Part 4, of 4 from Wednesday, January 21

MR ANTHONY BENNETT, sworn
Examined by MR WILLIAMS
1012. MR WILLIAMS: My Lord, I am very grateful that we are able to achieve an opportunity for Mr Bennett to be seen today because he is a radiographer in a general hospital in Bury St Edmunds. He has just been away to do his ocean yachtmaster�s sea training and he has been running from Spain to the Canary Islands, so he had used up all his holiday really, but he had managed to secure this particular day in order to give his evidence. Mr Bennett has actually been interested in boats pretty well all of his life, and I think it is probably better for me to allow him to explain his experiences in order just to make him feel a little bit more at ease before we actually go through the Petition.
(Mr Bennett) Thank you. Yes, I have had a keen interest since first sailing at sea as a teenager and I have owned several boats and sailed competitively. I was the vice commodore of a small sailing club in Norfolk and have recently gone on to take my yachtmaster examinations in theory and I am now working towards the yachtmaster practical examination. As Mr Williams said, I have just returned from a 700-mile non-stop trip from Spain to the Canaries as part of that qualification.
1013. Do you have a boat on the Broads, Mr Bennett?
(Mr Bennett) I do. I have a 21.5-foot yacht on the Broads, on the northern part of the Broads, where I take a keen interest in sailing, conservation and supporting the local businesses.
1014. Can you please tell the Committee why it is that you felt it necessary to petition the Bill in respect of what you saw as the restrictions to your navigational rights?
(Mr Bennett) The main concern was one of running aground on the Broads and it seemed to me that running aground is a dangerous thing and it seemed to me that an authority that was not able to maintain its statutory core duty of keeping the waterway open had no business spending tollpayers� money promoting a private Bill, albeit being, on the face of it, for promoting boat safety. I, therefore, decided to look at the Bill and to see where I felt it was not appropriate.
1015. Can I just ask you in what way you saw that the Authority was proposing to restrict the use of the Broads by their users?
(Mr Bennett) Well, in particular, it is clause 4 that we referred to earlier where, for example, a general direction may be given not to sail a boat in high winds, and I felt that this was far too general. Where high winds may not be appropriate for a small child in a dinghy, the yacht that I have has over a tonne of ballast in the keel and in fact sails very well in a force 6 to 7 which would be dangerous for a child to sail in. I, therefore, thought that giving a general direction not to sail would be virtually unworkable.
1016. When you say �unworkable�, did you see it as being unworkable in the sense that it meant that you were in a totally different situation from others or did you mean it in the way that there was no way that a general direction of that nature could be not only enforced, but actually drafted?
(Mr Bennett) Yes, the latter. I felt that the varying conditions that would not be suitable for small boats and could be suitable for larger boats would not allow for a single direction to be given that would cover all circumstances.
1017. There is a final point which you make there which I think I would like to ask you to explain to the Committee. You said that, �These exemptions and exceptions are not easily understood and would give rise to confusion and possibly danger rather than alleviating it�. What exactly were you thinking about then?
(Mr Bennett) I was thinking that, if such a general direction were to be given, it would not be clearly understood and that may result in some people going out attempting to sail in conditions that were not right for them.
1018. Does that not happen now?
(Mr Bennett) Yes, it possibly does.
1019. Is it a problem, to your knowledge?
(Mr Bennett) Inasmuch as sometimes people do capsize in high winds, yes, it is a problem.
1020. In your final paragraph there, you refer to the Authority as being �deeply distrusted by tollpayers�. We have heard so much from the Authority about their involving everybody in terms of the IWA, the RYA and the BMF, yet you are saying that the tollpayers are not in the same consensus frame, and I wondered if you could explain that for me.
(Mr Bennett) Yes, there are large discussion groups, particularly on the internet and other interested clubs and bodies, where discussion takes place and it is quite a common theme amongst those discussions to hear that the Broads Authority are not very well trusted by their toll-payers.
1021. LORD OXBURGH: Trusted in what respect?
(Mr Bennett) Not having the best interests of navigators in mind; in particular, with this failure to dredge the Broads. This is a major issue amongst navigators, as it is an extremely dangerous situation to find yourself in. There have been deaths from boats running aground. One notable case was in the Solent a couple of years ago, when a boat ran aground and the skipper was standing on the deck and was swept off by the boom and drowned. It was not actually his fault; he had arrived at a point where the sand had been dredged that day and placed in a spot where he was not able to predict it.
1022. Are you saying this happens on the Broads?
(Mr Bennett) I am saying boats are running aground on the Broads, yes.
1023. Running aground, but the question is why?
(Mr Bennett) They are running aground because the Broads have not been dredged.
1024. Are you saying that there is information published by the Authority which leads you to expect a particular area will be navigable when it is not?
(Mr Bennett) Yes, I would imagine all the main rivers should be navigable.
1025. I am asking you whether there is published information which has led you to this conclusion.
(Mr Bennett) To the conclusion that it is not navigable?
1026. No, whether you are making full use of existing published information by the Broads Authority, and you run aground.
(Mr Bennett) I have looked at their website recently and have not noticed any grounding warnings for the area in which I sail.
1027. And have you grounded there?
(Mr Bennett) Yes, I have.
1028. So you believe the information was inaccurate.
(Mr Bennett) I believe the information was not on the website, or at least I have not found it on the website.
1029. MR WILLIAMS: If the Committee will permit we will move on to the next section.
1030. LORD METHUEN: Can I just interrupt there? I have no idea what the answer to this is, but do you have available to you a chart, which shows the depth at various points, in the equipment to a normal seagoing chart?
(Mr Bennett) For the sea, yes, but not for the Broads. As far as I know, no such chart exists.
1031. What guidance do you get in the way of anything which tells you what the navigable limitations are? There are guides, for instance, to the inland waterways which give warnings about various states. What documentation is available for the navigator?
(Mr Bennett) As far as I know, nothing for the Broads. I stand to be corrected but, as far as I know, nothing.
1032. I find that very surprising, bearing in mind what is available for the inland waterways system.
(Mr Bennett) There are information sheets published, like the Broads sheet. Any major works would be shown within that. Any serious issues, presumably, would be flagged up, but not for this particular part of the waterway that I have sailed.
1033. LORD OXBURGH: Does this not mean it is pretty irresponsible to take a boat of any significant depth there at all?
(Mr Bennett) You could argue that. My boat is not of any significant depth; it has a very shallow draught, which is why it is even more surprising that it is running aground.
1034. What depth do you assume is acceptable?
(Mr Bennett) I need a depth of 2 feet 6 inches, which is pretty shallow by most standards. Some boats draw five to six feet.
1035. MR WILLIAMS: Just before we leave that, can I ask you: there is a book called Hamilton�s Guide, is there not, for the Broads?
(Mr Bennett) There is, yes.
1036. It is published by somebody else, is it not?
(Mr Bennett) Yes.
1037. I think it is actually published by one of the Petitioners, or used to be. It has become out of use. The Authority has a chart but it is not available to the public. If I may move on, Mr Bennett, you are also concerned about clause 7, are you not, which gives powers for the Authority to require you to comply with general directions, but if you are the master of a vessel and you fail to comply with a general or special direction you will be guilty of an offence and liable to summary conviction and a fine not exceeding level 4. Could you explain why the second part of that clause, which gives you a defence, does not meet your concerns that you believe that this Bill is seeking to criminalise you?
(Mr Bennett) Yes. As I said in the Petition, it places the burden of defence upon the skipper rather than placing the burden of proving guilt on to the accusing authority. This concerned me greatly. It really should not be for a skipper to navigate his craft safely even against a general direction only to find he has to defend himself afterwards against the accusation that he has not complied with a direction. If that makes sense.
1038. In the Petition, my Lord Chairman, Mr Bennett has put two little items there to indicate the particular circumstances where he thinks that the whole question of directions becomes somewhat difficult to interpret and to be sure that the master of the ship is not inadvertently putting himself against the law. You have said it is unacceptable, but in what way could this provision be modified in order to make it acceptable to you?
(Mr Bennett) I am not sure that it could, without removing it altogether. Either the skipper has to comply with directions given or he does not have to comply with directions given. I do not see that there really should be an option afterwards for him to have to defend the position that he has taken.
1039. Do you believe that if the Authority is going to make these directions then it has to take the responsibility for the giving of those ----
(Mr Bennett) Exactly, sir.
1040. Have you got anything to add on that particular issue?
(Mr Bennett) I would have thought that, maybe, this could have been dealt with by way of byelaws as well; I would not have thought that a Bill was necessary to cover these particular points required here.
1041. Could we move on to the enforcement of directions, clause 8, which is the next item on your agenda? I think you make the expression �without a definition of �grave and imminent danger��. I am not sure that when the Waterways Director was giving her evidence she did not give us her ideas of what a �grave and imminent danger� was. What is your understanding of what she said?
(Mr Bennett) I understood her to have referred to the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985, but she did not mention the definition, presumably, contained within that Act of �grave and imminent danger�. So it is possible there is a definition that may cover what we need, but it certainly was not in the first Bill that I saw.
1042. Indeed it is not in the filled Bill now, is it?
(Mr Bennett) No, it is not.
1043. It allows what you describe as unqualified officers to board and enter by force the private property of a toll-paying citizen. In what sense would you describe the officers of the Broads Authority (given what we have heard today) as unqualified officers?
(Mr Bennett) Inasmuch as I suspect this would give them greater powers than a police officer would have. It concerned me greatly that there may be a pretext upon which they felt it necessary to enter a vessel and that pretext may not be substantive. It concerned me that toll-payers would come back and find their boats broken into because, perhaps, they were not moored correctly, or some other small misdemeanour, and I felt that this was a Draconian power that was over the top.
1044. I think you also used the expression yourself, did you not, that it was the circumstances in which you might make a mayday call on the radio in order to require immediate assistance. Is that what you meant?
(Mr Bennett) With regard to �grave and imminent danger�?
1045. Yes.
(Mr Bennett) Yes.
1046. I think the Petitioner�s point that he is trying to demonstrate here, my Lords, is that as one or two Petitioners have raised the issue there is still � we all know what �grave and imminent danger� is in the sense that it means that you are at great risk, but there was not a definition so we do not know what it is. So it could be interpreted in a lot of different ways, not always necessarily in the right one. When you moved on to clause 9, you did seem to suggest that your Petition was indicating that there was some contradiction between the two clauses � the one of clause 7 and the one of clause 9.
(Mr Bennett) Yes, I did. I thought that a skipper following a general direction and then finding himself in trouble for some reason could reasonably, perhaps, blame the person that has given him the directions. Clause 9 removes that ability and places upon him the full responsibility for the safe conduct of his vessel, even though he is following somebody else�s direction. That struck me as unworkable and very unfair.
1047. And unnecessary:
(Mr Bennett) And unnecessary.
1048. I think we will move on now to your view about the requirements of clause 12.
(Mr Bennett) Yes. Again, I was concerned that a Bill was required in order for the Authority to enact a Boat Safety Scheme, as it is already fully in force on the Broads. We did hear earlier that this is something of a temporary arrangement, but it does seem to me that if you can make it and enforce it as a temporary arrangement there is no reason why it needs a Bill to make it permanent, I would have suggested. Also, that consultation was mentioned between various organisations, and while I am a member of the RYA it is my opinion that people who are not members of such organisations may well lose their ability to negotiate if they are not part of such a body, but as toll-payers I believe they have the right to be involved in such negotiations. So, again, this particular clause seemed unfair to me.
1049. Thank you. Is it your understanding that toll-paying non-members of these organisations are in any way a significant minority, or unrepresented group, within the Broads? How big would you say the group of people were who were toll-payers who did not join any of these organisations?
(Mr Bennett) I am only guessing but I would think it is a significant number.
1050. �Significant� being?
(Mr Bennett) Possibly more than 50 per cent.
1051. I think it is worth pointing out that when we were framing this Petition, my Lords, one of the issues that was of some concern to members was, actually, that within the Authority and surrounding the Authority is a very small group of people who are also members of the RYA General Committee, and so on, and that in some ways the broad consensus which we have been advised about from the Authority was actually not really wholly the case, and that in some areas the people the Authority was negotiating with were, actually, members of its own committees. Clause 17. Tell me about your feeling for your freedom of sailing on the Broads, Mr Bennett.
(Mr Bennett) The freedom you get sailing on the Norfolk Broads is quite remarkable. It is almost one of the last places where you can go and relax and feel almost free from regulation and, while one appreciates that, of course, rules and regulations still do apply, bringing these extra rules and regulations in that one has to worry about more on a daily basis is very likely to curtail one�s enjoyment of such a beautiful area. Clause 17 allows an officer to board a vessel for the purpose of exercising any such power or duty. Again, that could be upon the smallest pretext for any particular reason not specified in the Bill, and, again, I was concerned that this might mean that officers of the Authority might board vessels on a whim almost. There is no assurance within the Bill that this would not be the case.
1052. LORD OXBURGH: You were here and heard the evidence before of the number of officers available to the Authority and the difficulties that they might be perceived to have in covering their responsibilities. Does it seem likely to you that they would be boarding vessels on a whim?
(Mr Bennett) That is as of today, of course. They may employ more officers in the future.
1053. In order to board vessels on a whim?
(Mr Bennett) Not for that specific purpose, I am sure.
1054. MR WILLIAMS: Mr Bennett, do you know if it is the case that the Authority�s officers carry out sweeps on the Broads in order to identify vessels which have not been paying their tolls?
(Mr Bennett) I can only answer that by saying that I have seen the patrol boats travelling along moorings and looking at the vessels. Whether they are specifically looking for toll clacks(?) or whether they are looking for something else I could not say for sure. It seems likely to me that they are checking toll clacks.
1055. So it is also likely that under those circumstances they might identify vessels that were capable of being boarded.
(Mr Bennett) Yes.
1056. Clause 17(2) of the Bill talks about being able to remove �articles and substances�. When you were talking about clause 17 and thinking about people who are boarding, you mentioned �any such power or duty�. What do you think it means by �articles and substances�?
(Mr Bennett) One can only guess. One would assume that they mean dangerous articles or illicit substances.
1057. So in fact what we are saying here is that this is almost a power that is equivalent to, say, Customs & Excise or to the police; is that right?
(Mr Bennett) Yes.
1058. You have to say, my Lords, that clause 17(5) is helpful in this respect because it says, �Except in an emergency, an authorised officer shall not board any vessel pursuant to this section without the consent of the owner ��. I ask you to make a judgment as to whether you consider, given the background to this, that that is an adequate safeguard. We now move on to clause 18 and we are talking, I think, about the meaning of an unsafe vessel. Have we made a mistake here?
(Mr Bennett) No, that is correct.
1059. Would you like to tell us?
(Mr Bennett) Again, it is a question of definitions. Clause 18 fails to define the meaning of standards and by whose authority standards may be applied. In other words, we need to establish exactly what makes a vessel unsafe such that everybody is aware of that before the vessel is likely to be boarded or towed away. It seems unreasonable to me to come back and find that your vessel has been boarded or towed away when you did not know what the rules were in the first place. I believe this would cause toll payers an amount of concern in not knowing exactly where the boundaries are regarding the condition of their vessel. A vessel that I consider to be safe may be considered unsafe by somebody else and vice versa, so I felt we needed much clearer definitions so that everybody knew where they were.
1060. Moving to amendment number 8, I think you are addressing here the issue of the navigation account and the fact that the Authority intends that it will only hold one account and that the navigation tolls are indeed paid under the 1964 Harbours Act as tolls, even though it may be argued that what actually is happening is that they are buying a licence to navigate rather than to pay a toll, and that there is an obligation for harbour authorities to maintain the clarity as to the way in which the money is spent in the maintenance of the harbour. The question that has been raised by the Petitioner here seems to suggest that he does not feel that that is the safe and sound way to go about this particular issue. Could you please tell us what you were meaning?
(Mr Bennett) Yes. I think that has summed it up fairly well, that the navigation tolls we are told are to be spent on the navigations, on maintaining the waterways, and it seems a reasonable request to expect that to be kept in a clear, separate and transparent account so that we can all see where the money is coming in from and where it is going out to on the navigations. That would not necessarily stop further money from being spent on the navigations if so desired but the toll payers would have the assurance that all of the money they pay on tolls is being spent on maintaining the waterways. That was my concern in that particular point.
1061. Can I just ask you, apropos of examination that we heard earlier, what you feel about the amount which you are paying in navigation tolls and how confident you are that those monies are only spent on navigational work?
(Mr Bennett) I think at the moment we have a reasonable degree of confidence that that money is being spent on the navigation because there is a navigation account that demonstrates that quite clearly. Personally speaking with regard to the actual amount, I am not unhappy with the actual amount of the toll fee because my boat is relatively small and it is a sailing yacht so it attracts one of the slightly lower rates of toll fee. Others may disagree. What we do not want to see is massive hikes every year in the toll fee because that is something that is difficult to deal with and budget for, but the actual level I am not desperately unhappy with myself at the moment.
1062. When we were discussing this and I asked you if you could tell me what the overall intent of your petition was, you said something to me about what the Authority had shown about the way in which this was going forward. I wonder if you would like to explain to the Committee what your impression is of the proposals which are before them today.
(Mr Bennett) I felt that a lot of the proposals did not require a Bill and could have been dealt with under the byelaws, as some of it has been already. I am deeply concerned that, as I have said before, the waterways have to been maintained as they should have been under the statutory duty placed on the Authority, and I think that really sums up the feeling that I have about this particular Bill, and that is why I have asked for it to be rejected until such time as we can be sure that the waterways are at least being maintained in a fit state to navigate.
1063. MR SERMON: My Lords, I think that concludes Mr Bennett�s Petition.
1064. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Williams. I invite Mr George to cross-examine the witness.

