TIME FOR CHANGE - BW CULTURE CHANGE - WANTED NOW

[Laurence Hogg]

Reading all these very interesting comments really brings home how detached from the reality Clarendon road probably is. Depressing and without an easy solution.

 

[Tiny]

It seems I can't make any comment without it being an excuse to criticise Nabo. I do hope you come to the AGM, find out what Nabo does and offer your services as you have some idea of how you would like the system to evolve. It isn't my agm. You are making assumptions - again.

Sue

 

But its much easier to knock NABO than the BW mob as they are accessible and not above critisism. Given this being above us I cannot understand the 'it will all be alright under the new Trust' idea - it might show we are very fair and not willing to pre-judge but being like that and then complaining when they don't measure up is less constructive (I feel) mthan pointing out the (numerous) faults of the current lot in the hope that someone in power does not have his head up his arse far enough to actually listen. As it is BW can do as they please knowing we are divided and infighting each other and have the british sense of fair play that often means we lose a lot of battles before we finally get our act head together and realise that the enemy is not a nice person acting in our interests at all - by which time it is often too late to do much.

[cotswoldsman]

 

But its much easier to knock NABO than the BW mob as they are accessible and not above critisism. Given this being above us I cannot understand the 'it will all be alright under the new Trust' idea - it might show we are very fair and not willing to pre-judge but being like that and then complaining when they don't measure up is less constructive (I feel) mthan pointing out the (numerous) faults of the current lot in the hope that someone in power does not have his head up his arse far enough to actually listen. As it is BW can do as they please knowing we are divided and infighting each other and have the british sense of fair play that often means we lose a lot of battles before we finally get our act head together and realise that the enemy is not a nice person acting in our interests at all - by which time it is often too late to do much.

 

My comments are based on my observations.

I can only speak personally as i find things with BW. I try to remember that they are looking after a system that is over 200 years old on a very restricted budget. I have cruised most of the system and I find very little wrong. Ok the odd water point might not work (no big deal) the odd lock can be awkward (no big deal) I pay a fair price for my licence. I am not bothered with what the people at the top earn. Yes I am prepared to give the New Trust the benefit of the doubt because I have no reason to doubt at this stage. I would struggle to point out ant numerous faults. Going by the number of anti BW posts I must be missing something...........

[Robin2]

My comments are based on my observations.

I can only speak personally as i find things with BW. I try to remember that they are looking after a system that is over 200 years old on a very restricted budget. I have cruised most of the system and I find very little wrong. Ok the odd water point might not work (no big deal) the odd lock can be awkward (no big deal) I pay a fair price for my licence. I am not bothered with what the people at the top earn. Yes I am prepared to give the New Trust the benefit of the doubt because I have no reason to doubt at this stage. I would struggle to point out ant numerous faults. Going by the number of anti BW posts I must be missing something...........

 

This reflects my experience also. And I have to say all the BW staff I have dealt with have been friendly and helpful.

 

However I am concerned that funding may get worse rather than better under the charity system and there is a greater risk of non-waterways interests hijacking the agenda.

 

Rather than complain all the time if people make a short list of things that could be improved next year within the budget there would then be real cause for annoyance if they weren't done.

[sueb]

I suggest that the pessimists have had many years of dealing with BW politics and the optimists are newer boaters who don't get involved with the politics.

Sue

[Allan(nb Albert)]

My comments are based on my observations.

I can only speak personally as i find things with BW. I try to remember that they are looking after a system that is over 200 years old on a very restricted budget. I have cruised most of the system and I find very little wrong. Ok the odd water point might not work (no big deal) the odd lock can be awkward (no big deal) I pay a fair price for my licence. I am not bothered with what the people at the top earn. Yes I am prepared to give the New Trust the benefit of the doubt because I have no reason to doubt at this stage. I would struggle to point out ant numerous faults. Going by the number of anti BW posts I must be missing something...........

 

No reason to doubt?

 

Robin Evans told the Parliamentary Waterways Group (PWG) that BW under spent on maintenance by some £39m last year. (I still believe this figure may be nearer £50m as he did not take rising maintenance costs into account).

