Re: Who should pay?
- From: Adrian Stott <adrian@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:08:40 +0000
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:07:42 +0100, Hugh Allen <hugh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>Should the taxpayer pay all the expenses incurred by the system? If
>so, then should he/she pay *all* the costs for all other leisure
>activities? Should swimming pools, sports centres, land for model
>aeroplane clubs, grouse shooting facillities etc. be paid for
>completely by the taxpayer?
>
>Should BW become a sub department of DEFRA? If so would it be any
>more efficient?
>
>At the moment the waterways are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer -
>quite rightly in my opinion- but shoudn't boaters pay something
>towards maintaining the system?
IMHO, for waterways which are to remain in public ownership, the
management model BW now represents is probably the best available.
i.e. a "Public Corporation", basically a business running on business
principles and with commercial accounts, but wholly owned (i.e. all
shares held) by the government. In effect, it operates at arms length
from the government, but under policy direction, and has to account
for its grants in effect as income.
I used to work with an outfit based on a similar model in Canada,
which was the landlord for all of the British Columbia government.
When this model was introduced (to replace direct provision of
premises by a Ministry of Public Works), within a few years costs had
gone down drastically, but the quality of the accommodation and
departmental satisfaction with it had gone up enormously. BC used to
have the types of fiasco we have seen with the Scottish legislature
building, but this could not happen after the change and the added
financial responsibility the model put on the occupying departments
brought about a remarkableincrease in interest in efficiency and not
wasting space.
BW has improved much along the same lines, and comparing it now with
EA which is very much still on the Public Works model shows a large
and worthwhile difference (which, among other reasons, is why I think
the EA waterways should be transferred to BW).
A major driver of the improvements is getting rid of the funny-money
annuality accounting the government loves to use, and replacing it
with books which reflect the fact that things like canals are
long-term assets and need capital accounting and long-term budgeting.
BW's accounts now actually make sense.
So I'm not terribly sympathetic to those who criticise BW for becoming
"too commercial", as I feel this is what is making it efficient, and
(believe it or not) more responsive to use as its customers.
Yes, I think boaters should pay for having and using the waterways.
But I also agree BW should get a grant to cover the benefits it
provides to other sectors of the population which it is not feasible
to charge directly (like riparian property owners, and towpath
walkers), although I believe this would be better provided by its
receiving a large additional property portfolio (i.e. transfer to it
of real estate the government already owns elsewhere) as an endowment
so get it can get away from the unreliability of annual grants. It is
actually doing quite well managing the investment property it now has,
and merits being trusted with more IMHO.
BW sure isn't perfect, but it has certainly got to the point where I
feel it isn't bad. That wasn't always the case.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
adrian@xxxxxxxxxx
07956-299966
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Weather line ?
- Next by Date: Re: Travel through France
- Previous by thread: Re: Who should pay?
- Next by thread: Re: Help Please with Wych Barge
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