Cross-examined by MR GEORGE
1065. Turning to your Petition, dealing with clause 4, the particular matter you refer to in your Petition is clause 4(2)(f); do you see that?
(Mr Bennett) Yes.
1066. I do not know whether you have a copy of the Bill to hand, have you?
(Mr Bennett) Yes, I have.
1067. Can we just look, please, at clause 4(4)(f) which is at the top of page 5? You will see there, �A general direction relating to any matter referred to in subsection (2)(e) or (f) shall not apply to any pleasure craft�, so the provision you particularly object to, which is general directions under (f), cannot be applied to your sort of vessel in any event. Were you aware of that?
(Mr Bennett) Not until you pointed it out, sir, no.
1068. The second point you made was that there was a difference between different types of vessels and that what might be appropriate, for instance, for a smaller craft might not be appropriate for a larger craft and vice versa? Do you remember making that point in your Petition?
(Mr Bennett) Yes, I do.
1069. Again, just look, please, at page 4 of the Bill, clause 4(3), towards the bottom. It particularly says under 4(3)(a) that a general direction may apply �to all vessels or to a class of vessels ��, so your point is entirely understood but a general direction does not have to apply to all types of vessels and can apply simply to the relevant vessels, the ones for whom the direction is appropriate and necessary in the interests of promoting navigation as set out in 4(1). Again, were you aware of clause 4(3) when you entered your Petition?
(Mr Bennett) Possibly not.
1070. If we now move on in your Petition, staying in the same section, to when you come to clause 7, you say that the clause places the burden of defence upon the skipper and an unelected authority with little legal or navigation experience would determine such guilt. Do you see that?
(Mr Bennett) Yes.
1071. That is not right, is it? There would have to be a prosecution in the magistrates� court and it is the court which would determine the guilt. There is no question of the Broads Authority determining guilt, is there? Again, did you think that it was the Broads Authority which was going to be imposing the penalties under clause 7 when you settled your Petition?
(Mr Bennett) No, sir, but it would be the Broads Authority that would be bringing the case.
1072. That is right, but it is not going to be they who are going to determine such guilt, which is the words you use in your Petition. Do you see that?
(Mr Bennett) Yes. The word �guilt� was used loosely inasmuch as it meant one would be accused.
1073. If we then come on, and I am going to skip over some of the matters you have raised, please, to clause 12, which you will find in the Bill at page 10, you raise your concerns that there may be persons who are not members of the Royal Yachting Association and, therefore, not themselves consulted under 12(2)(c) and parties to that agreement. Do you remember making that point?
(Mr Bennett) Yes, Sir.
1074. Have you read on at clause 12(3)(b), which is two-thirds of the way down the page, that there has got to be a notice in a newspaper and then clause 4(c) which says that newspaper notice has got to state that representations may be made in writing. The intention of that is so that anyone who is interested and concerned in the matter can themselves speak up, the matter is not determined solely by the people who are members of the Royal Yachting Association. That is why that provision is there, it is not to exclude others, they are going to have their own particular right to make representations under that provision. Again, were you aware of that?
(Mr Bennett) Yes, of course, but that does not cover those living outside the areas covered by newspapers within the area of the Broads. Many people travel a long, long way to get to their boats on the Broads and would not live in such an area.
1075. They will probably they follow the Authority�s website, will they not, if they are persons who have got a boat which they regularly use on the Broads, and provision is made for that under 12(3)(b), is it not?
(Mr Bennett) Yes, but as pointed out earlier not everybody has access to a computer or a website. Many of them probably would not bother to look at it even though it is there, I accept.
1076. Could we come on to clause 18, please, at page 14 of the Bill where your complaint is that clause 18 fails to define the meaning of �standards�. Do you remember that matter?
(Mr Bennett) Yes.
1077. The Bill has got a definitions section and if you would, please, go to page 2 of the Bill, in clause 2(1), if you go to the very bottom of page 2 of the Bill, the word �standards� appears. Can you see that?
(Mr Bennett) Yes.
1078. It says: �Standards means standards and specifications imposed under Section 12(1)�, so that in the ordinary way with a piece of legislation when you get a word and you wonder what does that mean you go to the interpretation section and if it has got a meaning in the interpretation section then that is what applies. That matter is spelt out to someone who reads the Bill properly, I think you would agree? Do you understand the point?
(Mr Bennett) Yes, I understand the point you are making, I just have not seen those standards.
1079. You had not seen that?
(Mr Bennett) No.
1080. So far as your concern about expenditure and that expenditure from toll money should solely go on navigation matters, have you read the provisions of the Bill namely at page 39? Can I take you to page 30. This is very much towards the end of the Bill. You will see at line 15 on page 39 that the second item mentioned is �navigation expenditure� and it is spelt out there, is it not, that must, in other words, be expenditure incurred in relation to navigation functions and not on other matters. That is made absolutely clear, is it not?
(Mr Bennett) Yes, but it does not necessary call for a separate account.
1081. What it does provide for, if you go to the top of the page, at item (6): �It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that taking one financial year with another navigation expenditure is equal to navigation income� and that that matter be demonstrated, at the top of the page in item (5) in a report which has to be published which describes the navigation income and the navigation expenditure. So your very concern for transparency is dealt with, is it not, through the provision at (5) at the top of page 39?
(Mr Bennett) It would appear so, yes.
1082. I am grateful. So far as availability of information about depths and so forth for persons who are using the Broads, Lord Methuen mentioned the inland waterways of Great Britain provide information, and I am told there is a book produced by LA Edwards under that title and that has got a particular section, has it not, on the Broads which contains information supplied by the Broads Authority and gives one information about depths but does contain warnings that much of it is tidal and there will be variations. The basic information is contained in that book, is it not, Inland Waterways of Great Britain, readily available to anyone who wants to take a boat on an English inland waterway.
(Mr Bennett) It could well be, Sir, it is a book I have not heard of. I also think the Broads Authority has a duty to its toll payers to publish that information where its toll payers may readily see it.
1083. Likewise, if you applied to the Broads Authority they have got charts and information which is, I am told, readily available, you have only to enquire. My witness is available and if you have time before you leave this evening, do ask her as to how you can obtain that information. Has it ever occurred to you to ask the Broads Authority whether they have got charts which are available?
(Mr Bennett) One would have assumed if they knew where the places were that needed dredging they would have dredged them.
1084. Then so far as the Hamilton�s Guide which was referred to, that is available and also contains the information, does it not, about depth?
(Mr Bennett) Again, this is a book I have not read.
1085. MR GEORGE: I have no further questions, my Lord.
1086. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr George.
1087. MR WILLIAMS: Am I allowed to come back?
1088. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
1089. MR WILLIAMS: I would just like to pick up Mr George on a number of points. I do not know what he knows about Mr Edwards� book. It is a book about this thick, it covers the whole of the inland waterways of the United Kingdom and the piece on the Broads has got nothing in it that is of any value to a boater in terms of the depth of water that might be available. Can I say that I have asked the Broads Authority, we asked at a public meeting that the Authority had two years ago, if they would publish charts of the hydrographic data that had been provided for them by other people, and I am quite sure one of my colleagues even raised the issue yesterday about the depths of water. I totally reject what Mr George has just said about this information being available, it quite clearly is not.
1090. CHAIRMAN: Mr Williams, could you stay in one place for the sake of the microphone and the shorthand writer.
1091. MR WILLIAMS: I am getting exercise! The other thing I would just say is you will appreciate that we, as Petitioners, have actually come in here very much as a consequence of our desire to see the Broads function as the wonderful place that it is and a place that we have enjoyed for years. Some of these regulations that are being imposed on us, I think Mr George was talking about unsafe vessels and standards, talking about what were standards and what were unsafe vessels, and I do not think he was asking Mr Bennett the right questions, my Lord. Apart from anything else, the only publication that we know of, this Hamilton�s one, is out of print.
1092. CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee would find it very helpful if somebody could produce some information, maybe not tomorrow but for next week, as to what was available and perhaps we could have a look at it or have copies if possible. We do not each need a book that thick, but it would helpful if we could have a photocopy.
1093. MR SERMON: My Lord Chairman, I can bring an example of Hamilton�s tomorrow.
1094. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, that would be very helpful.
1095. MR SERMON: It will only be one copy of the book, I am afraid.
1096. MR WILLIAMS: I am certain that we will be able to provide you with that information at the beginning of next week.
1097. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Williams. That concludes Mr Bennett�s examination. Before we adjourn, and I think we will be adjourning soon, I just want to ask you, Mr Williams, had you actually finished cross-examining Mrs Wakelin or did I cut you short? If I did cut you short I would like to offer you the opportunity to complete it. I am so sorry, before you answer that Lord Trimble has a question.
1098. LORD TRIMBLE: Yes, Mr Bennett. Correct me if I have misunderstood but I think you were saying at one point while the Broads Authority is saying in the promotion of the Bill that it has consulted widely and has referred to its consultations with the Royal Yachting Association, the Inland Waterways Association, et cetera, I think you said there is some overlap in the membership of the Broads Authority and the executive of the RYA and other bodies with the effect that this consultation is not as broad as suggested and, in fact, people are essentially talking to each other, they are a smallish group who are all well-known to each other. Is that what you are suggesting?
(Mr Bennett) I think that was a point made by Mr Williams actually.
1099. LORD TRIMBLE: In that case I will take it up with him at an appropriate time.
1100. CHAIRMAN: I think you can stand down now then, Mr Bennett. Thank you very, very much.

The witness withdrew

1101. CHAIRMAN: Mr Williams, shall I repeat that question or do you remember my question about your cross-examination and whether you had completed it or not?
1102. MR WILLIAMS: I had not completed it exactly, I was so concerned that Mr Bennett could be heard this afternoon. I genuinely believe there are some issues that only Mrs Wakelin could answer for me and some of them I will take into my Petition to present to you at a later stage.
1103. CHAIRMAN: We do have five minutes more. Can you do it in five minutes?
1104. MR WILLIAMS: I will do my very best.
1105. CHAIRMAN: Otherwise we can go on a little bit longer maybe if Mrs Wakelin is prepared to come back. Mr George will have the opportunity to re-examine after this if he needs to.
1106. MR GEORGE: My Lord, if your Lordships want to pursue this question as to what charts are available from the Broads Authority on request ---

MRS TRUDI WAKELIN, recalled
Cross-examination by MR WILLIAMS (Continued)
1107. MR WILLIAMS: Thank you for coming back, Mrs Wakelin. I was actually going to ask you a number of questions about the way in which the management actually takes place. I think one of the things that we are concerned about, and I talk about �we�, my Petitioners are concerned about, and which has come through in evidence is that there is a genuine concern about the level of the training and competence of the members of your staff. Can I just start by asking you about the navigation officer. You said he had got ten years� experience. I really would like to have a career profile for the Committee so we can understand what sort of person we are actually talking about. Would you mind telling us that?
(Mrs Wakelin) Certainly, yes. The navigation officers who is the head navigation ranger for the Broads Authority is Mr Adrian Vernon. He ahs been employed by the Broads Authority for approximately 15 years. Throughout that period he has been employed to manage the navigation ranger function which looks after the behavioural aspects of people who use the waterways and also, as I think I said, covers liaison with shipping agents, emergency services, public bodies and so on. Prior to that time he was employed as a ranger in Epping Forest and covered a series of land-based recreation activities which also included enforcement of byelaws. Prior to that time he was an officer with the Metropolitan Police.
1108. Was he in the water division?
(Mrs Wakelin) No, he was not?
1109. He was not in the Rivers Division?
(Mrs Wakelin) No, he was not.
1110. Do I understand you to say that until he came to the Broads he had not any experience or qualifications?
(Mrs Wakelin) No, I do not think it is fair to say he had not any experience. Mr Vernon navigates for his own recreation and pleasure and owned a boat on the north Norfolk coast. Whilst he worked at Epping Forest he was housed in a tied house effectively and owned a house on the north Norfolk coast which he travelled to regularly in order to sail in the area. He was not employed professionally in a navigation-type managing capacity.
1111. CHAIRMAN: Mr Williams, I am afraid we are going to have to adjourn. I can invite you to carry on tomorrow. Some of the Committee have got other engagements.
1112. MR WILLIAMS: I am sorry, my Lord.
1113. CHAIRMAN: It is not your fault, I apologise. I am just saying we will have to carry on this cross-examination tomorrow morning if that is all right. The Committee is now adjourned until 10.30 tomorrow morning. Thank you.