 

The net extra income from being a charity will be less than £5m a year in year 5 and £13m a year by 2022.

 

Defra grant has fallen from 2010/11 levels and will continue to do so.

 

I do not think it is a case of giving the NWC the benefit of the doubt but rather ensuring that its governance and funding is right.

 

I suggest reading this document from NABO's website -

 

PWG Memorandum

Edited August 7, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Tiny]

And I read today in another place that after they become a charity they are exempt from the freedom of information act so they can do as they wish with the money knowing outsiders won't find out if they blow it on fancy toys. That should make some people happy as in hear no evil etc., group but personally as an outsider while the local men on the cut might be nice I want to know what's going on behind the locked portals of BWs HQ as ones who think they are superior to us lay their plans.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Tiny

[Allan(nb Albert)]

And I read today in another place that after they become a charity they are exempt from the freedom of information act so they can do as they wish with the money knowing outsiders won't find out if they blow it on fancy toys. That should make some people happy as in hear no evil etc., group but personally as an outsider while the local men on the cut might be nice I want to know what's going on behind the locked portals of BWs HQ as ones who think they are superior to us lay their plans.

 

You are quite right. NWC will not be subject to the foi act. It may or may not adopt BW's ombudsman's scheme.

 

The problem is that BW acts as if it is already exempt!

[chieftiff]

You are quite right. NWC will not be subject to the foi act. It may or may not adopt BW's ombudsman's scheme.

 

The problem is that BW acts as if it is already exempt!

 

I'm not convinced that's true, I suspect you'll find that not only will they be subject to the act but they will also be subject to review by the NAO - just as my employer is despite not being a public authority. If contracted to provide a service to a public authority you are potentially covered by the act, in receipt of public money or money collected by statute to provide said service then covered by both the act and the whim of the NAO.

 

Edited to add: All three industry training boards are in this position: Companies established by statute who are answerable to BIS, subject to the FOIA and NAO annual auditing and yet they use no public money (they collect a levy from private companies to fund a statutary training service), employ no public servants and wholly own their own assets, all are registered as charities.

Edited August 7, 2011 by chieftiff

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I'm not convinced that's true, I suspect you'll find that not only will they be subject to the act but they will also be subject to review by the NAO - just as my employer is despite not being a public authority. If contracted to provide a service to a public authority you are potentially covered by the act, in receipt of public money or money collected by statute to provide said service then covered by both the act and the whim of the NAO.

 

Edited to add: All three industry training boards are in this position: Companies established by statute who are answerable to BIS, subject to the FOIA and NAO annual auditing and yet they use no public money (they collect a levy from private companies to fund a statutary training service), employ no public servants and wholly own their own assets, all are registered as charities.

 

Well a question was asked in parliament a week or two back -

 

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

 

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will put in place measures to ensure that British Waterways will continue to be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 following any transfer to charitable status; and if she will make a statement.

 

and no commitment to do so was given.

[chieftiff]

Well a question was asked in parliament a week or two back -

 

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

 

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will put in place measures to ensure that British Waterways will continue to be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 following any transfer to charitable status; and if she will make a statement.

 

and no commitment to do so was given.

 

That doesn't sound particularly reassuring, however it could just be that she didn't want to commit to something that she hasn't a clue about and has tottered off to see what the permanent under secretary thinks she should/ can do. The often under appreciated thing about parliament is that the people we vote to put in it, who are subsequently placed in positions of high authority are by their very nature rank amateurs

 

Edit: I also found this in Hansard as the answer to the question as asked on 14th July 2011:

Richard Benyon: "The Government recognises the importance of making appropriate provision for access to information from public bodies and those outside the public sector with public functions. With this in mind, we are considering the principles involved in the transfer of functions to the New Waterways Charity (NWC), and will be discussing this in due course with the transition trustees."

Edited August 7, 2011 by chieftiff

[Robin2]

That doesn't sound particularly reassuring, however it could just be that she didn't want to commit to something that she hasn't a clue about and has tottered off to see what the permanent under secretary thinks she should/ can do. The often under appreciated thing about parliament is that the people we vote to put in it, who are subsequently placed in positions of high authority are by their very nature rank amateurs

 

 

She will have consulted the PUS very carefully before giving that answer. I know - I used to write them (not in the UK, you will be relieved to know).

