narrowboatworld

IT'S SOME time since I discussed British Waterways' development investment policy with its Marketing Director.

Now, offend or please, it has always been my personal concern that in opting for trust status British Waterways could, on the back of the River & Canal Trust it so desperately sought, (BW3?) be looking to free itself of current restraints with regard to spending and development. This personal concern has in no way been lessened by an obvious wish to ‘neuter' the Freedom of Information Act.

Understanding economy?

With this in mind I was very interested to read BWML—numbers laid bare (narrowboatworld). I have no problem with British Waterways Finance Director's stance on re-investment, this is normal business practice, provided of course that which Philip Ridal tells us would be labelled ‘selling the family silver' doesn't in effect prove to be so as a result of further bad investment.

Whilst it is obviously par for the course for businesses to invest during a recession with the lure of making mega bucks when the market recovers, this surely has to be dependent upon having funding to spare in the kitty at the time, or on robbing Peter to pay Paul. In this case ‘Peter' being the navigation's maintenance budget.

Like it or not—with our money

Speaking to British Waterways Marketing Director however I was assured that the investments British Waterways has made in development and those investments it still absolutely intends to make regardless I'm told ‘whether we like it or not' will pay off in the long term.

Questioning the ‘long-term' I was told it could be 10, even 20 years, but that profit would definitely be made. What I now query therefore is just how long the waterways can afford to wait for that profit and incidentally, with the subject of investment in BWML having been raised, given BWML's assertions with regard to its marinas being ‘private', where in respect of income does BWML sit in the equation for the new trust?

Charity versus commerce

It is no secret that owners of some truly ‘private' marinas already feel BWML's private marinas not only to be 'quasi private' marinas but also to be well on the path to becoming an advantaged monopoly as we head toward the trust.

However, with the trust in mind BWML's 'private marinas' surely must muddy the waters when it comes to mixing commercial enterprise with charity It is hardly surprising therefore that once trust status is ratified BWML's position will of necessity be open to question.

Belief in the cause—or maximising earnings?

Regardless, despite further funding being given by government to start the River and Canal Trust off on a secure footing, money is already beginning to wing its way out of the account like confetti.

Perhaps a prime example of this is that nothing comes cheap for British Waterways. Certainly not the Head of Fundraising appointed to raise monies for the Canal & River Trust, given what I'd have thought to be a virtual doubling at £70,300pa of the salary more usually advertised for such a post.

In addition we are then told of a still further appointments, these being ‘Individual Giving' and 'Leadership Giving' managers, both of which come with a currently undisclosed salary. For a comparison with existing Third Sector salaries you may wish to take a look at www.thirdsector.co.uk the journal of charity industry and at the jobs and salaries offered.

The Third Sector is about commitment, belief in the cause, and contribution. It should not be about maximising earnings. Not I'd have thought a good omen for the Trust if these are the type of salaries the trustees are prepared to sanction, when heaven forbid, the way forward could become reliant upon ‘chuggers' rattling tins on street corners!

The ‘middle' man?

This leads me to Martin Howes' recent email entitled ‘Army of chuggers' and his comment with regard to ‘hefty commission' being earned. I recently cancelled a charity contribution I'd made when I realised I'd been approached by an agency collecting on behalf of the Red Cross.

Although I was not at all happy to see much of what I was giving being ‘creamed off' at the outset by that agency, had I cancelled immediately I was advised that whilst I would have cost the agency nothing, I would have cost the charity money. May I suggest not the way to go, in either instance?

For myself I have to say I find it very sad that charitable contributions made with the good of the waterways in mind are to be tasked with covering what can only be described as ‘banker' type salaries and agency fees before that charitable giving can be applied to its intended cause.

Raising the question

Finally, on the subject of tool hire I should mention that the concerns I was hearing and about which I wrote were strictly speaking related not to hire by British Waterways' personnel, but in the main by those volunteer groups to be using the tools. However, following clarification by my informed colleague Richard Swan it is hoped that those concerns I was made aware of can now be ‘put to bed'.

Finally however, a further question by boaters has arisen. This question also relates to the tool-hire contract between British Waterways and HSS. I'm asked how this is going to work. Who is to raise the purchase invoices, a member of the special operations team set-up by HSS to deal with British Waterways' needs, or a purchase manager employed by the authority? Perhaps British Waterways would wish to clarify, here?