The witness withdrew

The Committee adjourned at 4.00pm until 10.30am the following day

2nd part

742. It is not laying a mooring?
(Mrs Wakelin) No. Laying a mooring we have separate powers to regulate. Similarly, we also may consider regulating the speed of lifeboats in mooring areas, so here we have a situation where the RNLI, for example, undertakes regular training exercises within the Broads area. Necessarily, they have to do that at high speed. However, we would prefer that in the event of a moored area, because of the wash that can be created and the discomfort to those who are moored, we should regulate the speed in those areas; potentially to apply a speed limit for Breydon Water if the transfer is concluded and items of that nature.
743. MR GEORGE: If we look at clause 4 and we go to clause 4(4), we can see �a general direction relating to any matter referred to in subsection (2)(e) or (f) shall not apply to any pleasure craft�, and pleasure craft are craft that are used for sport and recreation. Why is it that (e) and (f) have been exempted in the case of pleasure craft?
(Mrs Wakelin) This was following discussion with the RYA and the BMF. The RYA particularly had a concern for coastal yachts or other vessels which are making the coastal passage in the event that they need a safe harbour, obviously, from more severe conditions outside of the Broads area. Originally we had this written into the agreement with those organisations, but following the discussions in the other place we have transposed it now and brought it into the Bill.
744. If we then move on to clause 6, �Special directions to vessels�, we have got he categories (a) to (o) over the page, but a substantial number of these are simply repeating provisions which are in the 1988 Act. You have brought them all together, is that not right?
(Mrs Wakelin) That is correct.
745. Let us just go to look, please, at some of the new ones which are at the end of the list, starting at (l), for example. Looking at (l), can you give an example there of where you might have an occasion to give a special direction, that is, a one-off direction to a particular craft under the power under 1(l) at the top of page 6 of the filled-up Bill?
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes, certainly. For (l) that may include things such as requiring oil spill equipment to be kept on workboats so that in the event of an incident they are able to swiftly deal with any pollution incident. For (m), again, we have spoken about limiting the speed of any vessel in the navigation area. We already have speed limit byelaws which give general speed limits, but on occasion, depending on the nature of the craft and also the channel through which it is navigating, they can still create excessive wash even at the permitted speeds, so we may wish to regulate that. Then (n), use of the motive power of any vessel � again, I did just mention wherries passing Breydon. We do have a number of historic and traditional craft on our Broads for which it is a test of skill to navigate in the traditional manner without using any engine. One particular skipper has been rescued by the lifeboat at least four times from being swept out to sea as a feature of that, so we would like to ask him to use engines in order to avoid difficulty in those situations, and (o) is particularly for restricting the use of fires or lights on vessels within the navigation area. This is addressing a point where we have had complaints particularly about night lights on fishing dinghies where there is some confusion about the purpose of the light.
746. We know the evidence as to why the power to give general directions is required. Do you believe that it is necessary to have those additional powers to give special directions?
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes, I do.
747. Then I think we can move on from the question of clause 6 and come on to clause 8, which is dealing with �Enforcement of special directions�. What observations do you want to make on clause 8?
(Mrs Wakelin) Clause 8 is new and it does set out how the special directions can be enforced, in particular, noting that a justice�s warrant will be required before the Authority can board a vessel except where non-compliance with the direction �gives rise to a grave and imminent danger to persons or property�. There are also powers to break open the wheelhouse or cabin of a vessel but only if the vessel is unoccupied and if non-compliance is considered to give rise to �a grave and imminent danger to persons and property�. The Authority has also agreed with boating interests that in determining what is a reasonable time for undertaking the special direction regard would be had to the seriousness of the situation, the time that it would take a competent helmsman to comply and any other special personal circumstances.
748. Those are the matters which are in the Bill in clause 8(2) defining those particular matters as requested by the boating authorities?
(Mrs Wakelin) That is correct.
749. If we then move on to clause 9, �Master�s responsibility in relation to vessels�, is there anything you wish to say about that provisions?
(Mrs Wakelin) This clause is again a standard, well-precedented clause but it does provide that the responsibilities of the master of the vessel are not diminished or affected by the giving of either general or special directions.
750. Then, so far as clause 10 is concerned, which I think is largely uncontroversial, what is its purpose?
(Mrs Wakelin) Clause 10 enables the Authority to designate approved places for the loading and unloading of certain types of goods. Where a place has been designated under this provision for goods of any description the navigation officer may direct that goods of that description shall not be deposited or received elsewhere other than at that place, and a schedule of these designations will be published on our website. This power will help the Authority to ensure that vessels are not loaded or unloaded in inappropriate places but also again that any mitigating works required can be carried out.
751. If we look at clause 10 we can see that after sub-clause (1) there appears a little �2�, and that takes us to the bottom of the page which refers us to the Pages Apart. Could we please then go to page 3 of the Pages Apart for the new proposed clause (1A) and that which has got reference to the website and taking reasonable steps to publicise the designation? Why has that come in by way of a proposed amendment?
(Mrs Wakelin) Again, through dialogue it was identified that people need to be aware of any such designations, so the Authority is happy to publish that.
752. If we come to some of the Petitioners� points relating to these clauses, the first is a general matter in relation in particular to clause 4, which is the Magna Carta argument, that it could be said it is the ultra-bureaucracy argument, namely, that people are being unreasonably and unfairly interfered with. What observations do you have on that matter?
(Mrs Wakelin) Again, we believe that what we are seeking to do by regulating the manner in which people navigate in order to secure safety, ease and convenience of the uses of the navigation is in the public benefit, so whilst it may slightly impinge on personal rights these are considered to be proportionate and appropriate. Again, we are only likely to be asking, for example, for partial closures or for directions which impact on a particular class of vessel. We do not envisage applying these powers in a heavy-handed, blanket kind of way.
753. If we look at clause 4(6), �The Authority may revoke or amend any general direction�, Mr Baguley is particularly concerned that an amendment might take place which would take away clause 4(4), which is the exemption for pleasure craft. Do you recall that matter?
(Mrs Wakelin) I do, but because the exemption for pleasure craft is within the Bill itself at section 4, paragraph 5, obviously, that cannot be withdrawn without changes to the primary legislation.
754. It is at 4(4), is it not, not 4(5)? It is there in 4(4). What you are saying is that it therefore cannot be amended under 4(6). You would have to come back to Parliament to achieve that amendment?
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes.
755. Then at 4(2)(a) and (b), if we look at them on page 4, they are objected to on the grounds that there may be Petitioners with no mechanical means of propulsion and therefore unable to plan their voyages according to the tides because you will have achieved a closure which will interfere with them?
(Mrs Wakelin) Again, we would only close the entire waterway in the event of circumstances such that public safety was at risk, for example, if a coaster was sunk in the middle of the navigation channel where no safe route around the obstruction exists, but, again, as I have said, these are intended to be applied for much more specific circumstances in order to minimise the impact on activities undertaken.
756. It is really Mr Sermon who makes that point, that it may interfere with the planning of voyages and so forth. Is that the sort of matter which would in any event be picked up under Schedule 1, the protective clause, in the consultations before the general directions were made?
(Mrs Wakelin) Absolutely, yes.
757. The last matter on clause 4, �General directions�, is a suggestion that they are going to require more manpower and lead to extra costs to the navigation fund. Do you regard this as being a significant matter, manpower and administrative costs?
(Mrs Wakelin) No, I do not believe any additional manpower will be required or incur significant additional costs.
758. If we turn then to the Petitions against the special directions, which is clause 6, some concern has been expressed about clause 6(4), �The navigation officer may revoke or amend a special direction�, that the navigation officer may not be suitably qualified to revoke or amend a special direction, notwithstanding the fact that he is the person who gives the direction in the first place under 6(1) and under the 1988 Act. Do you see any concern in that respect?
(Mrs Wakelin) No. As has been said earlier, under the 1988 Act the navigation officer already has the ability to give, and by inference withdraw or amend, the special directions. There is no requirement under the 1988 Act to set out the qualifications of the navigation officer. It was a matter which came up during the cross-examination yesterday. I do not know whether this would be an appropriate point for me to respond to the question about what qualifications the navigation officer is required to have by the Broads Authority.
759. Please do.
(Mrs Wakelin) At tab 10 of the bundle there is a report to the Navigation Committee which sets out the skill requirements, training schedule and the job description and person specification for the navigation rangers who are to be designated as authorised officers, and this report was agreed by the Navigation Committee and subsequently taken to the full Authority. If you look at the job description for the navigation ranger you can see that it sets out what the main activities and responsibilities are, and at appendix 2 it sets out the education and qualifications. The navigation officer, whose job title in the Broads Authority�s set-up is head navigation ranger, must also comply with all of these provisions. Additionally, he is the designated person under the OPRC regulations and so must be qualified to on-sea and commander level. He is also responsible to discharge the functions of the officer in charge for the purposes of the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996 in respect of prosecutions. Further functions also include acting as operational liaison with the Marine Coastguard Agency, Trinity House, emergency services and also local authorities, particularly in respect of emergency planning. The skills set includes the requirement for ten years of boating experience and five years of management experience. He is required to have a minimum of powerboat level three RYA certificate and also a boatmaster licence. He is required to have extensive knowledge of the Broads area and its river systems and also substantial knowledge of the boating industry, coastal and small shipping movements, passage planning and pilotage requirement, the ability to interpret and enforce a wide variety of current merchant shipping and criminal and byelaws legislation, and also an understanding of the eco-system of the Broads and how that relates to environmentally friendly boating. He has to have the physical skills to be able to operate a wide range of vessels, including at high speed and in all weathers, day and night.
760. In other words, there will be an adequate system in your view to ensure that the person who is giving these directions does have appropriate qualifications?
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes.
761. There is a general point raised by Mr Waller but I think it was also the same as the point Mr Howes was putting in cross-examination yesterday, that this power in clause 6, the special directions power, is going to prevent general enjoyment of boating, and a picture was painted of people being endlessly harassed by men in big caps. First of all, you have a power to get special directions at present. Has that given rise to that sort of regime and, given the additional powers of special directions, do you think there is a risk that that sort of interfering regime may result?
(Mrs Wakelin) No, I do not.
762. On the question of additional costs, do you envisage significant additional costs as a result of the widening of clause 6 any more than the widening of clause 4?
(Mrs Wakelin) No, I do not.
763. In clause 8(5) there is a reference to the phrase �grave and imminent danger�, and that is a circumstance in which there can be entry to the vessel without a justice�s warrant. What is said by several Petitioners is that that phrase needs to be defined and that it is a subjective phrase, as is said by Mrs Howes. What comment do you make about that?
(Mrs Wakelin) It is a precedented term. It is in section 1 of the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985 which allows a harbourmaster to prohibit entry or to require removal of a vessel which presents a grave and imminent danger to the safety of any person or property, so we are content with its use.
764. If we then turn to page 2 of the Pages Apart, we have the proposed clause (6A) and the proposed clause (6B), and I think both of those stem from points taken by Petitioners. Is that right?
(Mrs Wakelin) That is correct, yes.
765. If we look at (6A), that the vessel shall be kept �effectually secured ��, that is a response to Mr Ollosson at paragraph 7, who had been concerned that the Authority might exercise their powers but then leave the vessel in an insecure position, in other words, do almost as much harm as there was in the first place. Is that matter now resolved?
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes, I believe so.
766. Then, so far as Mr Law�s point, that there is no power to compensate for damage caused, is that met by (6B) on page 2 of the Pages Apart?
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes, that is the intention of that amendment.
767. I think then we can leave the question of the directions powers. Just turning very briefly to clause 12, we have already heard a lot about clause 12 so we can take this pretty quickly. What in brief do you want to say about clause 12?
(Mrs Wakelin) Simply that the purpose of these standards is to ensure safety and also prevent noise or pollution. The nature of the national scheme is that small and unpowered vessels and some traditional Broads craft will not be covered by the mandatory requirements of the scheme where they do not have inboard engines or domestic cooking, heating or lighting appliances. Also, the construction and equipment standards will not be applied to vessels which are ashore or afloat in the area of commercial premises and are there for the purposes of service, repair, storage or sale by or through a commercial entity. I would also like to make the point that these standards have been introduced by byelaws currently, as you have already heard. During the publication of those byelaws there were no objections raised. We believe they are widely accepted by the boating public within the Broads area.
768. There is concern expressed that you may seek to ratchet up the standards in an unreasonable way. Let us just look at clause 12(2)(c) which provides that where you are imposing standards which are not identical but additional to the National Boat Scheme they can only be made with the agreement of the British Marine Federation, the Inland Waterways Association and the Royal Yachting Association. Given that brake, do you see any risk that you might get away with ratcheting up standards in an unreasonable way?
(Mrs Wakelin) No, I do not believe so.
769. Let us then leave the question of clause 12. Clauses 26-33 cover waterskiing and wakeboarding. We have not got anyone from the wakeboarders or the waterskiers here, which is why we are not spending terribly long on the matter, although it is a matter which crops up in at least three of the Petitions. First of all, what is the main difference between the regime which is proposed in the Bill compared to the voluntary scheme that operates at present?
(Mrs Wakelin) The only difference is that it will make the voluntary scheme mandatory, but all the provisions of that scheme will remain the same.
770. And what change is there in the Bill from the position under the byelaws which exist at present?
(Mrs Wakelin) Again, within the provisions of the Bill it enables us to introduce licensing conditions which regulate the activity of waterskiing. The sections of the speed limit byelaws, particularly 6(e) which was referred to yesterday about remaining on or in the water, and also the requirement for not creating excessive wash, which at the moment is set at 300 millimetres from crest to trough at the bank, will both be imported into the licensing conditions, so again those safeguards will be incorporated in the new system.
771. The next two specific matters � first could we go to page 22 of the Bill and clause 28(6), which deals with �The conditions subject to which a permit is issued may include� various conditions; do you see that?
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes.
772. The first of those is (a), �requiring the holder to maintain a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Schedule 3�. First of all, why do you wish to have a power that the person who is permitted has got a policy of insurance?
(Mrs Wakelin) To protect any third parties which may be damaged as a result of this activity.
773. Have you got a power to require a policy of insurance as the law presently stands or do you require this new power in the Bill to achieve that?
(Mrs Wakelin) No, we have no way of introducing this without primary legislation.
774. Similarly, if we look at 6(c), �requiring the holder to be a member of an organisation ��, does the same position apply?
(Mrs Wakelin) That is right, yes. That is currently part of the voluntary agreement but we cannot require it.
775. The last matter on this is that yesterday we looked at the provision in the byelaws about waterboarding and staying on the water. Do you recall that matter? Is there any intention to introduce a more lenient regime, a regime in which people can do the acrobatics which were described yesterday?
(Mrs Wakelin) No. The Broads Authority undertook a full review of waterskiing and wakeboarding in 2007 through an independent process where a Waterski Review Panel was set up and members of a wide range of stakeholders were invited to sit on that group. There have been a number of actions recommended by that group which all further restrict the nature of the activity. Those actions cannot be implemented until such time as we have these powers. There is certainly no intention to widen the scope of the activity at all.
776. Staying with page 22 of the Bill and clause 28(6), if we come down to (e), �making requirements as to the manner in which the holder may carry out water skiing or wake boarding�, including various requirements, is it under that head that you would be able to impose a condition to deal with the matter which is presently dealt with by byelaws?
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes, that is right. That would cover wash, for example.
777. LORD OXBURGH: Could I ask a question there please, Mr George? Looking at 6(c), where you have the power to require someone to be a member of an organisation, that in principle sounds very sensible but you have no control over any arbitrary decisions made by that third party organisation over who might or might not be a member. Does this concern you at all?
(Mrs Wakelin) Since the first review of waterskiing was carried out in the late 1990s the Eastern River Ski Club has been very proactive in managing its membership and ensuring that by a process of peer pressure they are able to influence the behaviour of their members. They have been an extremely responsible body which has largely been responsible for the success of the voluntary scheme, so I have currently no concerns, but we do have a process in place whereby a permit can be removed from someone in the event that they do not comply with these provisions.
778. That is not quite the purpose of my question. This is a third party organisation which might conceivably have an arbitrary policy over who could join and who could not which might have nothing to do with, for example, their waterskiing abilities, and you do not have any control over that. I just wonder whether you do not need to have a discretionary power to waive this requirement if you think a third party organisation might be behaving irresponsibly in that respect. Do you see what I mean?
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes. That is an interesting point and one which we have not deal with through the discussions with them and perhaps needs further thought.
779. MR GEORGE: For how long has the voluntary agreement been operating which has got this particular requirement?
(Mrs Wakelin) I wish you would not ask me dates. It was approximately 2000 when the voluntary agreement was discussed with the Broads Authority as being an appropriate way to continue to manage waterskiing in the Broads and they accepted it, at which point it was then implemented, but I stand to be corrected.
780. How many of these organisations are there, because plainly Lord Oxburgh has raised a very reasonable concern? Is it a situation that it is a monopoly situation, that there is simply one organisation which requires, or what is the position?
(Mrs Wakelin) There are currently two organisations that we deal with who represent waterskiing interests within the Broads. The local club is the River Ski Club, but also British Waterski are involved as well.
781. What about waterboarding?
(Mrs Wakelin) It is all done under the same organisations.
782. So at any rate there are two organisations. I am not saying that is necessarily the complete answer but it is not simply a single one and one of them is a local organisation. There is one last matter which was raised by Mr Law. He is hostile to wakeboarding generally and I think would like the Bill amended so as to exclude any wakeboarding. Has the permission of wakeboarding on certain areas itself given rise to a particular hazard to boaters or other problems, given the experience you have had of it over a number of years?
(Mrs Wakelin) When the review was carried out there was no evidence which supported that except that there clearly is a perception that wakeboarding creates a greater wash at the bank. One of the pieces of work that we have done, again following the recommendation of the group, is now to require all wakeboarding vessels to undertake a wake test under particular conditions, of which the methodology has also been agreed, in order to ensure that provided the boat is operated correctly it can comply with the current conditions, and that therefore the activity per se is no more damaging. However, I think it is also fair to say that in the early days of this sport appearing as a subset of waterskiing it was a thrill-seeking element which was particularly wanting to enjoy it and pushed the boundaries significantly, but all of those circumstances would have been circumstances that, whether it was wakeboarding or waterskiing, were an offence against the byelaw and therefore we had measures in place where we could deal with jumping, for example.
783. Very briefly, personal watercraft. There is a concern that you may be seeking to introduce the use of personal watercraft. What is the position?
(Mrs Wakelin) No. Jet skis are currently banned from the Broads under byelaw 23 of the Vessel Registration Byelaws. What we have done is simply to improve the definition because �jet ski� is a proprietary term and under other case law elsewhere it has become clear that that was not adequate, so we have simply sought to address that point. They will remain banned on the Broads waterways.
784. Could we now turn to the question of the closure of waters for recreational reasons, which are the subject of a proposed amendment which I mentioned a little while ago, and for this purpose I think we need to open tab 3, pages 40 and 41 of the Keeling Schedule. Can you just explain the background to the proposed amendments? When I say �the proposed amendments� I mean not just the one I mentioned this morning but the package.
(Mrs Wakelin) We have a system in place at the moment whereby the Authority may, for purposes of constructing or maintaining works in the navigation, or facilitating the holding of any recreational function or event, or facilitating motorboat racing on Oulton Broad, have the ability to temporarily restrict or close those waterways. It was a regime whereby there was no time limit on the construction of works, although they must not interfere unreasonably with the passage of seagoing vessels.
785. Just pause there. That is the effect of section 10(2)(a). That governs that. That is unaffected by anything in the Bill.
(Mrs Wakelin) That is correct.
786. Let us then come to Oulton Broad motorboat racing. That is dealt with in 10(1)(c), and also in 10(2)(c), over to page 41, and that again is unaffected by anything in the Bill.
(Mrs Wakelin) That is right. That enables us to close for a total of not more than six hours in any period of 24 hours but, also, on not more than 20 days in any one year, Oulton Broad, for the express purposes of power boat racing.
787. That is the 1988 Act, unamended. The change which is made concerns clause 10(1)(b), which then feeds through to 10(2)(b), which is the changes. Why those changes to 10(2)(b)?
(Mrs Wakelin) Previously we were allowed to close the waterways for a recreational event for a maximum of eight 30-minute periods in any 24 hours. In the event, as it happens, the majority of requests we have had for closures of the waterway for recreational events tend to be more of the nature of a single event, such as scout groups who want to carry out a canoeing activity in the river, or to undertake power boat training on one of the other broads where it is not otherwise permitted. In those sorts of circumstances 30 minutes is a little restrictive, although, clearly, six hours may be a rather wide period of time.
788. What is the effect of the amendment (iv) at the top of page 41 if someone applies for six hours and you consider, having looked at the case, that they have a case for having a regulation made but that they can only justify, let us say, four hours rather than six hours? How does (iv) come into operation?
(Mrs Wakelin) That requires us to minimise the duration of any restriction. So, obviously, on assessment of the event one would not permit the full closure if it could be carried out within less time, and also to ensure that the effects of any closure was mitigated on the use of other vessels in the waterway which were not involved in the function.
789. You gave two examples: you said a sailing club wanting to do power boat training and you instanced a scout group - I think you said wanting to do canoeing, was it?
(Mrs Wakelin) That is right, yes.
790. Are there any other examples you have got which you have in mind where you think it would be appropriate to have more than the 30-minute limit?
(Mrs Wakelin) A further example has been the Lowestoft and Oulton Broad Yacht Club at Oulton Broad who have required an exclusion zone for the purposes of hosting their firework display from a barge which is moored on the broad, for which we require an exclusion zone around it, obviously, for safety so that people are not getting too close to the fireworks. Discussion has occurred over the last couple of days about the requirements of the Port Marine Safety Code and the requirement for the Broads Authority to undertake a risk assessment of all marine hazards. There are a couple of hazards which have been identified through the hazard review exercise involving stakeholders, which have suggested that the hosting of events such as regattas in the main navigation area poses a risk, and we have had, on occasion, regatta organisers asking us whether there is the possibility that we could prevent motorboats going through the course at the time, or requiring that they must use a particular route through, so as to minimise the potential conflict. That is not something that we have done up until now; it has been addressed through a separate risk assessment, but, again, because we are required to keep those risks under review it may be an appropriate use of this provision in the future.
791. If we look at the bottom of page 40 of the Keeling Schedule, we have section 10(2)(iii): �in such a way as to deny to any vessel all means of passing through the waterway�. That is unaffected. That is in the 1988 Act and is going to remain, so that even during the firework display, or the regatta or the scouting group�s activity or the powerboat racing, there will have to be maintained a means by which a vessel can pass through the relevant waterway. Is that right?
(Mrs Wakelin) That is correct, yes.
792. CHAIRMAN: Mr George, could I ask the witness to clarify that? If a vessel which has auxiliary power, a sailing vessel, wants to go through, could the Authority require the vessel to motor in order to go in a particular route, or could the vessel choose its own means of propulsion in these circumstances?
(Mrs Wakelin) I think in the event that it had the ability, had auxiliary power and, again, dependent on the site-specific nature (so the width of the safe channel that we had been able to establish), then it is possible that we might require the use of the motor, but obviously we would seek to minimise the impact on any other users, and hopefully that would not necessarily be the case. The majority of these events take place on large, open water bodies and, therefore, is unlikely to be an issue.
793. MR GEORGE: This is where the provisions of the Bill interlink, because under clause 6(1)(n) you can give a special direction as to the use of the motive power of any vessel. So if it were absolutely critical to get someone to do something, the answer is you have got a power to give a special direction there, but, as Mrs Wakelin said, she does not envisage it in the circumstances your Lordship has alluded to. If we then leave that matter, we end with just a few other provisions in the Bill which I need to ask your assistance on. First of all, could we go to Schedule 7. These are provisions which are not petitioned against. The first matter I want to ask you about is providing beacons in the River Yare and the Lower Bure. Can you comment on that matter and let us know where that is dealt with within the Bill? We find it in the Bill at page 40, in Schedule 7, paragraph 12. It may be that their Lordships will be looking through and wondering: �How on earth does that arise?� That is line 34 and following. What is the point of that provision?
(Mrs Wakelin) This in the event that the navigation jurisdiction for Breydon Water and the Lower Bure is transferred to the Broads Authority, then, clearly, we also need to become the responsible body for the aids to navigation within that same area.
794. It is really a consequential measure?
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes, that is correct.
795. The only other one I want to take you to is page 41 of the Bill, in line 12. It says: �In paragraph 12(1) after �abandon� insert �or which is unserviceable��. That is an extension of the powers to deal with the removal of wrecks. What is the purpose behind that amendment?
(Mrs Wakelin) Again this follows on from the Golden Galleon example which was given yesterday whereby we currently have a power in the 1988 Act to deal with sunken or abandoned vessels. The Golden Galleon was not sunken, although it was at risk of becoming so at any given moment, and, similarly, it was not abandoned initially until the owner realised the cost liability involved, so that simply extends our abilities then to deal with vessels of that nature.
796. MR GEORGE: That seems to be uncontentious. Mrs Wakelin, those are the only matters I want you to deal with, thank you.
797. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Howes, it is your turn now to cross-examine Mrs Wakelin, if you would like.

