Yet another email received - Mr Evans’ contribution, with interpolated comments:----------------------------------------------------------(OK I just got it.) Dear colleague (notice lower case C. he IS addressing the lower case after all)I think it is right that I should write to all of our waterway stakeholders (who the hell are we?) about an article in today’s Business Section of The Times newspaper, which suggests that British Waterways could be privatised. I want to explain the background about the review to which it refers. You will be aware that press coverage sometimes tends to emphasise the sensational (or surprisingly enough, actually true) The article can be viewed here:http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article1832318.ece (OK I have seen it now)Many of you will know (it was referred to several times at Efra sub committee sessions, for instance), that Government has asked BW (no, government have asked themselves just how embarrassing are you going to be?) to consider and investigate (no, not you. It’s you that’s being investigated d’uh?) whether BW’s current institutional form and financial structure are optimal (with BW comprehension of sound sustainable business models?) for the long-term security (well locked down under vaste impenetrable buildings occupied by folks who resent the fact that they have paid a 19% premium only to get a view of boaters out of the kitchen window) and success of BW’s (oops, no they are definitely not your..) inland waterways, or whether alternative options might better achieve this. (well the best option would be to conduct a “Night of the Long Knives” operation on the ‘institutional form’ & dispose of all those sinecure jobs, with the practical view of scouring out the asset stripping culture. But what with all the dense flux in government today, are we going to see this, whatever the Select Committee reports? I sincerely hope that we really have somehow ‘caught the boat’ on a big tide, and that there is force enough afoot to achieve beneficial change)To do this we are seeking expert advice (awarding fat consultancy contracts to your mates) and so we have put a brief out to a wide range of business Consultants (well you will have to punt it to plenty of them, since there is a twinge in the industry about how good it might be to share your PR. hmmm).To carry weight in any subsequent policy discussions (this hand is going to be a tough one to play poker with, but hey I’m Bruce Willis and it might be silly but it’s the only shot I’ve got left) we decided that the brief needed to consider the full range of possible options for British Waterways (including the option to self destruct). For example these could include the status quo with a long term Government funding contract (and let YOU go on making bad investments as curator of the pension fund?) or a more contemporary structure within the public sector (by means of “partnerships” with folks who are no better than they ought to be? It is not a developer’s business to try and protect and improve a heritage asset. Can’t blame them either. Contemporary means supply and demand. Fair enough)It is very important to emphasise that it is not the policy of the Board or of Government to privatise British Waterways. (then why are you feeling your nethers and thinking about it then?.. E? e? )We are currently at the tender stage of the review (Very tender), and so I expect to be able to appoint specialist advisors during the summer (why don’t you just know what you have been hired to do, instead of employing report constructors at enormous cost, who don’t know. They just do.) Their report will take time (and cost lots of public money), to prepare and I don’t expect this to be completed before the end of 2007. (so we have got a little bit of time at least to stiff BW good and proper)If the Review (which at the third time of repetition is now a Capped Up “R”, and is perhaps intended to REPLACE the IDEA in our minds about the external investigation that is going on right now over which BW have so little control) recommends any changes to BW’s current structure (one does hope so, although its not your Review we are talking about here Robin mate) it will be for the Board (who much to their surprise at being flattererd with a part time role in something so.. erghm.. nice and good, find that they are actually legally responsible for the abuses that have taken place on “their watch”) and Government (DEFRA has already been taken below, so do not look for any comfort from their published incompetence. Your point of contact has just been demodulated and given another name that no-one will remember) To consider whether any such changes are desirable and feasible. (only now you expose your teeth, cringe, and move your tail to one side) In doing so, it would, I am sure, conduct public consultation. (#####)The review seeks to continue the success of British Waterways (represented by a startling 0.2% return on investment in 2006) and the renaissance of the canals and rivers (that’s quite enough of your naissing Robin)we care for. (this is the point where you just, well, go to hell) As the review takes shape I will keep you up to date on the progress (of the slightly twisted notion that BW are investigating government {rather than it being the other way around}) we will be working with Government (well, trying to blag it anyway.. because there’s £6.5Bn of assets that we might just be able to throw to the dogs before we have to jump) making sure it helps us secure the long term future of the waterways for public benefit. (A thousand words on Public Benefit perlese)________________________________________
Nigel Moore ● 6580d