Sorry for the delayed response George. I had never heard of 38 Degrees, but had a look and it seems very useful. Campaigning is not an activity I’m any good at, but I have forwarded your suggestion elsewhere. Currently, so far as I am aware, the wider public [i.e. outside of the boating fraternity] have not picked up on the implications and plans which will affect so many. Some of the boater groups have published protests, and copies of their objections as sent to the DEFRA consultation. The new National Bargee Travellers Association have been very professional and organised and have lobbied every MP going, but other than that I don’t know. Certainly I had absolutely no response from Mary Macleod. The lack of accountability is one of the major concerns. There is nominal but useless oversight currently by DEFRA and the Waterways Minister, but BW treat both with considerable contempt – perhaps with some reason. Certainly the previous Waterways Minister was practically ballistic in front of the last Select Committee regarding BW refusal to co-operate with him. With even that nominal oversight gone we won’t even be able to contribute to Select Committee examinations of conduct. There is nothing ‘contrary’ in your point about finances; it is a very valid observation. The truth is that BW have never made money [in terms of a profit] and I don’t imagine that it was ever envisaged as becoming capable of doing so. It has always been urged to behave in a financially responsible manner as a good business should and seek to minimise the reliance on the public purse, but the public purse was always going to be needed. With freight usage being deliberately run down in the interests of property development as the more profitable use of the waterways [according to BW anyway], contributions from direct boating use could never add up to a profit. Boat licences nationally contribute around 40% of the maintenance budget. The fact is that we all contribute to the upkeep of the waterways through taxes even if we are not boaters paying out for licences. When you consider just how much revenue is gained by the government through the tourist attraction of the canals that benefits a far wider segment of society than those directly using the waterways, then the idea of government subsidy can be seen as a wise and profitable investment instead of a burden to be shrugged off. That wider financial benefit is not one that can be milked by BW directly, so the government subsidy is merely a repayment into the waterways of a portion of that which they have indirectly earned. Insofar as the government have been short-sightedly diminishing their contribution, they have been responsible for much of the inappropriate drive for self-sufficiency and for the calibre and style of management that BW is afflicted with. What is so extraordinary with the Public Bodies Bill is that the whole point was to diminish unnecessary drains on government resources, and yet the opportunity to streamline BW as it changes has not been taken. The present management are, instead, to be transferred across at their current salary levels! Think what a difference it could make if the self-seeking upper management had been reduced to National Trust levels. At the moment, the top management level at BW cost the taxpayer millions per annum – and that is before their self-appointed bonuses. The proposed new charges under the draft Byelaws could never hope to defray such expenses and the cost of collection would in all probability outweigh the income. That won’t stop them of course; I have an example already of a new scheme for moorings control on the Lea that BW estimate will actually cost them money, but the big thing for them is control. That’s a long-winded way of getting around to answering with a negative your point that charging for everything might assist BW’s parlous finances – sorry!

Entire Thread

Topic	Date Posted	Posted By
Public Bodies Bill	05/07/11 12:17:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Public Bodies Bill	20/07/11 10:54:00	Jon Hardy
Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	21/07/11 11:49:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	21/07/11 18:15:00	George Knox
Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	21/07/11 19:32:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	22/07/11 12:30:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	30/07/11 14:13:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	12/08/11 11:58:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	16/08/11 21:02:00	Nigel Moore
Public Bodies Bill	17/08/11 20:28:00	George Knox
Re:Public Bodies Bill	26/08/11 13:42:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	02/09/11 22:10:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	12/09/11 20:14:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	21/03/12 14:43:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	21/03/12 17:42:00	Sarah Felstead
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	22/03/12 21:01:00	Nigel Moore

Forum Home