Cross-examined by MR HOWES
798. MR HOWES: Obviously with there being no break before questions beginning and there are four questioners and I have prepared some questions, some of which Mrs Wakelin has already answered, I am afraid my questions will dot about a bit and I hope the Committee will give me some forbearance for that. Mrs Wakelin, you used an example of possibly a coaster being sunk on Breydon Water as a need to close the waterway. How large is the largest vessel currently using the Broads?
(Mrs Wakelin) The largest vessel currently using the Broads would be the Queen of the Broads which is one of the passenger trip boats operating out of Wroxham. I could not quote you her length overall off the top of my head, but somewhere in the region of 100 feet.
799. LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: How many passengers would she take?
(Mrs Wakelin) Again I cannot give you precise figures, but it is in the region of about 80.
800. LORD METHUEN: There has been in the past commercial traffic of seagoing vessels to Norwich and I would have thought that that was included in Mr Howes� question. Is there still any commercial traffic to Norwich and, if so, how big would that be?
(Mrs Wakelin) There is not currently any commercial traffic to Norwich. There has not been a vessel up to Norwich for trade since 1989, which was the last one. We are currently in discussion with shipping agents for reinstatement of coastal ships to the Cantley sugar beet factory which is about half-way up the River Yare.
801. How many vessels would that be?
(Mrs Wakelin) Well, again at the moment they are requesting something in the region of 100 foot in length. We have been out and had a look on-site with them to explain the nature of the difficulties of some of those voyages and they are considering their position and coming back to us. We do not have details of precise craft as yet.
802. MR HOWES: Mrs Wakelin, you kindly gave us statistics from a report in 2007, I believe, of safety and, in particular, fires on Broads� boats. Is that the year following the written statistics that you gave to the House of Lords� Library because those only go up to 2006?
(Mrs Wakelin) The statistics that were given to the House of Lords� Library were provided by Defra.
803. So they cover different years? Yours were for 2007 and the statistics that Defra provided their Lordships went up to 2006.
(Mrs Wakelin) That is right, yes. The report that I referred to is a public document and went to the Broads Authority in their May 2008 meeting as agenda item 22. It is the same table that you have from the Lords� Library with the addition of 2007 in the final column.
804. So at least in 2006 those statistics there show for the Broads a total of 22 fires and explosions aboard boats and at the bottom of that table, as you explained, 19 of those were caused by arson incidents, rather regrettable, but arson incidents nonetheless.
(Mrs Wakelin) Indeed.
805. So that left a total of three boats that had fires in that year, and was it not the case that two of those already had boat safety certificates?
(Mrs Wakelin) I could not confirm or deny that without checking it, but I am happy to take your word for it.
806. There are just a couple of things consequent upon that. In your report on the 2007 statistics, you mentioned that a boat that did have a boat safety certificate actually had a fire, the cause of which was a curtain close to the cooking facilities, yes?
(Mrs Wakelin) I believe that was the case. The details are not in the report in front of me, but I believe that was the case.
807. So what kind of safety scheme is it that grants a pass level to a boat with a curtain that close to the cooking facilities?
(Mrs Wakelin) It is a scheme which requires an examination once every four years in order to comply. It is then the responsibility of the owner of the vessel or the master, depending on whether it is private or hire, to ensure continued compliance with its provisions. One of the activities that both the Broads Authority and the National Boat Safety Scheme Office undertakes is an investigation of all such incidents in order to determine whether there is a shortcoming of the scheme itself, whereby they may promote further changes to the scheme, or, alternatively, whether it might have been a shortcoming of the Boat Safety Scheme examiner requiring performance management of his skills, or indeed that there were some modifications carried out in the intervening period since the examination was undertaken.
808. Can you confirm with the Committee, therefore, that you have followed up on this particular incident?
(Mrs Wakelin) The Head of Waterway Strategy and Safety will have carried out a complete investigation into the incident, yes.
809. How do you enforce the Boat Safety Scheme? You conduct inspections with boats at random?
(Mrs Wakelin) That is correct.
810. Is that when you give somebody a seven-day notice of compliance?
(Mrs Wakelin) The process is quite a complicated one. We produce what is known as a �seven-day producer� in the event that a boat-owner has not provided evidence of compliance to the Broads Authority. We also undertake hazardous boat inspections from time to time either on a random basis or looking particularly at visiting craft because vessels who come in from sea and are only visiting the Broads for a period of 28 days, whilst they are not subject to the full requirements of the Boat Safety Scheme, they are required to comply with the hazardous boat provisions and, therefore, we can do a check on those to make sure that they are not importing a danger into the system, as it were.
811. What happens to a boat that then does not come forward within those seven days and demonstrate compliance?
(Mrs Wakelin) We then follow up with the procedures as they are set out ultimately resulting in a prosecution, if necessary.
812. Could you tell the Committee how many boats you issue notices to and how many boats have not complied with those notices and then how many prosecutions have actually resulted?
(Mrs Wakelin) I cannot give you full details since the introduction of the scheme, I do not have that report in front of me. We have, I think, around six prosecution cases where the papers are currently pending with our solicitors. There have not been any that have made it to the magistrates� court as yet. We have an agreed procedure with the navigation committee and the Broads Authority whereby our enforcement policy is such that we undertake a series of steps. Firstly, the response of the Authority is to provide advice making sure that the boat owner is fully aware of his requirements. If he still fails to comply we give him clearer guidance on exactly how it is that he needs to comply before we then look at considering whether or not a prosecution is beneficial and taking that formal step. At the moment, because the introduction of the scheme has been done in a phased way, so it started in 2007 but only applied to certain classes of vessel, 2008 is year two, which we are currently in, and year three starts 1 April, we have been lenient with people as the scheme has been put in place in order to allow a certain period of bedding down. However, what I would say is that we have been promoting the Boat Safety Scheme as an advisory scheme since its inception in around 1995 and have ensured that the requirements of the scheme have been made widely available. We have hosted a series of workshops and seminars which people have been invited to attend and to bring their boats to for advice either from Broads Authority staff or Boat Safety Scheme examiners in order to assist as far as possible to make sure that people understand their responsibilities and are able to comply.
813. MR HOWES: So in the almost two years since the formal introduction of the scheme there have been yet to be any prosecutions?
(Mrs Wakelin) That is correct.
814. Could we turn to the issue of wakeboarding perhaps.
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes.
815. The Act defines a difference between wakeboarding and waterskiing and Mr George, I believe, was kind enough to introduce the differences between those two water-based activities to the Committee. Would you agree that in practice there are two, maybe three, key differences. One, a water-skier tends to be towed by a boat that is going faster than a wake-boarder?
(Mrs Wakelin) That is correct.
816. Secondly, a water-skier tends to be behind the boat as opposed to a wake-boarder who is intending to be at an angle to the boat?
(Mrs Wakelin) Not necessarily.
817. LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: Skiers can be by the side of the boat. I have water-skied in my time when I was a lot younger and you can easily be at the side of the boat and parallel to the driver.
818. MR HOWES: I accept that it is possible. Can I continue my questioning?
819. LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: Yes.
820. MR HOWES: Thank you. The purpose of wakeboarding is to ride on the wake, is it not, and the wake is out at an angle to the boat?
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes.
821. So in a narrow river your wake-boarders are more likely to be out of the line of the boat and therefore potentially, as the boat goes around a corner, interacting with other craft than a water-skier would?
(Mrs Wakelin) Again, possibly but not necessarily.
822. How many complaints has the Authority had about wakeboarding?
(Mrs Wakelin) Again, it is a matter of public record in the notes of the Water-ski Review Panel, and I do not have those papers to hand, but it was only in the region of 20-30 or thereabouts for the period during which the panel considered the issue.
823. The third essential difference between skiing and wakeboarding is the height of the wash created by the towing boat, is it not?
(Mrs Wakelin) No, it is not. It is a commonly held perception that is the case but, as I have already mentioned, we have undertaken a series of workshops and boat testing events in order to try and prove or disprove that point. It actually does not make any difference, unless the boat is ---
824. What does not make any difference?
(Mrs Wakelin) Which activity you are carrying out. The height of the wash does not make any difference. What does make a difference and what is not permitted under the rules is whether the boat has been ballasted in order to try and create a higher wash. That is not permitted.
825. So there is a maximum height of wash that a wake-boarder can create without contravening the rules, is there not, 30cm?
(Mrs Wakelin) That is right.
826. That is a foot in old money.
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes.
827. How do you enforce that particular provision?
(Mrs Wakelin) In a number of ways. Firstly, as I have said, we have tested all of the vessels to make sure that they can comply with that provided they are properly held, we have navigation rangers who patrol the areas during the times that the activity is taking place and we have erected signs on all of the zones which set out when the activity is permitted and gives the telephone number of our Broads� radio-control officer that in the event anybody has cause for concern they can let us know and we can immediately investigate.
828. Have there been any prosecutions as a result of the complaints that you have had?
(Mrs Wakelin) There have been something in the order of two to three prosecutions.
829. I am sorry, my Lord, I am dotting around a little bit. Could we talk about the navigation officer, please. Who is that person?
(Mrs Wakelin) He is the head navigation ranger of the Broads Authority.
830. Is that person the person authorised under the Act to give instructions to boats to make their special directions as and when needed?
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes.
831. So would that person always be present when special directions were given?
(Mrs Wakelin) No, not necessarily. The provisions of the 1988 Act allow for his deputies also to give special directions.
832. So how many people would those be?
(Mrs Wakelin) The navigation rangers, for which I gave the figures earlier, vary during the course of the year, so a further 12 during the summer period or a further five during the winter period.
833. Going to four as from next year. Those still potentially 12 people, are they all out on the water at one time? More likely, how many people are typically out on the water at the same time?
(Mrs Wakelin) It varies hugely actually depending on the roster. Obviously we have about 13 staff but we cover seven days a week. The staff are only contracted to work five days a week so there is cover required there. With holidays, sickness, et cetera, it varies. This is one of the reasons why we have sought to supplement those eyes and ears functions by the auxiliary navigation rangers.
834. Those people cannot give special directions however?
(Mrs Wakelin) No, they cannot.
835. How many launches are out at the same time?
(Mrs Wakelin) Again, that would vary on a daily basis. The Authority has eight navigation launches. It also has a fleet of other vessels which include a RIB which is used in the event that we need to get to an incident at high speed. We also have a series of workboats that are usually in operation around the system and, again, those staff are trained and instructed to identify any poor behaviour to radio-control in order to direct the navigation rangers to any particular incident. It has frequently been mentioned in the Broads that there exists about a half a mile bubble around a navigation ranger at any one time where everybody�s behaviour is marvellous because people are aware they are there. The purpose of having the radio-control facility, which co-ordinates all of the communication activity, is to understand what is going on in the river and then put a navigation ranger in the appropriate area as required.
836. The fact remains, does it not, that you have eight boats, some of which may be staffed by non-authorised people during the working day. Outside the working day there will be a lot lower coverage. That small number of people is there to cover 125 miles of navigable waterway, is it not?
(Mrs Wakelin) That is correct, yes.
837. In practice it must be pretty difficult to enforce anything, must it not?
(Mrs Wakelin) No, I do not believe so. As I have said, we have a system in place whereby incidents can be reported and the navigation rangers will respond. At a meeting of the British Hire Cruiser Federation last week the Broads Authority was applauded for its navigation ranger service and they requested that the Environment Agency and the British Waterways would do well to try and establish a similar level of patrolling function on their waterways.
838. But we are not talking about other places here, merely the 125 miles that constitute the Broads.
(Mrs Wakelin) That is correct.
839. CHAIRMAN: Mr Howes, it is one o�clock. I imagine you are going to want to continue for a few minutes.
840. MR HOWES: Yes, please, but not now.
841. CHAIRMAN: Well, it is for us to decide when we adjourn.
842. MR HOWES: It is indeed, yes.
843. CHAIRMAN: I am proposing that the Committee adjourns now and reconvenes at two o�clock.