[Tiny]

Seeing that the givernment use this NWC name does that mean that once the charity is in place they will be pumping money into the WC while others will be volunteering for unpaid WC duty?

 

Incidentally BW are offering some fascinating volunteering jobs according to their job descriptions - for example a volunteer lock keeper will greet visitors - shades of pressing the flesh at the Salvation Army or must these visitors (us?) only work the lock after they have been greeted. Then there is the lot who will plant wild flowers, and one really lucky lot who will deliver great customer service through communication skills with customers face to face, via e-mails and phone calls..., greeting visitors (that word again), issuing security passes, taking fees for licences, moorings and opening the post. All this and more while working at the Northwich office. Now this one sounds like a proper job to me - one you get paid for not do for free. Likewise taking on the responsiblility of being a lock keeper should be paid and each one should be issued with a lifesized cardboard cutout doing the welcoming - this could be a picture of the chairman sitting in his office welcoming you to his waterway system and thanking you for supporting the charity in the box under.

 

Incidentally one real lock keeper I know planted his own rare flowers by the lock only to be tole grass cutting in future (done by him up until then) would be done by contractors whose first visit was when he was out so he returned to poorly cut grass and all his wild flowers cut down and floating, with a lot of other grass in the canal. He later was told his job was being advertised in the press (this is long before volenteers) and was told by his boss that if he wanted to do it he should apply. There were no takers so he kept his job but lost any loyalty for BW he had left.

 

BW management need more than a culture change - a lot of them put out to grass - or under it.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Tiny

[magpie patrick]

And I read today in another place that after they become a charity they are exempt from the freedom of information act...

 

Unless the enabling legislation exempts them this is not true. The Coal Canal Society is not exempt by virtue of it's charitable status and no other organisation would be either.

 

They also won't be exempt from the data protection act either

[carlt]

I suggest that the pessimists have had many years of dealing with BW politics....(and see something new as just something else to snipe at)

Or, perhaps, there are the optimists who have had many years of dealing with BW politics and, quite rightly, called for change.

 

Now that change is upon us surely it is only right that we should welcome it and try to influence it for the better, rather than carry on moaning and grumbling about it.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Unless the enabling legislation exempts them this is not true. The Coal Canal Society is not exempt by virtue of it's charitable status and no other organisation would be either.

 

They also won't be exempt from the data protection act either

 

My understanding is that the NWC will automatically be exempt by virtue of no longer being a non departmental public body and that the enabling legislation would have to specifically include it -

 

article

 

The parliamentary question above and the evasive answer would support this.

[mayalld]

You are beginning to sound like that well known Irish species - the begrudger ...

 

Let's not compare apples and oranges. A person choosing to live on a boat makes many sacrifices compared to those living in a house. The accomodation is much smaller and the services (such as water and sewage) are a lot less convenient. A liveaboard who has a permanent mooring makes his (or her) proper contribution to local services through their mooring fees. I choose to be a continuous cruiser and in return for the lower cost I am prepared to accept the additional inconvenience of having to move around at least once a fortnight.

 

 

Lets try and move the discussion onwards in a more productive fashion. You have not responded to my request to say how much the BW fees should rise. However lets extrapolate from your comments that the general level of fees from boaters should double - so, for example, instead of me paying £650 I would pay £1300 - would that seem about right to you?

 

Now let me say (in the hope there may be a few other readers) that I don't want my fee doubled and I have done no sums to see if that rise would be useful, sufficient or just wasted.

 

I also get the impression that you do not use many miles of the canal each year so you would not like your licence fee doubled. How many more boaters would be in the same situation - I would guess 75% or more based on how many boats never seem to leave their marina or mooring.

 

So if BW's income is to double but only 25% of the boaters pay the extra my fee would have to go from £650 to £3250. Do you think that would be reasonable?

 

The reality is that a fee of £3250 would price me off the canal so that BW wouldn't even get my £650.

 

And as Chieftiff has said most of the BW expenditure goes on maintaining the waterways rather than the shoreside services and if the waterways were not maintained the people who only boat for a few weeks a year could not even do that.

