the mess that is BW & EA.

 

2 BW/EA midle bods shift up onto a "save us money and will will give u a nice bonus" upper management role resulting in sod all work bein done on the ground policey.

 

3 BW/EAs property portfolio will be striped and sold off in return for a small goverment handout (less money at a gess).

 

4 The IWA in abject panick about bein left out in the cold though all of this will "throw the baby out with the bath water" and jump happily into bed with what evers left of BW/EA forming the "new IWA" or somthing to that tune and hay prestow before we as boaters know it we are left with the "worst of the old lot".

 

5 The new charity/BW/EA/IWA will cut back on maintenance big time and make like a "children in need plz give us all ur money way" but in a terrible after taste kind of way.

 

6 And lastly the whole sha bang will fail to do what we all hope it will do which is to "start to make things right for the cut"

 

If we as boaters and canal users in genral are to prevent this sliping silently into a even worse mess we need to get it together and ensure that the controling bord of trustees is put in place and ultimately aserable to the stakeholders IE "us boaters and canal users" not the goverment or BW/EA/IWA bods of old, nor the quit nepatistik ways of some do gooders who hide behind various asoc's,companys and projects in the world of the cut wilst fethering there own nests (we all know who there are).

 

this is a mess there can be no escapeing, it but something good may come of it if and only if we regain some controll of the sitution, if however we fail well the result will be a long forgotern muddy ditch in 100 years not the cut we all cherish and love and to add too that shame, some people will have done very nicely out of leting it get that way!!! which none of us want.

 

Q are goin to regain controll or just let it slip from our grasp ?

[fuzzyduck]

Sally Ash told me that she is never going to retire.

Sue

 

Calling Gabriel Van Helsing, calling Gabriel Van Helsing!

[Jason Wilson and Family]

So there´s the answer. The government should transfer (on perpetual loan

at a trivial annual rent) substantial additional property (not

necessarily near the water) to BW/EA, as a capital endowment. This would

be added to BW's present holdings, and managed for profit and income. BW

already has a real estate team, which would not need major expansion to

deal with a bigger portfolio. And, despite what some commentators

believe, the current team generally does a credible job.

 

It was my understanding that BW were already putting more money into their property ventures than the canals they were designed to maintain. I don't think dividing their focus even more will help the canals at all.

[GUMPY]

It was my understanding that BW were already putting more money into their property ventures than the canals they were designed to maintain. I don't think dividing their focus even more will help the canals at all.

At present you are correct as BW cant use the income from property to maintain the system.

However under future arrangements they would be able to as the new authority will not be a government organisation.

[David Schweizer]

Although ridding us of 177 of these bodies isn't a bad start, it still isn't enough, I would have thought the ideal would be to have none at all.

 

Politicians(all colours) are elected to run the country but have - for various reasons - off loaded much of the responsibility onto largely unnaccountable(to the electorate) groups. I don't believe this is right, if a Gov intends to make unpopular decisions it should do so in the open where it can be scrutinised by the electorate. I once read that since the advent of FOI some Quangos have even become limited companies.

 

It is also commonly reported that these groups expanded under Nu-Lab, indeed, some would suggest much cronyism was involved in many of the appointments ( I'm not knocking Nu-Lab for this as I'm sure the others do the same) but quite clearly the coalition isn't going to want such people pursuing policies which may differ from their own.

 

One would hope this is a turning point in the way we're governed - who knows? - perhaps the coalition have the b**** to stand up and be counted instead of hiding behind other people.

One of the problems is that many people do not really know what(some)Quangos actually do. When I was still in full time employment, I served, along with about ten other people, on a National Working Committee (we were actually called a Reference Group) of a Quango. We were created to advise on the development of resources and facilities for Young People living in isolated Rural Communities. Amongst our work, we commissioned research with EU money and sponsored and monitored half a dozen Field Projects within the Voluntary Sector, aimed at improving the life of an often overlooked group of disadvantaged Young People.

 

All of us gave our time free of charge and we met our own travel expenses, we even went to the pub for lunch for which we payed. The only "freebie" was a cup of coffee in the morning and a cup of tea in the afternoon. I would like to thimk that we made a valid contribution to the Government's policy making, without costing them very much at all.

Edited September 25, 2010 by David Schweizer

[Timleech]

 

All of us gave our time free of charge and we met our own travel expenses, we even went to the pub for lunch for which we payed. The only "freebie" was a cup of coffee in the morning and a cup of tea in the afternoon. I would like to thimk that we made a valid contribution to the Government's policy making, without costing them very much at all.

 

Just what's expected of the 'Big Society', I reckon

 

Tim

[Allan(nb Albert)]

At present you are correct as BW cant use the income from property to maintain the system.

However under future arrangements they would be able to as the new authority will not be a government organisation.

 

There is absolutely no reason why BW can not use income from non operational property to maintain the system. Indeed they claim that they do!

[Timleech]

There is absolutely no reason why BW can not use income from non operational property to maintain the system. Indeed they claim that they do!

 

There was some rule that they couldn't use income from the sale of such property, don't know whether that still applies. Note sure whether it was an absolute rule, or income above a certain threshold.

 

Tim

[Allan(nb Albert)]

There was some rule that they couldn't use income from the sale of such property, don't know whether that still applies. Note sure whether it was an absolute rule, or income above a certain threshold.

 

Tim

 

No rule has ever existed.

 

However, when a small group of us looked into BW's assets a while ago we found that they were carrying out an asset for equity swap which meant that proceeds from the sale of property were not invested in the waterways but rather used to buy brownfield plots of land, often in city centres, which would subsequently be used to provide equity for joint ventures. We identified over £200m that was used in this way.

 

Because BW invested in joint ventures rather than the waterways we now have a substantial maintenance backlog (about £290m) which nobody will own up to and £90m of debt.