The Committee adjourned from 1.01pm to 2.00pm

844. CHAIRMAN: Before we continue with Mrs Wakelin�s cross-examination, Mr Sermon can only really be here today for presenting his Petition, so the Committee has agreed that he will do that some time this afternoon. I hope that we can finish with Mr Howes� cross-examination of Mrs Wakelin quite quickly and then we shall adjourn for a little deliberation before we start Mr Sermon�s Petition.
845. MR SERMON: I just have one question on that, my Lord Chairman. At what point would I carry out my own cross-examination of Mrs Wakelin?
846. CHAIRMAN: Well, we have only just heard about this. It really depends on how long Mr Howes takes. I think he has to finish his cross-examination. If it is reasonably quick and there is time for you to cross-examine Mrs Wakelin, I am sure the Committee will be happy for you to do that.
847. MR SERMON: Would it be helpful to your Lordships if I were to make a call to my employers and see if I can arrange to be here tomorrow?
848. CHAIRMAN: Well, it would be, yes.
849. MR SERMON: I will endeavour to. I do not have the number with me as I do not have my company phone.
850. CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot help you with that!
851. MR SERMON: I will be able to resolve that within half an hour or so.
852. CHAIRMAN: So we will carry on with Mr Howes� cross-examination, but, before you start, Mrs Wakelin just wanted to make a statement about something she said this morning.
(Mrs Wakelin) I just wanted to clarify a point of evidence about fires and explosions during 2007. I checked up on the detail of the hire boat incident which occurred last year and in fact that particular incident was as a result of an electrical installation fault, it was a faulty inverter, and the fire was seated in the engine compartment. The curtains and kettle incident was in a previous year.
853. CHAIRMAN: That is very helpful, thank you very much. Mr Howes, would you like to continue your cross-examination.
854. MR HOWES: I would, my Lord Chairman, but two things came to my attention in the last couple of seconds. Number one, we may have a case of mistaken identity with regard to Mr Sermon in that I understand it is Mr Bennett who can only be here today. That is what I am told. Is that correct, Mr Bennett?
855. MR BENNETT: Yes.
856. CHAIRMAN: Well, I am sorry about that. I was told it was Mr Sermon. I do not know that we can do two Petitions this afternoon, so perhaps we can resolve this while you are continuing.
857. MR HOWES: Could I ask Mr Bennett to handle that with an official outside of the room perhaps. The second point, my Lord Chairman, is that the gentleman on my right, Mr Sadler, is asking if there will be an opportunity to correct yesterday�s record as yesterday there was an opportunity to correct the previous day�s record.
858. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but does it have to be done today?
859. MR HOWES: Mr Sadler, are you here tomorrow?
860. MR SADLER: Yes, I am here tomorrow.
861. MR HOWES: Then we can do that tomorrow.
862. CHAIRMAN: I think you will be on tomorrow, Mr Sadler, so perhaps you can bring it up at the beginning of your cross-examination which will probably be tomorrow, unless Mr Howes is very quick.
863. MR HOWES: I will try my best, my Lord Chairman. Mrs Wakelin, I would like to come back to something else you said this morning. Obviously, we do not have the benefit of the transcript, but my memory is that you said that one of the reasons for having additional special directions was on the issue of a wherry, ie, one of the very large old traditional boats, which on four occasions has had to be saved from being washed out to sea - I think those were your words � as it went down the River Bure and crossed into the Yare or vice versa, so at the lowest point of the navigable waterways closest to the sea.
(Mrs Wakelin) That is correct, yes.
864. It is potentially a little embarrassing for the person, but could you name the wherry yacht concerned and give us a little bit more idea of the circumstances? The reason I ask the question is that I spoke to two wherry skippers over lunch, and it is a pretty small group of people, and they could not identify who it was.
(Mrs Wakelin) It was Peter Bower with the wherry Hartor(?). There is a series of events held throughout each summer period as part of our programme of interpretation and understanding the special nature of the Broads and the wherry Hartor is used as part of this travel round and to describe to people the cultural heritage. On several years� progress, we have tried to work with Peter to ensure that he takes account of the tides in order to arrive at Yarmouth at the appropriate time and, therefore, transit Breydon, as we heard yesterday, and obviously passage-parrying(?) is quite important. For three at least subsequent years, we have had an issue in this regard and the lifeboat has been called out to attend to him.
865. So it is definitely not the case that people were put on standby, but they actually needed to be there?
(Mrs Wakelin) That is right. We have sought to escort him because we are aware of his reputation, but our navigation launches do not venture down beyond the Haven Bridge and, on several occasions, he has gone down through into the ports area.
866. LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: Who pays for the lifeboat to do this rescue?
(Mrs Wakelin) It is the RNLI, a charitable organisation. I do not believe they seek to recharge the cost to him.
867. CHAIRMAN: Voluntary.
868. MR HOWES: When we talked about the density of working river launches and their ability to patrol and advise on safety and so on and to give special directions, if necessary, how many launches patrol the area of the southern Broads between, let us say, Great Yarmouth and Norwich, for example, on the River Yare?
(Mrs Wakelin) There are three launches between Great Yarmouth and Norwich, one which is based in Norwich at the Broads Authority�s property at Poswick(?), one which is based at Hardy(?) Dyke which is just by the mouth to the River Chet, about half-way on the River Yure, and the Breydon launch covers the River Yare from Reedham(?) downstream.
869. So, if there were an emergency at, say, Rockland, how long would it take the boat that is normally based at Hartley Cross(?) to get there?
(Mrs Wakelin) Well, depending on the nature of the emergency and on where he is in covering his area because the Hartley also covers the River Chet, so, if he is in Lodham(?), it will take longer than if he is already in Rockland, but potentially a couple of hours.
870. So a couple of hours and it qualifies under the standard to which you are supposed to act as low as reasonably practicable?
(Mrs Wakelin) I think it needs to be remembered that the Broads Authority is not an emergency service. We act in support of the emergency services, but our responsibility is in order to try and manage the behaviour of people and, in the event that an incident takes place, we follow up with the investigations, take witness statements and further a prosecution, if necessary. In the event of fire explosion, for example, then the coast guard, the police or fire services would be called.
871. It would probably take longer for the coast guard to get there, would it not?
(Mrs Wakelin) Very possibly, which is why we act in support of them.
872. Two hours is about the kind of length of time that it could take for a vessel to reach a situation?
(Mrs Wakelin) That is correct.
873. You also mentioned that regatta organisers had asked you for restrictions on the ability of yachts to pass through a certain part of the waterways.
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes, we have had discussions with various clubs in the past who have asked whether we could do more to regulate hire vessels during the period.
874. That would not be consistent with the notion of the right of free passage through the waterways, would it?
(Mrs Wakelin) I am sorry, I do not understand your point.
875. Restricting the use of the waterway by some users would not be consistent with the right of other users to pass through that waterway, would it?
(Mrs Wakelin) No, I think the point is that they have asked us to regulate the manner in which they would navigate, so, for example, hire boats or motorboats generally are required to give way to sail boats, but hire boats do not always understand the rules and, therefore, it has been asked whether we can give more explicit instructions for hire boats to keep to the far right-hand side of the river, thereby less likely to go through the middle of a course, so they are still able to pass through that water body, but in such a way that would minimise their potential impact on the event.
876. What happened to the notion of the word �please� or �I suggest�?
(Mrs Wakelin) We do it frequently. We report on the exercise of our powers by authorised officers to the Navigation Committee at every meeting and one of the pieces of information that we provide to the committee members are the verbal warnings that we give to people. What we do not provide, because there are simply too many to count, are the numbers of times when we speak to people informally, if you like, to say exactly that, �Please can you slow down.�, �Can you ensure that you keep to the correct side of the navigation channel�, and so on. For a large part, I would say, people respond to that, but not always and obviously it is in those situations where we need to be able to follow up on a polite request with something more formal.
877. In those circumstances, it might be quite difficult, might it not, for example, during Horning Regatta Week, Horning being a village on the Broads with a local sailing club, when boats are sailing up and down a mile-long stretch of water for a launch to actually police that? It might even add to the traffic, might it not?
(Mrs Wakelin) Potentially, yes, but again what we have done in the past during Horning Week is to have a launch at either end of the course, advising people as they approach.
878. Really?
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes.
879. How frequently is that then?
(Mrs Wakelin) Every year for more time than I can care to think of. We have a dory which is kept at Horning during Horning Week, and a navigation launch which is kept at Wroxham also focuses its attention on that particular area during that period because, as you have rightly said, it is an extremely busy part of the river, it is difficult to navigate at the best of times at the height of summer because there is a very sharp bend in it, and we feel that it is appropriate that advice is given to people in order to minimise the disruption that is caused.
880. MR HOWES: Whilst we can agree on the need to give people advice and to ask �Please�, when it comes to actual enforcement, you have one boat that might be there, he is paying special attention to being there ----
881. CHAIRMAN: Mr Howes, I think this is really part of your evidence, is it not? You are making statements of disagreement and would it not be better if you presented that as part of your evidence.
882. MR HOWES: Okay, my Lord. I will endeavour to do that. I think I am just about done with my questions, except for one thing. Could you tell us whether there are any circumstances whereby you might endeavour to stop a regatta event because of high winds or something like that?
(Mrs Wakelin) No.
883. MR HOWES: That is very helpful, thank you very much.
884. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Howes. Mr Baguley, I now invite you to cross-examine Mrs Wakelin, if you would like.

Cross-examined by MR BAGULEY
885. MR BAGULEY: I do not have too many questions. I think you mentioned, when talking about policies towards rangers, that a working party had been set up and I seem to recall that you mentioned that this was members, so was that the Broads Authority�s member working party?
(Mrs Wakelin) The member working group that I referred to this morning is a group which was agreed to be set up by the Broads Authority at its last meeting. It does contain five members of the Broads Authority of which four are also members of the Navigation Committee. They are not there simply to look at navigation rangers.
886. That is interesting, thank you very much; that was the point I was moving on to. When talking about accidents and the Boat Safety Report, which we have kindly been given, I notice, at line 9, �Drowning near-miss�. In a period of some 13 years we go from zero to 23 cases. I wonder whether you would like to give an explanation of why that might be?
(Mrs Wakelin) I think you will find that the majority of that is because of an improvement in the reporting procedures. The other navigating authorities have similarly seen an increase since the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities set up the IRIS system, which is the Instant Reporting database, which looks to monitor a national picture of incidents in order to try and identify particular problems that may need further consideration. I do not believe there is significantly any difference in the actual numbers of people who have entered the water, but the reporting procedures have been improved.
887. Does that have anything to do with meeting targets for rangers?
(Mrs Wakelin) No.
888. Thank you. Moving on to boat licensing, and I hope this is not taken to be too light-hearted a comment, but you are looking at the 85 kg weight limit for individual hirers. Does this mean that boat hire yards are going to have to weigh each individual as they go aboard?
(Mrs Wakelin) The position which has been suggested by the British Marine Federation, which is the industry body for hire boat operators, and also the Broads Hire Boat Federation, which is the local body, is that it is for the hire boat operators to undertake a risk assessment, and it is for them to decide how best they do it. Quite a number of hire boat operators have suggested that, clearly, it would be impractical to ask people to stand on the scales. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that a visual assessment could be undertaken to give some guide.
889. That might leave me out. I suggest � and I do not know whether you would agree � that this is close to unworkable.
(Mrs Wakelin) I do not agree at all, no.
890. Thank you for that. Moving on to another related point, because it is in connection with the Breakaway V incident, it is well-known that, especially at Wroxham, where there are a number of day-boat hire yards, the hirers may go aboard, and frequently do, with four people on board, and then move down to Horning and pick up another four, or whatever, and therefore exceed the limit without the knowledge of the yard.
(Mrs Wakelin) That is correct.
891. You do agree with that?
(Mrs Wakelin) Yes, I do.
892. How does the Bill prevent this?
(Mrs Wakelin) Through the licensing conditions we require a plaque to be put on the stern of the vessel which will indicate to navigation rangers the maximum number of people permitted on that boat, and they will be able to make a visual assessment. Also, as part of the contract of hire with the hire boat party their attention is drawn to the maximum number of people allowed on that boat. They have to sign that document and, clearly, in the event that they flout that agreement by taking further people on board, then they have a duty of care for their own safety, and that would also be a part protection to the hire boat operator in the event that a further incident occurred.
893. So the Bill would not actually prevent it but you would give them advice?
(Mrs Wakelin) Absolutely.
894. Moving on to clause 9 of the Bill, who is responsible for damage when special directions are given? The Bill seems to say

