psi

Even if the server is big enough to cope and no technical problems result, that sort of behaviour could seriously overburden the administration of any such scheme...

Respond to the consultation if you haven't already - see my post a few minutes ago. Yes, I would very much like to go on a waiting list. Psi.

Here is my reply to the consultation. The deadline is Wednesday 20 August. Response to Public Consultation on directly managed moorings: pricing and allocation. 1. In order to make the most efficient use of a scarce resource, BW should price and allocate moorings according to boat length. People should not be allowed to pay for a mooring that is bigger than the length of their boat, in order to avoid wasting space and reducing the number of moorings available. 2. Mooring prices should be fixed and transparent. People should know in advance how much a mooring will cost. Any system, whether tendering, modified tendering or auction, that sells to the highest bidder is unfair and disadvantages the poorer boater in favour of the rich. I believe the competitive tendering trial has discouraged boaters on low incomes from seeking BW moorings and has driven potential customers away from BW. 3. Moorings should be priced per boat length and moorings should be allocated either by waiting list, by lottery or by first come first served. All of these methods are fair and transparent. 4. The majority of prices for services in the private sector are fixed and transparent. This includes private end of garden, marina and boatyard moorings, and harbour fees. People and businesses do not normally have to bid the highest to buy the services they use. This does not prevent adequate functioning of the market in the private sector, so why should the moorings market be any different? 5. BW obviously has a different definition of transparency from its customers. Tendering is the least transparent way of setting a price. The operation of the process may be transparent but the pricing system is not, and this is what most concerns customers. 6. BW’s statement in Appendix 5 (2) is tantamount to saying that, because only 14.3% of boat owners are women, that they don’t matter. This is not only offensive, it is contrary to the letter and spirit of sex discrimination law. The potential adverse impact on a small minority is just as important as an adverse impact on a majority. Just because BW believes that the number of women adversely affected by the introduction of competitive tendering is very small, does not mean that it is justified to introduce a system that would have a negative effect on a small minority. If only 14.3% of boat owners are women, this is all the more reason to take action to ensure that this minority is not discriminated against. 7. Appendix 5 misses the point about the unfair impact of competitive tendering on women. Regardless of how competitive tendering affects the final price of each mooring, the results of imposing competitive tendering will firstly, discourage women from bidding for moorings because they believe they will not be the highest bidder due to their lower incomes, and secondly, the actual result of any tendering or auction process will be that moorings will go to the highest bidder, and this is less likely to be a woman, due to women’s lower incomes, and this is why such a system disadvantages women. 8. Regarding Appendix 5 (3), BW cannot pick and choose which laws it obeys. BW has to comply with the law on sex discrimination as well as the law on competition. It cannot breach the law on sex discrimination in order to avoid breaching competition law. 9. Appendix 5 (1) states that the purpose of the tendering trial is not to increase mooring prices. However, this has been the effect of the process as stated in Appendix 4: 54% of completed tenders were 11% to 167% above the guide price. This proves that the well-off are benefiting from the tendering trial and therefore those on lower incomes, the majority of whom are women, are being disadvantaged. 10. In Section 4, BW states that the tendering system “tends to favour those with higher incomes”. Appendix 5 (3) states that “The trial is designed to ensure that we do not breach UK competition law. The consequences of any breach of its requirements would substantially outweigh any short run negative impact on women from increased mooring prices”. This is an admission that the moorings tendering trial has an adverse impact on women and therefore an admission that it is discriminatory – in other words that it breaches the Sex Discrimination Act.

Part 1, Section 1 (1) and Part 3, Section 29 (1)