 

Ultimately, the waterways will need more money to survive. That money is not going to come from the money fairy, and a proportion of it is going to come from the pockets of boaters.

 

As soon as we mention this, the cry goes up to tell us that a large proportion of CC boaters are on low and fixed incomes, and obviously somebody else will have to pay. Suddenly we enter a kind of netherworld where BW/NWC is expected to charge according to what people can afford, not what a service costs to deliver.

 

That is not sustainable. Boating, whether as a leisure boater or as a home is a choice that we make, and we must expect to pay for that choice. We cannot continually say "well I can't afford what I have chosen, so somebody else will have to pay for me". If you can't afford it, you can't afford it.

 

The elephant in the room here is the vexed subject of differential charging for CCers. It has become the subject that dare not speak its name, and any suggestion to change the system of charging is seen as a malicious attack on CCers.

 

There are many complex factors at play here, and with the number of continuous cruisers growing, and 9% of all continuous cruisers being subject to enforcement proceedings for failing to continuously cruise (and there are many others not subject to proceedings whose pattern of cruising is very localised), it is clear that some boaters are registering as CCers for purely economic reasons.

 

A charging system that reduces the financial differential would probably help to reduce wear and tear on the waterways, as some fake-CCers would take up moorings and no longer cause wear and tear on the system.

 

The argument advanced against such a charge is that CCers would get nothing for their fee, but moorers pay for something. To counter that, I ask what does a moorer get for an EOG fee for a farmers field to BW? They get absolutely nothing, not even a right to moor in the place. For mooring and services, they must pay the landowner. Basically, the EOG fee, mooring agreement fee from a provider etc. are, for most boaters, just an extra bit of licence fee.

 

It is also easy to dismiss the cost of facilities. Sanitary stations and rubbish disposal are NOT zero cost to BW, and are not fixed costs (more use=bigger bill), and a CCer makes greater use of these facilities. Some form of charge is, I believe, appropriate. The question is "how much".

 

I am going to suggest, as a starting point, that a fee of £5/ft/year to cover greater use of facilities would be appropriate

 

ETA a pertinent quote which demonstrates that services are not fixed cost;

 

Bosley Services

 

Monday 8 August 2011 - Monday 8 August 2011 Bosley services are temporarily out of action.

 

The septic tank is full and starting to overflow onto the path. Contractors are due to the site at approximately 4.00pm today to empty the tank.

 

Clearly an additional emptying of the septic tank, earlier than scheduled will have a cost. The majority of my emptying occurs at my home mooring into a main drain. Is it fair that I pay as much as a CCer for those costs?

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2011 by mayalld

[cotswoldsman]

Ultimately, the waterways will need more money to survive. That money is not going to come from the money fairy, and a proportion of it is going to come from the pockets of boaters.

 

As soon as we mention this, the cry goes up to tell us that a large proportion of CC boaters are on low and fixed incomes, and obviously somebody else will have to pay. Suddenly we enter a kind of netherworld where BW/NWC is expected to charge according to what people can afford, not what a service costs to deliver.

 

That is not sustainable. Boating, whether as a leisure boater or as a home is a choice that we make, and we must expect to pay for that choice. We cannot continually say "well I can't afford what I have chosen, so somebody else will have to pay for me". If you can't afford it, you can't afford it.

 

The elephant in the room here is the vexed subject of differential charging for CCers. It has become the subject that dare not speak its name, and any suggestion to change the system of charging is seen as a malicious attack on CCers.

 

There are many complex factors at play here, and with the number of continuous cruisers growing, and 9% of all continuous cruisers being subject to enforcement proceedings for failing to continuously cruise (and there are many others not subject to proceedings whose pattern of cruising is very localised), it is clear that some boaters are registering as CCers for purely economic reasons.

 

A charging system that reduces the financial differential would probably help to reduce wear and tear on the waterways, as some fake-CCers would take up moorings and no longer cause wear and tear on the system.