566. You were using the word �I� before, but you are talking about the Authority?
(Dr Packman) I am just making the point that I cannot make changes to the Navigation Committee, but it is the Broads Authority. I think the changes that you are referring to are the way in which the Navigation Committee is appointed. In 2004, so the previous-to-last time when the Committee was appointed, the Broads Authority is required to consult a range of organisations representing different user groups and, when that was done in 2004, I think there were seven places, and the Broads Authority consulted 23 different organisations, but only ten names came forward and many of the organisations produced the same name. More worryingly to members of the Broads Authority is that one of those individuals whose name was put forward had barely completed the application form other than his name. In 2004, the members of the Broads Authority said, �We need to have a look at the process by which the Navigation Committee is appointed because clearly this does not seem appropriate�. The other thing to bear in mind is that, in the 20 years that the consultative process and appointments have been going, no single woman had ever come through that consultative process. Now, what happened was that we took advice from colleagues at Defra who pointed us in the direction of the Office for the Commissioner of Public Appointments who publish guidelines about how public appointments should be handled, and in fact were rather surprised that the Broads Authority was not using that system. OCPA, as it is known, produces guidelines which advise on some criteria that need to be used, and those are based on merit, independent scrutiny, equal opportunities, probity, openness and transparency. The process that the Broads Authority went through is that it consulted user organisations about bringing in a revised system which would open up the process to a wider group of people, but still remain within the framework set by the 1988 Act. We consulted particularly the boating organisations. Now, as a result of that process, some changes were made to the Broads Authority�s original ideas, including offering longstanding members of the Navigation Committee the opportunity for a further term because clearly the OCPA guidance assumes, or makes the assumption, that after ten years or that sort of length someone would stand down, and we had three members, one who had served more than 20 years, one 16 years and the other about 14 or 15 years, but the Authority was anxious not to lose that expertise, so it did not adopt the OCPA guidance without bearing that in mind. Therefore, it adopted a new process which was open, so a public advert, and we wrote to every tollpayer, so all 10,000 tollpayers were aware of the new opportunity that they had to put themselves forward. We consulted the organisations, as we were required to by the 1988 Act, a job description was written for the role with the person�s specification, the first time that had ever been done, to make it clear what the role was and that was agreed, and then we set up a panel with an independent chairman, so we again used the offices of John Edmonds, the Chairman of IWAC, who chaired the panel. Then we sought the rest of the panel from the boating organisations, national and local, so the panel included the Chairman of the Norfolk and Suffolk Boating Association and it also included the Chief Executive of the British Marine Federation and the Chairman of the Broads Authority, so the Broads Authority was in the minority on the panel that did the shortlisting and the selection. Now, the result of that process is that, rather than having ten names for seven places, we had 48 names for seven places, so the panel met, and I was not involved in this process at all, I did not see the applications and I had no input whatsoever, but the panel met, they looked at the 48 names, they shortlisted them, they interviewed them and then they identified those that they felt had merit of appointment. They then conformed to the requirement of the 1988 Act by consulting the Navigation Committee on those names and in fact quite a large proportion of the Navigation Committee at that point had to leave because a number of them were listed in the names, but we have subsequently appointed a new group, so this is the eight of the 13, which is a stronger committee than we had before and I think it will be more challenging of the Authority and it includes a woman, a 35-year-old woman, who was the first female captain of the River Cruiser class, as well as Mr Broom who is again the Chairman of the Committee because we reappointed him for a further term, even though he has been on the Navigation Committee for 20 years, and I think the outcome is a really good one. I think they will be a challenging group of individuals and they will scrutinise the work of the Authority probably more with a finer-toothed comb than before. Going back then to the issue about accountability, I think that whole process is much more transparent and will make the Authority more accountable to its users because all 10,000 users of the navigation potentially could have put their names forward, whereas before it was sorted out behind closed doors where no one was sure who got there or how they got there, and that may have served the Authority for a time, but it is not the way that a public body should carry out its appointments.
567. LORD TRIMBLE: The process you described - is that one that has to be followed under section 9 of the Act? I am quoting from tab 3, the Keeling Schedule, pages 8 and 9: �The Navigation Committee. The Authority shall appoint a committee of the Authority to be known as the Navigation Committee�.
(Dr Packman) Yes, my Lord. So the Authority consulted with those bodies, and then when it had been through the selection process it had in mind that structure, in terms of the appointments. So there is a balance between those who have a direct interest in private boating and those who have a direct interest in, for instance, the hire boats.
568. The balance set out in subsection 5 between paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) � you have conformed with that?
(Dr Packman) As far as we could, yes.
569. MR WILLIAMS: Can I ask you what happened about section (d): �Two shall be appointed after consultation with such bodies appearing to it to represent persons who are likely to be required to pay ship, passenger or goods dues imposed by it as it considers appropriate;�
(Dr Packman) If I refer you back, there is a committee report which sets out precisely how we met each of those. What we did was we identified the relevant bodies that we needed to consult for each of those requirements.
570. So what actually happened then was that anybody who wanted to become a member of the Navigation Committee could write in and say �Yes�, and then you chose the ones you wanted?
(Dr Packman) They could not write in and say �Yes�; they had to fill in an application form against a personal specification and a job description, and 48 people did that, including members of the Navigation Committee who were seeking reappointment.
571. CHAIRMAN: I think you have given the Committee a very full answer already.
572. MR WILLIAMS: Do you think so, my Lord Chairman? I will leave it in that case.
573. CHAIRMAN: I do, thank you very much, Mr Williams.
574. MR WILLIAMS: If I could go back to something that my friend sitting by me mentioned, which was about water-skiing. It does seem, and I congratulate you, that you have managed to achieve an agreement with the water-skiers by a voluntary agreement. Can I ask you how much of your process in achieving voluntary agreements to deal with these things, instead of going to legislation, covered any of the other proposals?
(Dr Packman) I am sorry. Just to pick up on water-skiers, it is not just the agreement with the water-skiers, it is also an agreement with other parties. It was the fact that we went through a process and that even parties violently opposed to water-skiing could concede that we had reached a point where water-skiing could be managed effectively. If you look at all the other provisions, there is considerable consultation we have been through on all of them, and we have dealt with that quite a lot yesterday and today. Perhaps this is a moment to pay tribute to, particularly, the RYA, the BMF and the IWA because this has cost them quite a lot of money in terms of their legal advice; it has cost their staff a lot of time and they have been very supportive and helpful through the whole process. In the same way that we worked closely with water-skiers, we have worked with the national and local bodies in trying to find a set of provisions that deals with the safety issues as the Broads Authority found them, but are proportionate and acceptable to them.
575. Thank you. There was one point I omitted to mention earlier which has not been raised by any of my colleagues, so if I may. Again, it is about the main thrust of the examination, which is about the Navigation Committee and the way the Authority deals with them. Can I ask you, Dr Packman, about the version of the Bill that was deposited to Parliament. Was that deposited in November � 26 November? When was it deposited?
(Dr Packman) It was deposited in Parliament, yes, in November 2006.
576. Was there not an agreement with the RYA, the BMF and the IWA signed on 25 January 2007?
(Dr Packman) That is true, but if you look at the tab where we discussed the consultation (I cannot remember which one it was) � 9, thank you � I did point out earlier in evidence that actually the key date, I think, as I remember it, is 11 September 2006, when the meeting was held in London which included the Chairman of the Navigation Committee, the local boating organisations and the national boating organisations. At that meeting many of the issues of principle were agreed but it took a while to finalise that, as these things do.
577. Can I just ask you what the pre-amble said to that agreement?
(Dr Packman) I do not remember.
578. I will deal with that later, but it actually said: �In consideration of us not petitioning this Bill you will do the following things�.
(Dr Packman) Yes, but as I am sure my Lordships might know, that is a standard format for those forms of agreement, and I do not think one should read anything into that. At the end of the meeting on 11 September, the Broads Authority Chairman, the Chairman of the Navigation Committee, the RYA, the BMF, the IWA, the NSBA and the Broads Hire Boat Federation, all left the room at the Royal Yacht Club having agreed in principle a set of arrangements which they felt met their requirements as well as the desires and the ambitions of the Authority in terms of the safety provisions.
579. Why was none of that information promulgated to your boating public? None of us knew about it.
(Dr Packman) I did explain that it took a while until the agreement was signed. When the agreement was signed it was something that we did promulgate and did let everyone know, because it was an important step. I go back to what I said earlier: I think, given the efforts that the Authority went to and has been through to get everyone on side, it is a tribute to that process that there is not a single boating organisation that is petitioning against the Bill in the House of Lords and there were none in the House of Commons.
580. MR WILLIAMS: I would just like to ask you how long that gave those of us who petitioned in the House of Commons to do our Petitions?
581. CHAIRMAN: There is a standard time set out for these Petitions. I do not think it is a particularly relevant question.
582. MR WILLIAMS: Do you not, my Lord Chairman?
583. CHAIRMAN: It is in the other House, too.
584. MR WILLIAMS: I will leave that. We are just left with the situation where we did not know what the answer was and in order to petition we had no time left to do it.
(Dr Packman) Can I make the point, in response, that I mentioned earlier that all the Broads Authorities meetings are open; the minutes are available ----
585. Was the agreement on any of those minutes? No, it was not, sir.
(Dr Packman) I think the agreement probably went to the full Authority ----
586. Afterwards.
(Dr Packman) Once it was signed it went to the full Authority and was in the public domain, but certainly the progress we were making on the Bill was reported on a regular basis so that everyone could see how much progress we were making.
587. You told us yesterday that the general and special directions that you are seeking are similar to those in the draft Marine Navigation Bill. Is that the case?
(Dr Packman) I am not sure if that is quite what I said but, to clarify, the draft Marine Navigation Bill makes provision for the availability of general directions to harbour authorities.
588. Which it does. So are your provisions similar to those?
(Dr Packman) No, there are some significant differences in that the safeguards that we have agreed with the RYA, the BMF and the IWA are not in the draft Bill, but there is a much shorter period for consultation and there is not the sort of referral to an independent body. As I mentioned, I think the RYA has, in its response to the consultation by the Department for Transport, indicated that the sort of provisions that are in the Broads Authority Bill are the sorts of provisions that they think are appropriate for the Department for Transport to take on board in its draft Marine Navigation Bill.
589. Some of us believe this is an extremely complicated solution for you to be introducing to the Broads: adjacent waters, and so on, boat safety standards, the controls and influence of the executive over the users of the Broads. Why have you not thought about, perhaps, exchanging the notion of �adjacent waters� for �tidal waters�?
(Dr Packman) These are two completely different matters. The principle of adjacent waters is to extend the safety provisions of the Bill to those areas that are directly connected to the navigation area. The issue about tidal waters is a much more contentious and difficult issue about where the public right of navigation rests. That is a route that would be considerably difficult to undertake than the route that the Authority has chosen to do so. So, for instance, we talked about Wroxham Broad. The Norfolk Broads Yacht Club has a lease from the Trafford Estate. We have managed to reach agreement about adjacent waters which means the provisions in the Bill in relation to safety and things like insurance, the Boat Safety Scheme, can be extended into Wroxham Broad. An alternative approach would have been to try and persuade or get agreement that Wroxham Broad is part of the navigation area because it is tidal, but that would be fought bitterly by the club, it would be fought by the Trafford Estate and, no doubt, it would go to the courts and would be an expensive and time-consuming process. More importantly, it would not be the sort of process where we could engage productively with the club; it would be a confrontational process and the Authority likes to work with its stakeholders. I think this has been the appropriate way to deal with it.
590. Similarly, when you were talking about the Boat Safety Scheme, I have to say the Boat Safety Scheme has been in operation in British waters and in some of the Environment Agency�s rivers for some time. As it is now in place, why do you want to have an arrangement whereby you cancel all of that and produce a new system which then changes it from a Boat Safety Standard arrangement to one where it is a Boat Safety Scheme or it is a set of rules that you or the Boat Safety Scheme organisers can change at will and everybody who has a boat has no alternative but to meet those requirements?
(Dr Packman) I think we have covered this before. The Broads Authority cannot change it at its will or whim; the arrangements are that while the national scheme is in place the Broads Authority will adopt that scheme. If it should choose to vary it then there is a whole process to go through, and the principal reason that it is in this Bill, as I explained in relation to the carbon monoxide issue, is to ensure that the standards that are in place on the Broads are kept up to date with those in the other inland waterways.
591. CHAIRMAN: Mr Williams, have you got quite a few questions?
592. MR WILLIAMS: Only a few, my Lord Chairman, and I hope I would be able to dispatch them in about five or ten minutes, if you would permit me to finish this evening.
593. CHAIRMAN: I think, probably, we will have to go. I am afraid the Committee cannot carry on due to other arrangements. We will have to continue tomorrow morning, if that is all right.
594. MR WILLIAMS: Thank you, my Lord Chairman.
595. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. The Committee is adjourned until 10.30 tomorrow morning.

The Committee adjourned at 4.01 pm until 10.30 am the following day

421. CHAIRMAN: Maybe you should propose to correct the transcript in that case?
(Dr Packman) Yes, will.
422. MR HOWES: Yesterday Mr George took my comment about the former Chairman of the Authority as an attack. It was actually a quote, was it not, the comment from me in my Petition about the Chairman of the Authority not understanding the word �trust�?
(Dr Packman) You said it was �not� a quote from the Petition?
423. MR HOWES: Let me quote from my Petition because it is not my intention to argue in favour of my Petition right now, this instant, but merely to ask you for a comment on what Mr George said yesterday.
424. CHAIRMAN: Provide us with some references, please.
425. MR HOWES: Yesterday�s transcript, paragraph 147 � I am still looking at my Petition for the reference from Mr George to my use of the word �trust�. I do apologise, my Lord Chairman, the paragraph number from yesterday was 187, towards the end of the day.
426. MR GEORGE: In paragraph 11 of Mr Howes�s Petition the words appear �other examples of action causing the Authority to lose the trust of local people include the inability of the current Chairman to understand the meaning of the word �trust��. That was all the matter which I put to Dr Packman.
427. MR HOWES: I wanted to ask Dr Packman, that was indeed a quote rather than an attack, was it not? The then current Chairman of the Authority said that in front of a very large group of witnesses.
428. CHAIRMAN: What point are you trying to question him on?
429. MR HOWES: This is my only opportunity, my Lord, to question the use of the word �attack� that was made upon me yesterday by Mr George.
430. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
(Dr Packman) If I could respond. The insinuation, I think, from this paragraph 11 is that the Chairman, who was the chairman, does not understand the meaning of the word �trust�, which I think Professor Turner would take some objection to.
431. MR HOWES: Okay, I will come back to that in my statement.
432. CHAIRMAN: If it is a quote, or if it is not a quote, I am not sure it can be taken much further now.
433. MR GEORGE: There is not a quote. The quote is a direct quotation from the Petition. It is the exact words from the Petition. It is not a quotation.
434. MR HOWES: I am trying to establish that Dr Packman actually heard those words said. Do you remember the meeting you had with many of the Petitioners here on February 29 of last year?
(Dr Packman) Is this the meeting at the University of East Anglia?
435. Yes, indeed.
(Dr Packman) Yes, I do.
436. The meeting was run by Messrs Lamb and Gibson from the other place, was it not?
(Dr Packman) Correct.
437. Do you remember what happened after that meeting?
(Dr Packman) Perhaps you could help me.
438. You were found to have put up a sign, or caused the erection of a sign that very morning saying �Welcome to Whitlingham Country Park Gateway to the Broads National Park�, were you not?
(Dr Packman) A sign was erected with those words at the entrance to Whitlingham Country Park.
439. During the course of that meeting?
(Dr Packman) I do not know whether it was during the course of the meeting, but I was unaware that that sign was being erected. National Park is not in the Bill. If you have an issue with the erection of the sign could I suggest you use another way of addressing that.
440. CHAIRMAN: Mr Howes, I think we have really got to close down this discussion about National Parks and things like that; I do not think it is part of the Bill, and we have had a good discussion about it.
441. MR HOWES: Thank you, my Lord. I was simply trying to talk about trust rather than the matter of substance, which it was changed into. I am complete with my questions, thank you very much.
442. CHAIRMAN: It is the turn of Mr Baguley now. Could I just invite you not to pursue in great detail the issues we have heard already. If you have got something new that would be useful.
443. MR BAGULEY: My Lord Chairman, you will be pleased to know I have struck from my list many of the items that Mr Howes has discussed.

