John K. Banyard

Background

John Banyard was the former Executive director for asset management of the private water firm Severn Trent before retiring in 2004.His particular areas of responsibility were the design and management of the capital programme, the day-to-day operation of the company’s infrastructure, and R&D. Professor Banyard is now a member of the Water Industry Commission. He acted as an adviser to the Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland from January 2005 and became a member of the 6 man commission when it replaced the Commissioner in October 2005.

A lack of 'probity' and 'integrity'

His contract with the Water Industry Commission For Scotland was recently renewed despite Mr Banyard being reprimanded recently in court - in a case against Severn Trent when he was employed there - as 'instructing a manager to 'take the dishonest option, knowing it was unsupported by data' .

Over two days in the Old Bailey, three directors, including Duckworth, were repeatedly named as 'controlling minds' who made underlings come up with numbers to give to Ofwat that would suit the firm and stop it having to spend shareholders' money on maintaining its pipes. Judge Roberts said the case was 'serious' and showed there was a 'lack of probity and integrity'.

The three named, all of whom have now left the company, were Professor John Banyard, head of operations at Severn Trent; Mark Wilson, head of regulation and finance; and managing director Brian Duckworth. The trio effectively ran the board under chairman David Arculus and chief executive of Severn Trent, Colin Matthews..

The court case refers to case brought against Severn Trent by the Serious Fraud Office. As a consequence Severn Trent were convicted of of giving false data 'deliberately or recklessly' to the regulator and therefore profiting from the false data. This is known as 'gaming'. It works when at the price review they say that they are going to invest a certain amount in the 5 year investment period. They exaggerate the investment necessary – they then charge higher prices, but the real expenditure is lower and they pocket the difference' .

Recently he has delivered, in various venues all over the world, the 5th International Brunel lecture 'Water for the World - Why is it so difficult?' . The lecture implicitly sees the private sector as best placed to provide the expertise to meet the Millenium Development Goals to halve those without water and sanitation by 2015. This is a position that is increasingly tenuous, but Mr Banyard continues to advocate this position. Despite, the fact that only in February 2007, Mr Banyard’s ex employer, Severn Trent Water International was kicked out of Guyana.

The Guyanese government cancelled its water management contract on the grounds that it had failed to meet several of the targets originally set, including those for extending water supply to the poorest communities. Mr Banyard goes back a long way with Sir Ian Byatt. In 1996 there were criticisms of excessive pay for executives in the English Water Industry whilst simultaneously the water firms were not investing what they had predicted they had and what had justified the prices set. Mr Banyard defended the system, whilst Byatt, the then Chairman of OFWAT, resisted controlling price limits and curbing excessive pay: believing that incentives were required so as to encourage efficiencies.

. .

John Banyard delivered, in various venues all over the world, the 5th International Brunel lecture 'Water for the World - Why is it so difficult?' International Brunel lecture 'Water for the World - Why is it so difficult?' .

The implicit message in this lecture was that the private sector was best placed to provide the expertise to meet the Millenium Development Goals to halve those without water and sanitation by 2015. But, that they would not have the means to raise the finance to achieve this and would need support from public agencies to do so.

Mr Banyard has also recently found himself some lucrative consultancy work with BP. Alongside 2 others he is to 'to independently review and make recommendations for improving the corrosion inspection, monitoring and prevention program in place at Prudhoe Bay and in other BP-operated Alaska oil fields'[3].