 

The argument advanced against such a charge is that CCers would get nothing for their fee, but moorers pay for something. To counter that, I ask what does a moorer get for an EOG fee for a farmers field to BW? They get absolutely nothing, not even a right to moor in the place. For mooring and services, they must pay the landowner. Basically, the EOG fee, mooring agreement fee from a provider etc. are, for most boaters, just an extra bit of licence fee.

 

It is also easy to dismiss the cost of facilities. Sanitary stations and rubbish disposal are NOT zero cost to BW, and are not fixed costs (more use=bigger bill), and a CCer makes greater use of these facilities. Some form of charge is, I believe, appropriate. The question is "how much".

 

I am going to suggest, as a starting point, that a fee of £5/ft/year to cover greater use of facilities would be appropriate

 

david you put forward a fair argument, the only problem I have is that a lot of retired people that are now CCing have budgeted at today's prices plus yearly increases so your suggested £5 per foot might be a bit much or as they say rob Peter to pay Paul they might stop taking winter moorings at £600+ for the winter income to BW.

It does open a can of worms when you say CCers use the facilities more, from my own point of view I am not sure I use the facilities more living on my own then say a couple who cruise for 6 months of the year. When I fuelled up today I was talking to a couple that cruise from April until end September that had already cruised further in 5 months than I would in 1 year so they have certainly used more locks and facilities than I do. As I have said before (on many occasions) I personally have no problem with paying more, but just not sure how you ever come up with a solution. If I go back to the couple this morning they have a mooring in a private marina so even though they use more facilities than I do BW get nothing extra besides the access charge from the Marina.

[mayalld]

david you put forward a fair argument, the only problem I have is that a lot of retired people that are now CCing have budgeted at today's prices plus yearly increases so your suggested £5 per foot might be a bit much or as they say rob Peter to pay Paul they might stop taking winter moorings at £600+ for the winter income to BW.

It does open a can of worms when you say CCers use the facilities more, from my own point of view I am not sure I use the facilities more living on my own then say a couple who cruise for 6 months of the year. When I fuelled up today I was talking to a couple that cruise from April until end September that had already cruised further in 5 months than I would in 1 year so they have certainly used more locks and facilities than I do. As I have said before (on many occasions) I personally have no problem with paying more, but just not sure how you ever come up with a solution. If I go back to the couple this morning they have a mooring in a private marina so even though they use more facilities than I do BW get nothing extra besides the access charge from the Marina.

 

Very fair points (I knew that you could be relied upon to argue sensibly, rather than simply from the "somebody else must pay" angle).

 

Yes, there are people who are on fixed incomes, for whom a step change in costs will present difficulties, but in the present financial climate, those on fixed incomes are actually doing a damn sight better than many people in the workforce, who are seeing their incomes stagnate or fall.

 

Anybody who has bought a boat in the past 5 years (probably longer) ought really to have seen that the costs were likely to rise sharply in future, and as such statements about people having "budgeted" are rather over-egging the pudding.

 

Bluntly, some people wanted to retire to the canals, and buried their heads in the sand as to the fact that the future costs were likely to rise way beyond inflation.

[chieftiff]

I don't think for one minute it's the elephant in the room, it's a red herring (excuse the metaphors, or are they idoms I can never remember)

 

I can easily see how boating is about to get more expensive for all, CCer and leisure boater alike, those additional costs levied to fund any gap are required to support the entire system not facilities used only by CCers. We all make value decisions, the question is what extra value over and above that of a leisure boater will a CCer get for the additional charge? A system such as that proposed will be perceived as fundamentally unfair and arguably is, the most likely result (in my opinion) is that license fees will rise across the board, the rules on CCing will rightly be tightened up and BW's new volunteer army will be expected to struggle to enforce any new rules which of course makes them as good as useless.

 

Don't get me wrong, I can see an argument to have different license fees for different users, I can't see how the value equation can be made to add up though or how that change can possibly be managed to anyone's satisfaction. Incorrectly handled it will simply lead to a whole raft of ex-waterways users.

[deletedaccount]

If we had a government who spent money on society and taxed corporations who reap the benefits of said society then this wouldn't be an issue. Instead we have a crumbling waterway system and a bunch of bastards making themselves and their mates rich at everyone else's expense while people point the fingers at other poor sods saying 'them, it's their fault'. They should be looking upwards at the mountains of shite being poured down on them and saying no, I'll not be shat on and my fellow man won't be shat on just so you can own a super yacht and your kids can go to eton.