Cross-examined by MR BAGULEY
444. MR BAGULEY: Dr Packman, you mentioned that you had a meeting with the Broads Society in July 2005 - was this for disseminating information rather than consultation? I ask because there is a difference between the two.
(Dr Packman) There is a difference between the formal consultation, but in fact if one is invited to go and talk to a group like the Executive Committee of the Broads Society one listens and gets some feedback from them. It may not be a formal consultation but that interaction is obviously useful.
445. I ask because I was actually at the time a member of the Committee of the Broads Society, was present at the meeting and it was my recollection, and I corroborated this with my notes from that meeting last night, that it was more a dissemination of information, not a matter of consultation. However, to move on to my next point: you laud the sediment management strategy and, to be fair, it started off rather well. I was invited to the first meeting with users and all looked good. However, how do you square taking so much time - and I think we could talk about 1988 with the formation of the Authority to 2003 when this started - to produce a strategy rather than actually doing the job in the meantime?
(Dr Packman) I started work with Broads Authority in 2001 so I cannot really account for the absence of a strategy before them; but certainly one of the things that became very apparent fairly quickly to me was that dredging was a significant issue for the Authority, and so was the need to put in place a series of strategies. One of the big things we did soon after I started was we started the preparation of a Broads Plan, which is the five-year management plan that the Authority is required to put in place, as are the other National Parks. The Broads Plan was a key document in terms of setting overall strategy and sediment management came through that process. The Broads Plan I think was approved in 2004, and the sediment management strategy was finalised in 2007. Of course in parallel to all that the Authority has been dredging sediment out of the rivers and broads. Prior to 18 months ago that was principally done with a contract with a private contractor May Gurney and it has only been more recently that we have been able to take direct control of it. Again, if you want details about dredging Mrs Wakelin has been with the Authority longer than I; she has overseen dredging as well as the sediment management strategy and will be able to provide you with a comprehensive understanding of the issues.
446. Thank you, that is understood. It remains though that boats are still going aground. Perhaps you could explain how the sediment management strategy helps when the problem is all too plain now?
(Dr Packman) The key element about the strategy was the hydrographic survey � the first one that had ever been done � and a discussion with users about the depths that were required to identify the priorities where mud needs to be taken out of. I talked about 1.8 million cubic metres of mud � the big issue for us is not taking the mud out, it is finding places to put it. I recall Mr Campbell making a significant amount of noise about Oulton Broad, which we talked about earlier, at the back of Lowestoft. Oulton Broad is at the end of the River Waveney and you have got a slow East Anglia river running down and it hits Oulton Broad, where you have got a large body of water, and drops the sediment. Therefore, there is a bar that accumulates at the entrance to Oulton Broad on a regular basis and, every three years or so, we have to dredge it out. Now, in terms of Oulton Broad, we did have major difficulty in finding a suitable site, but this last year we managed to obtain a site and have dredged out 16,000 cubic metres of mud from the entrance to the broad and the north bay, but again, if you would like detailed information about the current state of sediment management in the Broads and what the Authority�s programme is for the coming year and the difficulties of finding suitable sites, Mrs Wakelin, I am sure, will be able to help you.
447. I am sure she will, thank you. I wonder if you have any observation on the fact that the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Commissioners actually did a sterling job in relation to dredging the navigation and your own statistics show this. Can you tell me how they did so without a sediment management strategy?
(Dr Packman) Well, as I pointed out, between 1984 and 1988, they were dredging an average of 22,453 cubic metres and the Broads Authority, in a comparable period, 2002 to 2006, dredged 29,000 cubic metres. They were faced with exactly the same problems in the latter part of their days, the Port Authority, as are the Broads Authority. My understanding, and again perhaps Mrs Wakelin will be able to help you, is that they did it, as did the Broads Authority, in very much a reactive approach, so there was no overall programme, but it was when it looked as if it needed doing that they did it. Now, that works fine when you can just dig it up and stick it on the bank, but, if it requires licences, if it requires an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regs, if it requires detailed consent from the Norfolk Wildlife Trust, then you have to programme that work in and that has really been the driver for the Sediment Management Strategy, that you need to know where the mud is most urgent to take it out, but then you need to work through a whole series of consents and agreements to enable you to programme the work. What Mrs Wakelin and her staff have been working on is a forward programme so that the Authority can be confident of achieving those ends. Now, that does not mean that there are not areas that are still difficult, particularly those that are in areas where there is an international designation for their conservation value, but we do have difficulties and we are doing our best, but again Mrs Wakelin, I am sure, can help my Lordships.
448. Turning to the process of the Bill, you said, I believe, yesterday that the Bill was incomplete in the winter of 2005 and that you were awaiting the submissions of the Royal Yachting Association and the British Marine Federation. Your notes, at tab 9, say that these submissions were late in 2006 or delivered late in July 2006. Would you agree that these organisations are, to pardon the vernacular, usually on the Board, especially the RYA, when it is concerning navigation matters, so can you explain to me why this lateness occurred?
(Dr Packman) I am sorry, I am not following your point. Prior to the development of the first draft of the Bill, we did have discussions with the RYA and the BMF in particular and they were able to give us some help and advice.
449. Is it prior to the first draft?
(Dr Packman) It is.
450. You say that you were waiting for their submissions in the winter of 2005, yet you were talking about discussing the first draft of the Bill with them which was not published until 2006, April.
(Dr Packman) Sorry, either you are getting confused or I am getting confused, but the first draft was not published until, I think, April 2006. What I am identifying is that, prior to that point, we were having discussions. We meet the BMF, the RYA and the IWAC on a regular basis and they were fully aware of the ambitions of the Broads Authority in 2004 and we had discussions with them about potential ways of achieving the ambitions that the members of the Broads Authority had. They fully knew of the work that Defra was doing in trying to get it into the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill. What I was identifying, and I do not have my diary, but I remember meetings in the autumn/winter of 2005 with the BMF and the RYA seeking their advice and getting their input at that stage because, in terms of a private bill, they had the benefit of two things over us. They had a better understanding of the legislation that applied to British Waterways and the Environment Agency because they had been in negotiation and discussion with those organisations and, therefore, they were able to give us, and I do not like the phrase, a heads-up on what the issues were and how they might perceive them.
451. So what would your feeling be about the fact that those organisations, especially the RYA, were called in by a local organisation, that is local to Norfolk and Suffolk, once the import of the Bill had become known? Would you have a view as to the fact that those submissions were late, that it was because the organisations, in particular the RYA, were called in at a late stage by a local organisation to Norfolk and Suffolk?
(Dr Packman) I cannot guess. You are not giving me enough information, I am afraid, to answer the question.
452. I am happy to move on.
(Dr Packman) The key point for the members of the Committee is that the Broads Authority works very closely with both the national and local boating organisations. We have got their agreement on the Bill and, over the period since the autumn of 2005 right through to today, we have worked very closely particularly with the national bodies to get their agreement, and that has been one of the successes of the whole project in that, if we were sitting here today with Petitioners from the RYA or the BMF or the IWAC, I am sure the members of this Committee would see the whole thing in a very different light. The fact that we have got to this point and there is no single boating organisation that has petitioned against this Bill, not a local organisation or a national one, we are left with a small group of individuals whom the Authority has not been able to satisfy. We have met a number of them on a number of occasions and a number of them petitioned the lower House and made very much the same points and we have failed to be able to find the position that we can meet on because some of their objections are so fundamental that the Broads Authority cannot accept them.
453. I agree with that last statement. Dr Packman, turning to adjacent waters, it appears that the Bill will allow the Authority to use toll income to maintain adjacent waters. Have I understood that correctly?
(Dr Packman) Correctly. This is part of what I call the �quid pro quo�, particularly in the discussions with the Norfolk Broads Yacht Club, that, if there is income accruing to the Authority from boats that do not use the navigation area, then there has to be a quid pro quo that the Authority will not be bound to spend income in the adjacent areas, but there is provision for that to happen. Perhaps I can explain it a bit. Wroxham Broad is a very pleasant broad near Wroxham obviously and, as I mentioned, it is privately owned by the Trafford family and it is leased to the Norfolk Broads Yacht Club. One of their long-term issues is that the broad is silting up. Now, without this Bill, the Broads Authority is unable to spend any navigation income on that broad and, from a financial point of view, the Broads Authority is quite happy with that situation because it is a reasonable-sized broad and it would cost a lot of money. The discussions that we have had with the Club have seen a quid pro quo that there is provision in the Bill that using adjacent waters, some of them, and there will not be very many because most of the boats on adjacent waters that are paying a toll will already be using the navigation area, but those additional boats, where we get an additional income, it did seem reasonable that a provision should be made in the Bill that would enable the Authority, supported by the Navigation Committee, if it wanted to, to spend money in adjacent waters. That is quite a significant shift and quite a potential benefit to the Trafford family and the Norfolk Broads Yacht Club. Now, it may be that that would never come about, but it would enable ten years down the line, when perhaps Wroxham Broad has silted up and has become a major problem, for some sort of partnership arrangement with the family and the Club which would allow the experience, knowledge and plant that the Authority now owns to benefit in a dredging operation for the Club and the family.
454. Thank you for that explanation. How do you think the remainder, the bulk, of tollpayers will react when they learn that their money will be used to maintain private waters which, in some cases, not necessarily Wroxham Broad because it is open to the public, but in some cases they are unable to use?
(Dr Packman) I do not envisage the Broads Authority spending any of its navigation income on broads, because, I guess, you are talking about broads ----
455. And dykes.
456. ---- and dykes that tollpayers are unable to use. For instance, we have recently mud-pumped a broad called Nortons Broad which is just upstream of Wroxham. It is not accessible through the navigation area. The money we have used, therefore, has been wholly national park grant, but we have negotiated with the private landowner public access for canoeing, so the result of spending national park grant is that it is in much finer condition, and in fact my staff, while they were mud-pumping, saw ospreys fishing, so there is a benefit to the wider good, but, if one counts canoeists as boaters and navigators, there is a benefit to the boating community, but it has not been funded out of navigation income.
457. Turning to another provision of the Bill which is the removal of unserviceable vessels which you discussed with Mr Howes, can you tell me who determines what is unserviceable and what qualifications those staff would have?
(Dr Packman) I think the word is �unsafe�, so it is an unsafe vessel. Again, Mrs Wakelin can probably give you the detail, but there are provisions or protections such that clearly the Authority would not be taking an unsafe vessel without having, for instance, had a survey completed to identify that, and certainly the process we went through with the Golden Galleon, and again we had to treat that as an abandoned vessel, but with that there was a very long and complicated process that we went through and it was only at the end of the day when there was no alternative that we took it away and broke it up. I would hope that this would happen as infrequently as possible ----
458. CHAIRMAN: I think we heard a lot about that this morning.
459. MR BAGULEY: We have heard about your consultation on direct elections at tab 9. You have had three or four, replies. How many consultees were on your list?
(Dr Packman) I do not think you are referring to direct elections.
460. It is tab 13, my apologies, and it revolves around the subject of direct elections.
(Dr Packman) No, it does not revolve around direct elections at all, as is my understanding.
461. It was a letter about parish councillors and their involvement. How many people and organisations did you consult?
(Dr Packman) About half a dozen. This is the issue about the Norfolk Association of Parish and Town Councils. When they initially submitted their Petitions, as Mr George has indicated, it was worded in such a way that it was all about � or my reading was that it was about direct elections. When that was clarified, because direct election is clearly outside the scope of this Bill, my understanding is that they have sought a different change to bring it within the scope, which means that their current position is they are looking at two of the ten members appointed by the Secretary of State would be parish councillors.
462. CHAIRMAN: Surely, if we are talking about parish councillors we ought to wait for Mr Sadler to give evidence, because is he not representing parish councils? For a start, it is not in tab 13, that I can see, and I think we have had a bit of discussion about direct elections already.
463. MR BAGULEY: We did, my Lord Chairman, and I would like to make that very same comment that another Petitioner will be covering that issue.
464. CHAIRMAN: I do not think we need to do it twice, so let us move on.
465. MR BAGULEY: Finally, Dr Packman, you say that the Navigation Committee has been strengthened. Perhaps you could explain why earlier drafts of the Bill bypass the Navigation Committee and reduce the importance of the Navigation Committee quite considerably. That has been rectified, to a large extent, by the intervention of the RYA and the current Bill is much more satisfactory. I would just like to know why it was that the Navigation Committee was not accorded that level of importance in early drafts of the Bill.
(Dr Packman) The key element was that the direct relationship between Broads Authority officers and the Authority was one of the elements in the original drafting of the Bill, and I have explained to Members of the Committee the reason for that. In the detailed discussions that we had with the RYA and the BMF they suggested, and the Broads Authority agreed, that, actually, strengthening the scrutiny and advisory role of the Navigation Committee was a sensible thing. The Broads Authority was very happy to accept that suggestion, and I think everyone is agreed that the outcome is the right one.
466. One last comment, Dr Packman. The original clause 9( provided for the Broads Authority to delegate navigation matters only to the Navigation Committee. This has been changed, and I wonder whether you could explain to me what was wrong with the status quo ante?
(Dr Packman) I think I have already dealt with that point.
467. CHAIRMAN: We have dealt with that point.
468. MR BAGULEY: That is the end of my questioning, my Lord Chairman.
469. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Baguley. Mr Sadler, are you ready to cross-examine?
470. MR SADLER: Thank you very much, my Lord Chairman. First of all, I would like to say I appreciate the fact that I have got the opportunity, which I think is my only opportunity to question a witness today. I will try and be brief. I feel that I am the most unqualified member anywhere in this room to come before your Lordships, but I will do my best. Just on a matter of record, I think I have to inform your Lordships today that the Norfolk Association of Parish and Town Councils has been renamed, and I want to say this because when I come to my evidence on Monday my witnesses may well be referring to our new name, which was granted by the resolution put to our Annual General Meeting in September last year. We have to go through this process with our membership, who we are accountable to, and we have to get their agreement by order of an AGM. The Association changed its name because it felt that since 1947 the Association has been known by that name; it was cumbersome; it fell out of line with all the other local authorities or parish and town councils in England - the 43 counties who have associations � and we have now renamed it the Norfolk Association of Local Councils.
471. CHAIRMAN: That is good for the record. Could you start your cross-examination?
472. MR SADLER: I would like to clarify that, because it will come up, obviously, and your Lordships may think: �Where are we going?�
473. CHAIRMAN: Very useful, thank you.