It is indirect discrimination in the provision of services by a public body. Indirect discrimination is setting conditions which one sex is more able to comply with than the other. See the Equality and Human Rights Commission web site: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/your...icservices.aspx "Where a condition or requirement is applied equally to both women and men; but which adversely affects one sex and is not genuinely necessary, it may amount to indirect sex discrimination." Thanks. Here you are: Dear Ms Ash I am writing to express my opposition to the current Moorings Tendering Trial. I call upon British Waterways to stop the trial and reinstate transparent pricing and the waiting lists, for the following reasons: The Trial is Unlawful In carrying out this trial, BW is breaching the Gender Equality Duty which became law in the Equality Act 2006. The Equality Act 2006 places a statutory duty on all public authorities, when carrying out their functions, to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote equality of opportunity between women and men. The introduction of competitive tendering for the purchase of services amounts to indirect sex discrimination. It favours people on higher incomes, who are more likely to be men, and reduces access to those on lower incomes, who are more likely to be women. Although the tendering process applies to everyone, it particularly disadvantages women, whose lower incomes make them less likely to be the highest bidder in a competitive tendering process. On average, women’s earnings are 71% of men’s (DTI 2004) and there is an even bigger income gap between retired men and women. The Trial Contravenes BW Aims and Policies The trial is contrary to BW’s own policies. It is contrary to BWs stated aim of providing social inclusion (Strategic Aims, Annual Report 2006/07 p.5). It is discriminatory, and reduces social inclusion. The trial contravenes BW’s aims of attracting greater participation and involvement in the waterways by people who may feel excluded from them, for example people on low incomes, older people and minority ethnic communities (Waterways for People, p2). The trial will exclude people from all of these groups. There was no consultation with customers or waterway users before the trial was started, despite BW’s commitment to adhere to the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Consultation in consulting with its customers and stakeholders regarding changes to its terms and conditions. This omission breaches all six criteria of the Code of Practice. Carrying out a “consultation” eight months after the trial has started is invalid and unworkable. It cannot reverse the changes which have been brought about by the first six months of this trial. The lack of prior consultation raises doubts about whether the trial will be conducted or assessed fairly. One of the aims stated on the sustainable development section of BW’s website is that of “Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone: we will improve and promote the waterways as safe, accessible and enjoyable environments for all sectors of society, and foster strong ownership and engagement by local communities”. Allocating moorings to the highest bidder makes moorings less accessible to all sectors of society except the wealthy, and is socially regressive, redistributing access in favour of the rich. The Trial is Unfair and Flawed The trial has been particularly unfair to those on existing waiting lists for moorings, some of whom have been waiting for several years. Affordable, safe moorings are scarce and BW should not be exploiting this scarcity. Telling people who have been on waiting lists for years that they can tender for moorings excludes those on low incomes and those uncomfortable with competitive tendering. The trial is divisive in that it is creating different classes of berth-holder on the same mooring sites. It is unfair that people should be paying different prices for the same facilities. This is not, in fact, a trial in the sense of being able to return to the previous status without lasting consequences. The effects of the so-called trial are irreversible. No consideration seems to have been given to the short or long term consequences. Using the trial to measure demand for moorings will not provide an accurate or valid result. Firstly, the fact that some moorings with long waiting lists have attracted no tenders may well show that people who were on the waiting lists do not consider themselves to have any chance of being the highest bidder for a mooring because their incomes are low. Secondly, many who want a mooring but are opposed to the trial will not take part. Third, the lack of tenders for particular moorings may not be a reflection of demand but and indication that that the guide price is be too high. The trial excludes people who are uncomfortable with using the internet for purchases; it excludes those who do not feel comfortable with competitive tendering; it excludes many on low incomes who feel they will never be the highest bidder, and it excludes those who do not want to pay the unfair fee for postal tendering. Even if these people wanted to tender for a mooring, they are excluded. Your contention that the trial could throw out conventional thinking about moorings (Boaters’ Update, February 2008) ignores all of these factors. Judging from the results of the trial so far, the consequences will include an acceleration of the drive to replace towpath moorings with marina berths (Policy Briefing 5 April 2007, BW Website). Marina berths are more expensive and this is another reason why the trial discriminates against those on low incomes. BW claims that the trial is taking place because it has to charge commercial rates for its services. However, BW is singling out a minority of waterway visitors to pay commercial rates whereas the other 97% do not. In 2007, waterway users, including a significant proportion of boaters, united to support BW against Government funding cuts. BW is alienating its key supporters by introduce this unfair moorings tendering trial.

This report gives a detailed breakdown of the pay and income gap between men and women regarding different industries, qualification levels, childcare responsibilities, working and retired, etc:- http://83.137.212.42/sitearchive/eoc/PDF/w....pdf?page=15810 psi

I completely agree with what you say about economic discrimination against the poor, and obviously the moorings tender trial discriminates against all poor people, more of whom are women - even in the UK - especially in retirement. You don't have to bid the maximum you can afford and not know if it's the highest bid in order to buy a loaf of bread at Tesco's. The prices are transparent. If BW hadn't brought in the competitive tendering trial, by now I would have been on a waiting list and probably near to getting a lower priced mooring I knew I could afford because the price was fixed and transparent. With competitive tendering, I know I won't be the highest bidder. The figure of 71% for women's earnings compared to men's is from the latest Department of Trade and Industry figures at the time I wrote to BW. Psi

It is - have a look at BW's 2006/2007 annual report, page 5! Psi

FYI I've just posted this as a new topic under General Boating:- "I believe that the Moorings Tendering Trial breaches the Sex Discrimination Act because women are less able to make the highest bids for moorings because of their lower incomes. Competitive tendering favours people on higher incomes, who are more likely to be men, and reduces access to those on lower incomes, who are more likely to be women. Although the tendering process applies to everyone, it disadvantages women, whose lower incomes make them less likely to be the highest bidder in a competitive tendering process. On average, women’s earnings are 71% of men’s and there is an even bigger income gap between retired men and women. Since 2006 all public authorities have had a duty to consider to the need to promote equality of opportunity between women and men and eliminate unlawful discrimination. BW obviously did not take account of this when introducing the tendering trial. I have complained to Sally Ash at BW about this and have informed the Equality and Human Rights Commission (3 More London, Riverside Tooley Street, London SE1 2RG). I hope other boaters will do so too!" Psi

I believe that the Moorings Tendering Trial breaches the Sex Discrimination Act because women are less able to make the highest bids for moorings because of their lower incomes. Competitive tendering favours people on higher incomes, who are more likely to be men, and reduces access to those on lower incomes, who are more likely to be women. Although the tendering process applies to everyone, it disadvantages women, whose lower incomes make them less likely to be the highest bidder in a competitive tendering process. On average, women’s earnings are 71% of men’s and there is an even bigger income gap between retired men and women. Since 2006 all public authorities have had a duty to consider to the need to promote equality of opportunity between women and men and eliminate unlawful discrimination. BW obviously did not take account of this when introducing the tendering trial. I have complained to Sally Ash at BW about this and have informed the Equality and Human Rights Commission (3 More London, Riverside Tooley Street, London SE1 2RG). I hope other boaters will do so too! Psi