[mayalld]

I don't think for one minute it's the elephant in the room, it's a red herring (excuse the metaphors, or are they idoms I can never remember)

 

I can easily see how boating is about to get more expensive for all, CCer and leisure boater alike, those additional costs levied to fund any gap are required to support the entire system not facilities used only by CCers. We all make value decisions, the question is what extra value over and above that of a leisure boater will a CCer get for the additional charge? A system such as that proposed will be perceived as fundamentally unfair and arguably is, the most likely result (in my opinion) is that license fees will rise across the board, the rules on CCing will rightly be tightened up and BW's new volunteer army will be expected to struggle to enforce any new rules which of course makes them as good as useless.

 

Don't get me wrong, I can see an argument to have different license fees for different users, I can't see how the value equation can be made to add up though or how that change can possibly be managed to anyone's satisfaction. Incorrectly handled it will simply lead to a whole raft of ex-waterways users.

 

It is true that costs are going to rise for all.

 

However, where there are steep rises in costs, there will inevitably be a hard look at charging structures.

 

As costs rise, differentials that depend on ability to pay will become less sustainable.

[BEngo]

I don't think for one minute it's the elephant in the room, it's a red herring (excuse the metaphors, or are they idoms I can never remember)

 

I can easily see how boating is about to get more expensive for all, CCer and leisure boater alike, those additional costs levied to fund any gap are required to support the entire system not facilities used only by CCers. We all make value decisions, the question is what extra value over and above that of a leisure boater will a CCer get for the additional charge? A system such as that proposed will be perceived as fundamentally unfair and arguably is, the most likely result (in my opinion) is that license fees will rise across the board, the rules on CCing will rightly be tightened up and BW's new volunteer army will be expected to struggle to enforce any new rules which of course makes them as good as useless.

 

Don't get me wrong, I can see an argument to have different license fees for different users, I can't see how the value equation can be made to add up though or how that change can possibly be managed to anyone's satisfaction. Incorrectly handled it will simply lead to a whole raft of ex-waterways users.

 

 

It is not a matter of a value equation. It is a matter income for the NWC management. NWC will be expected to show a growth in income- how they get it is up to them.

 

NWC will not be subject to political influence to anything like the extent BW is, if only because Whitehall and Westminster want BW at arm's length financially and politically ASAP. CCer's will be made to pay extra and they should be planning on £2-5k a year very soon. Other boating users can expect to see at least a yearly 2-5% real increase and a return to early 70's standards of upkeep. Get some boards and plastic sheet for boating now, whilst you can still afford them.

 

Pricing CCer's out of the market is seen by Clarendon Road as killing two birds with one stone- Charging as much as the market will bear to the point of diminishing return and being seen to do something about the (wrongly IMHO) perceived unfairness of CCer's not paying for a mooring. It will do nothing of course about the housing benefit funded overstayers, or about overcrowded vistor moorings some of which are legitimately occupied by CCer's.

 

N

[deletedaccount]

If the price is too high people will simply stop paying. That 2-5k is ridiculous.

 

And by stop paying I mean just not buy a licence. So both birds you think their aiming at go unkilled.

[chieftiff]

It is not a matter of a value equation.

 

I'm afraid it is, call it a differential equation if you like but people make value decisions all the time, Toyota make a living out of understanding it better than anyone else. At what point does charging more see diminishing returns in terms of both finance and good will.

 

I guess we'll see what pans out but can't see your estimate coming close to the reality, many would simply take up a mooring at less than £2k a year (yes there are still plenty around here and with more and more private marinas opening every month that price is unlikely to rise substantially) and continue to cruise on a leisure license denying BW/ NWC the price of even a rip off winter mooring. Add to that the inevitable woes of the CMing community, human rights and European Court cases pending, not to mention social housing challenges and cries from over burdened councils and you'd have to wonder why any BW official would even contemplate it.

 

A far more sensible thing would be to objectively look at how a system could be devised that fairly charged people for their actual use of the system not their perceived use by those with an axe to grind?