Moorings Tendering breaches Sex Discrimination Act

[Tiger]

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.

 

This is a joke right?

 

I'm 5' 4", maybe I should claim discrimination against newsagents because I cant reach the top shelves

 

Tiger.

Edited May 10, 2008 by Tiger

[roger]

This is a joke right?

 

I'm 5' 4", maybe I should claim discrimination against newsagents because I cant reach the top shelves

 

Tiger.

 

Its no good assuming that there isnt a cause to fight for

[Catrin]

I'm breaking my own rule here about not posting on any political threads - however....

 

I know that BW have tried a number of ways of allocating moorings, however, my personal feeling is that tendering is the worst possible way of doing it. I takes no account of need, or how long you've waited - in my opinion both fairer than how much money you are able to stump up.

 

What is required is a fairly organised waiting list for each region/ area - but it is clear from other posts that this just doesn't happen.

 

I welcome any challenge to tendering - there has to be a better way.

 

Regards

Catrin

[stort_mark]

I'm breaking my own rule here about not posting on any political threads - however....

Not sure why it's considered political....

 

I know that BW have tried a number of ways of allocating moorings, however, my personal feeling is that tendering is the worst possible way of doing it. I takes no account of need, or how long you've waited - in my opinion both fairer than how much money you are able to stump up.

But how are you defining 'need'? For many, is there perhaps confusion between the words 'need' and'want'.

I have a lot of sympathy for those who are struggling to get hold of a mooring, and in this area it is very difficult.

However, as with anything in this world, management of the (economic) supply and demand is a logical way to manage it. There is an increasing demand for moorings and limited space (and not everyone wants every metre of canals lined with moored boats). Real estate is expensive everywhere and regardless of whether your real estate is for house, an apartment or a boat (regardless of whether its a leisure mooring or a residential one.....the space is still used up), it's a commodity.

 

Before anyone accuses me of simply turning our canal heritage into a commodity, I am not; the use of private boats, is however, simply an economic activity: with any economic activity, you pay for it.

 

What is required is a fairly organised waiting list for each region/ area - but it is clear from other posts that this just doesn't happen.

I welcome any challenge to tendering - there has to be a better way.

Actually, what is iniquitous with the system is that there is no transparency, and that the system relies on people's desperation to overbid for a specific mooring. What would be much fairer is a proper market place where everyone could see the rates and so make decisions based on this.

[tomsk]

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

 

This thread is one of the most ill-judged and wrong-headed I have yet encountered. Grow up please

[stort_mark]

This thread is one of the most ill-judged and wrong-headed I have yet encountered. Grow up please

In your opinion.

It's obviously considered important to some.

[seaspray]

This thread is one of the most ill-judged and wrong-headed I have yet encountered. Grow up please

Isn't it amazing that as soon as a woman stands up for herself a lot of men can't take it? If this succeeds in stopping the mooring tenders then we will all benefit. Psi, Good Luck and if you haven't been put off posting by all those insults, could you post a copy of your letter here? I hadn't thought about it before but I agree with you by the way.

[psi]

Exactly which part of SDA 1975 does it contravene?

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."

 

Isn't it amazing that as soon as a woman stands up for herself a lot of men can't take it? If this succeeds in stopping the mooring tenders then we will all benefit. Psi, Good Luck and if you haven't been put off posting by all those insults, could you post a copy of your letter here? I hadn't thought about it before but I agree with you by the way.

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.

[tomsk]

In your opinion.

It's obviously considered important to some.

 

Quite, the wrong-headed and ill-judged. I have no pudenda and a hairy chest, can I sue someone? This is all very silly

[WJM]

If this premise were to be accepted (women get things cheaper because they earn less) then where does it stop?

 

Cheaper things for; People with lower IQs, people with certain skin colours, people under a certain height, people who didn't go to university, left-handed people...

 

It is possible (given the right survey) that you can demonstrate they are all disadvantaged in the workplace. So open the floodgates, identify the perfect grouping who will pay the 100% price. Then you have a master race and sub-groups who pay less. Hitler would love it!

[tomsk]

If this premise were to be accepted (women get things cheaper because they earn less) then where does it stop?

 

Cheaper things for; People with lower IQs, people with certain skin colours, people under a certain height, people who didn't go to university, left-handed people...

 

It is possible (given the right survey) that you can demonstrate they are all disadvantaged in the workplace. So open the floodgates, identify the perfect grouping who will pay the 100% price. Then you have a master race and sub-groups who pay less. Hitler would love it!

 

 

Quite, I have always considered it grossly unfair that being fit and well with no infirmities (occasional mental blips excepted), I find myself unable to call upon the services of the NHS or claim any form of incapacity benefit whatsoever dispite paying in to the social security system for all my working life.... whyowhyowhyetc.......

[Stourbridgeguy]

An open response to OP

 

I also find it unfair that as a gay person I have to contribute to the schooling system. I have no children and I can asure you that I will not be having any. Can you please format a letter for me to send to NI to have my contributions reduced and while you are doing this can you also include the fact that I am totally anti-war, then I can get my national insurance contributions reduced to a level that I will be able to afford the increase in desiel prices.

 

So if you look at all peoples situations, almost everyone faces discrimination in some part of thier life, no matter who they are. I am not on a fat cat wage, I have tended for a mooring and been successful, the boat I am in the proccess of buying is far from new and shiny. I want to have a rant at you but I feel that will be a waste of my energy not to mention my lunch break.

 

Good luck with your fight, I wish you well then perhaps you can find time to enjoy your time on the canal.

 

Dave

[carlt]

I also find it unfair that as a gay person I have to contribute to the schooling system.

Dave

I would like to join your campaign to allow future gay kids the right to a free education.

 

I think it's appalling that you were denied the opportunity of a decent schooling, because of your sexuality.

 

Edited to say: I know you were being a tongue-in-cheek, btw (and why not?).

Edited May 21, 2008 by carlt

[tomsk]

I would like to join your campaign to allow future gay kids the right to a free education.

 

I think it's appalling that you were denied the opportunity of a decent schooling, because of your sexuality.

 

Post of the Week...... Gutted I missed it..

[psi]

Exactly which part of SDA 1975 does it contravene?

 

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

Edited May 21, 2008 by psi

[sueb]

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

 

I love your letter to Sally - Go for it.

Sue

[GRPCruiserman]

The tendering business is disciminatory anyway as it favours the rich, and therefore discriminates against those of us on average or low incomes.

 

The canals (or BWB) ARE NOT (apologies for shouting it!!) a private organisation set up to make money for it's shareholders like the company I work for for example, but a publically owned assett that we all should have full, non-discrimitory access to in whatever way possible.

 

By removing slipways and access to those that remain, destroying publically owned section 8 cheaper boats, and increasing the costs of short term licences by 100s of percent, and long term licences by well above the 2/3% quoted inflation figures, and putting moorings out to tender; publically owned BWB is disciminating against the majority of the people who actually own the canal system, ie every tax payer in this country, in favour of those fortunate enough to by on a higher income.

 

It is like the NHS saying right, all beds are now being put out to tender, you can only have a bed if you have a high income, otherwise you are treated in a corridor or not at all. Actually they already do this if you want to watch TV in hospital, but that's another arguement.