Cross-examined by MR SADLER

474. MR SADLER: My first question just refers to tab 2, which if you can turn on to in the Filled Bill, which we had presented to us on Friday, paragraph 4, 1(b) and 3(b), mentions the appointments by the Secretary of State.
475. CHAIRMAN: The Committee is not quite with you yet. Tab 2 of which document and which page, please?
476. MR SADLER: This is the document. The index one. Tab 2, paragraph 4. My Lord Chairman, this comes under the appointment by the Secretary of State in the Filled Bill. My Lord Chairman, to make it easier, if we go to tab 3, page 2, section 5, this will give you the same comment that I would like to put to Dr Packman, with your agreement. We have four items there, or four purposes there, which the Secretary of State has to look at to determine the interests of the Authority. The first one is boating, which is (a); the second is (b) conservation; (c) farming and landowning and (d) is land based recreation. I would like to come to (b) on conservation. I would like to put a question to Dr Packman. Now he has the role of the planning authority since April 2007, why is planning and the listed buildings consent and repair not included in that particular section, because it does, in our opinion, still form part of the same conservation area.
(Dr Packman) I think we may be thinking at cross purposes here. If I go back to the 1988 position. When, in 1988, the Broads Authority was established, it had 35 members. Nine of those were appointed by the Secretary of State. In addition to that, it had appointments by the Port Authority, it had appointments by the Navigation Committee. As you will see, the Secretary of State also had to take account of boating interests and land and farming interests when making his appointments. In addition to that, the Environment Agency and English Nature had places in the Broads Authority. If you think about the Environment Agency and English Nature, it is clear that the original intention of Parliament was that, given the first purpose, and particularly the conservation of the natural environment, having appointments from the Environment Agency and Natural England was to represent that conservation interest. Similarly, there were two appointments to be made by the Countryside Commission. One of the key roles of the Countryside Commission has been about public outdoor recreation and promoting enjoyment. When the Broads Authority�s membership was shrunk from 35 to 21, there were certain parts of the Act that could be amended by the section 7 order and certain parts which could not. So the representation by English Nature, the Countryside Commission and the Environment Agency could be deleted, but these provisions � the provision that the Secretary of State should consult boating interests and land and farming interests � could not be changed. So if you are looking back at the balance again, it meant that boating interests and land and farming interests were well represented on the Authority, but there was no provision that the conservation, particularly of the landscape and its wildlife and beauty, and the land-based recreation, had any protection or that they would be represented. What this bit of the Bill is doing is saying that in appointing his ten members the Secretary of State should have regard not just to boating, land and farming but, also, those other key areas of responsibility, namely conservation and land-based recreation. So the Secretary of State�s national members represent the national constituency around the members that he is appointing.
477. It does not explain to me why we have no consideration from the Secretary of State for planning and listed buildings, which are all part of the regime of the planning debate.
(Dr Packman) I think I understand the question. In terms of the definition of conservation, if you look at the current role of the Broads Authority, which is slightly further down on that page, the first purpose is �conserving and enhancing the natural beauty wildlife and cultural heritage�. So if Mr Sadler is referring to the cultural heritage element, so mainly the buildings, the drainage mills and the listed buildings, that conservation, in terms of (b) above, can be interpreted in its widest sense, not just to represent the natural environment in terms of the wildlife but, also, the built environment. Clearly, outside of all this the Authority is a planning authority.
478. CHAIRMAN: Could you explain to us where it says in the legislation that the Authority is the planning authority?
(Dr Packman) I think I will need some help.
479. Let us come back to that. It would be helpful, I think.
(Dr Packman) In the 1988 Act there was a bit that basically said �Give it up� (?). One of the things about the Broads Authority is that it has many of the characteristics of local government - of being a local authority. Therefore, for instance, they are subject to the best value regime and there will be a reference, somewhere in the 1988 Act, to the local government act legislation which applies to that.
480. MR SADLER: My Lord Chairman, rather than take your time up this afternoon, I think I can illustrate that better when I come to my evidence on Monday. I can bring you more up-to-date on that on Monday, rather than debate it today.
481. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Sadler. That would be very helpful.
482. MR GEORGE: It is Schedule 3 of the 1988 Act which your Lordships will have at tab 2, page 37, headed �Functions of Authority�, and one of the first functions is �Planning and Connected Matters�. Then later on, in paragraph 42 of Schedule 3, �Conservation of Buildings�.
483. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr George. That is very helpful.
484. MR SADLER: My next point refers to tab 3, Part IV, which you will find on page 19 of the same document. This covers subsection (2), public bodies. �(a) a county council, district council or parish council�. It is our feeling, and my feeling, that we should include town councils in there because we do have town councils, many of them in Norfolk.
485. CHAIRMAN: Is that a question?
486. MR SADLER: It is a question, really. Why are not town councils included within the parish, because one of the largest towns we have in Norfolk does come within part of it in the Broads area, and it would designated to the planning authority there. So I feel that �town� needs to put in there as well, and needs consideration.
(Dr Packman) I do not think I have had this point made to me before, my Lord Chairman, so perhaps if I can take it away.
487. MR GEORGE: My Lord Chairman, I think the answer is if one goes back to the Local Government Act 1972, parish councils and town councils are the same thing. The country is divided up and in some areas you do not have either, you merely have a parish meeting, but in some you have a parish council and some you have a town council. In any event, this is not a matter in the Petition that we should amend the 1988 Act; this Petition is on much narrower ground.
488. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr George.
489. LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: Mr George, in section 3(2), �public body� includes, (a) county council, district council, or parish council, so I think that answers Mr Sadler�s point, does it not?
490. MR GEORGE: When it says �parish council�, it is parish council including town councils.
491. CHAIRMAN: Mr Sadler, have you got more?
492. MR SADLER: Yes, thank you. Just coming on now to tab 11, I do not want to go down the same route as we have heard before but this comes back to the consultation. I just want to ask Dr Packman how the consultation was undertaken with �parish and town councils� on his letter. We have here the section on the consultation carried out by the Secretary of State which we were promised in the other place. This now fills that in and we are waiting, as has been mentioned before, to get the result of this. Under parish councils you will see that the two consultees there were the National Association of Local Councils and the Norfolk Association of Local Parish and Town Councils.
493. CHAIRMAN: And the question?
494. MR SADLER: The question really, my Lord Chairman, is the numbers that we referred to on the Broads Authority of appointees. If we look at the consultation that the Secretary of State sent out, he mentions there the number that would be acceptable in his view was 22 to 25 members on an authority. I would just like to ask Dr Packman why he picked the number 21 when he had a bit of flexibility there when the Bill was drafted.
(Dr Packman) The 21 dates from the discussions we had between 2002 and 2005. As members of the Committee will understand, getting agreement for a body to reduce its size from 35 to 21 took a couple of years and lots of consultation. Balance was one of the critical things that we had to address: how did we find a balance between the national representatives and the local ones? How did we get a balance between the boating organisations and the conservation organisation, the role of the local authorities? Although there were some members who still felt 21 was too many, 21 was a convenient number where we managed to balance all the different parties and we could get them all to sign up to it. There was no opposition from any quarter to the change to 21.
495. CHAIRMAN: You explained this in some detail earlier in your evidence, I think.
496. MR SADLER: My next point comes to tab 13 again, and I do not want to back over old ground but this does lead us back into the consultation carried out by the Broads Authority. The question has already been asked but I do not think it was answered, and that was the top of the letter that Dr Packman sent to a distribution list which says, �See attached�. I think we have covered that. I was interested to know how many people that letter was sent to. Was it sent to any parish or town councils within the Broads area or even in Norfolk? This is on page 1 of 13.
(Dr Packman) It would not have been appropriate to do that. The purpose of this consultation was to ask those bodies that could be perceived as being affected by the proposed amendment by the Norfolk Association of Local Councils, so, for instance, if you look at that range of interests, the Secretary of State potentially appoints, if the Bill goes through, ten members having consulted interests representing those bodies. We wrote to the RYA and the BMF. I do not think we received a response from the BMF as representing boating bodies. I did write to the RSPB and I do not think we received a response though I did talk to their Regional Director who did not support the parish and town councils� amendment. I did write to the NFU and the CLA but I did not receive a response from the CLA. Land based recreation � I do not think there was anyone I could quickly think of who would represent those interests, but the point was, and I did not have an awful lot of time, to respond to the revised Petition that the Association had put in, which would effectively reduce the representation for these interests and therefore the national bodies represented a good quick way of seeing whether they did support or not support that change.
497. MR SADLER: Just one other point on that, my Lord Chairman. These were additional to the consultation list of the Secretary of State. He obviously did not think these people were on his list but Dr Packman thought he would write a separate consultation to those people. I just wondered the objective of that particular way of working, because I think earlier on Dr Packman said that especially with the RYA he made a statement and said, �We worked very closely with these people�.
(Dr Packman) It would not have been appropriate for the Secretary of State to ask these bodies this question. It was appropriate for the Broads Authority to do so. I was not asking these bodies the general question about what they thought about direct elections or what they thought about generally parish membership on the Broads Authority. What I was asking was, here was the revised version of what the Association wanted. If it went down this line this group potentially were going to lose two national places to two parish councillors.
498. CHAIRMAN: Understood.
499. MR SADLER: Finally, my Lord Chairman, can I bring up one or two points that occurred in verbal evidence which is not in this document?
500. CHAIRMAN: If it is cross-examination, that is fine, if it has not been done before.
501. MR SADLER: Yes, it is on things that have been mentioned. Can I first of all turn to section 1, the second map which is entitled �The Navigation Area and Adjacent Waters�? This primarily is intended for the boating side. I just want to ask Dr Packman is this the same map that he uses when he does his role on planning? Is this the definitive boundary on the planning?
(Dr Packman) It is exactly the same boundary. It is the same boundary as on the Ordnance Survey map, and the point to make about it is that it does not include any whole parish boundaries. In fact, when I met with the former executive officer of the Association and showed him an Ordnance Survey map and where the boundary was and the fact that it excluded so many settlements, he then was quite surprised and said, �Oh, I had not realised that. We would not have asked for parish members if we had known that this was the boundary that you work to and it does not include any whole parishes or whole settlements.�
502. Yesterday, Dr Packman, you referred to the world of change. What has happened with the world of change in your planning regime? Are you updating all your planning? Now you have taken on the role from 1 April 2007 have you reviewed your policies on planning because you were then part planning but you now are a full planning authority?
(Dr Packman) No, there has been no change in the status of the Broads Authority. Since 1 April 1989 it has been the planning authority for the Broads executive area, the area marked on that map.
503. Will you be bringing that up to date with the local development framework which you have been consulting on, which I shall cover on Monday in my evidence?
(Dr Packman) We have an approved core strategy for the local development framework. We were one of the first planning authorities in England to have such a thing and I did mention yesterday that that has meant that we have been rewarded by the Government because of the excellent performance in delivering that.
504. My Lord Chairman, this is my last question and I was hoping we were not going to go down this route. It is with the local government reorganisation of Norfolk and Suffolk. I do not want to take any time on this but there are some points I would like to make. The first thing is that Dr Packman this morning mentioned 12 February. It is in fact 13 February and when we saw that from the Boundary Committee we wondered what lovely day it was; it is a Friday when the decision will be made on what the recommendation will be to the Secretary of State. That was one thing I would like to correct. We also talked about one for Norfolk and one for Suffolk. The Norfolk one which has been put forward by the Boundary Committee includes Lowestoft, which at the present time is in Suffolk, and I think Dr Packman may like to say whether that brings problems or benefits with his Broads Authority, because it will bring another fairly large area into his domain.
(Dr Packman) No, it will not, and I am not sure it is appropriate for me to comment on what the Boundary Committee will announce.
505. CHAIRMAN: I do not think we should expect you to comment on future announcements that have not happened.
506. MR SADLER: That concludes my questions for this witness, my Lord. Thank you for your perseverance and patience.
507. CHAIRMAN: That is all right. Mr Sermon?

Cross-examined by MR SERMON
508. MR SERMON: Thank you, my Lord Chairman. First, I would like to return to something that we have already covered but address a different element of it, and that is the Sediment Management Strategy. All the others are completely new material. Dr Packman, in your evidence yesterday you referred to the Cranfield University study. Am I right in believing that this is the one described as the desk-based study of sediment inputs for the Bill�s catchment?
(Dr Packman) That is my understanding, but if you want to ask detailed questions Mrs Wakelin commissioned that work from the university.
509. It may be that there will be supplementary questions for Mrs Wakelin later. What I would like to follow that with is that you referred to that showing that there were round about 20,000 cubic metres going into the system and 20,000 cubic metres coming out.
(Dr Packman) I think what I said was 24,000 cubic metres coming in.
510. Your actual words from the transcript were �a bit over 20,000�.
(Dr Packman) Right, and this year we will be taking out 45,000, so we will be taking out twice as much as is coming in.
511. MR SADLER: Having read that study, unfortunately, I do not have copies for your Lordships. It is a Broads Authority document and I have no doubt that, should it be necessary, the proposers could make copies available for tomorrow. I have just a couple of brief points.
512. CHAIRMAN: I hope they are questions based on his evidence.
513. MR SADLER: Absolutely. It is very much around this, �We are bringing out the same amount�, or approximately, or you were at that point. Do you accept that the information that came out of that report is very varied? For example, they estimate the head waters as between 1,500 and 15,000, in other words, they do not know. There is a range of ten-fold that it might be.
514. CHAIRMAN: Could you describe what the units are?
515. MR SADLER: This appears to be, if I read the shorthand, tonnes per year, and at other places it is quoted as cubic metres per year, so I am myself confused about that, but the point is that the study says, �We do not know by a factor of ten�. Were you aware of that?
(Dr Packman) Again, I think you would be better addressing that to Mrs Wakelin who commissioned the study and had discussions with Cranfield about that.
516. MR SADLER: Okay. I have a couple of further questions relating to that and I will save those for Mrs Wakelin.
517. CHAIRMAN: I think you should save them for Mrs Wakelin.
518. MR SADLER: Yes, I am happy to do that. I am moving on to a different topic entirely, waterskiing and wakeboarding. Your mentioned in your evidence, Dr Packman, that the present byelaws in reference to skiers or wakeboarders allow them to just skip off the water a bit. Those were your words.
(Dr Packman) Yes, that is accurate.
519. MR SADLER: If I can refer your Lordships to the bundle of byelaws, the first tab is the speed limit byelaws 1992. We are particularly concerned here with byelaw 6, sub-paragraph (e), which is on page 3.
520. LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: Which tab number are you on?
521. CHAIRMAN: Could you repeat the reference again, please?
522. MR SERMON: Tab 1, page 3, byelaw 6, paragraph (e) under the heading of �water skiing�. That states that: �Each water-skier shall remain in or on the water during towing�. How do equate that with �skipping off the water a bit�?
(Dr Packman) Because one of the joys of being Chief Executive of the Broads Authority is that one can try lots of things out, even if one is unsure about it. One of the things I have done rather gingerly is I have, for the first time ever, tried waterskiing and tried it on the Broads; it was the most nerve-wracking experience I have ever done and I will not being doing it again, travelling at 30 or 40 miles an hour across the water. I did manage to stand up, which I was congratulated on and I was given a certificate.
523. CHAIRMAN: Were you on one ski or two skis?
(Dr Packman) Two skis. Even I, I suspect, at the speed I was being towed skipped across the water a bit. Certainly conventional water-skiers, and the Broads Authority accepted, will gently rise up above the water a touch. The Broads Authority has accepted that that is the case, but that is significantly different from the wakeboarding that is done, particularly off the coast, with a large board, a boat which creates a big wake at the back of it such that the person being towed can do aerobatics off the back of the boat. Mr Sermon and I have not had the chance to have a discussion � it is the first time I have seen him � but I suspect the concerns he might raise could have been met if we had had the chance to have a discussion; because the Broads Authority has been clear that that sort of wakeboarding, which would involve a significant departure from the water, more than skipping above, is not something that the Broads Authority thinks is appropriate in the Broads because: firstly, they are narrow rivers; they have got trees hanging over them; there are slow-moving craft coming in the opposite direction; and the last thing you want to do if you are in a hire boat gently trundling at four miles an hour down the river is to find someone coming at 30 or 40 miles an hour in the opposite direction with someone up in the air behind. Therefore, the reason that waterskiing and wakeboarding are separately defined in the Bill is such that the Broads Authority can manage them effectively. I may be jumping ahead, but it may be that that ambition actually is not very far different from what Mr Sermon�s ambition would be.
524. LORD METHUEN: Where are wakeboarding and waterskiing permitted? Where do they take place at present?
(Dr Packman) Again, Mrs Wakelin will have this to her fingertips and I will not; but there are a series of ten areas across the Broads, so these are demarcated at either end by a post and a sign saying, �This is where the waterskiing starts and stops�. So they are demarcated in space; they are also demarcated in time. Each of them has different periods when waterskiing can take place.
525. MR GEORGE: My Lord, if I could assist. In the byelaws bundle, which your Lordships has, in tab 1, pages 17 and 18 there are identified the five places on the River Yare and the particular times. That is page 17 at tab 1. On page 18 you have the five stretches on the River Waveney and again their times.
526. MR SERMON: Anything further regarding waterskiing and wakeboarding can wait for my Petition. Moving on swiftly. In tab 18 of the main bundle which, Dr Packman, you referred to yesterday, we have an analysis on the first page of it of incidents on Breydon, the first item of which is assisting groundings and disabled vessels. Could you clarify for me, please, approximately what proportion of those groundings and disabled vessels involved people or property being at significant risk?
(Dr Packman) I do not know the answer but there are two things that come to my mind in response. One, as I indicated yesterday, that this is much smaller than the true figure; these are the ones that we record but we know a lot more that go aground. I do know from contact with my staff that there are regular instances where there are serious risks to life and property potentially by some of these groundings. I mentioned yesterday that occasionally our staff stand by these vessels waiting for the water to come back to make sure that they are safe. In general, while the people remain on the boat and wait for the water to come up they are relatively safe; the difficulty is, particularly if they are visitors to the area, they do not appreciate that getting out of the boat onto the mud, is not a wise thing to do.
527. CHAIRMAN: It is probably life-threatening to go and walk across that mud in some stages, I should think.
528. MR SERMON: At some stage it could be, but to remain on the boat you will just float off with the next tide in nearly all circumstances.
(Dr Packman) If you have only recently travelled from Birmingham to pick up your hire boat and this is the first time you have used a boat actually you may not necessarily know that. If you look at it, the Broads Society could take a very hard line and say, �Actually, this is not part of our navigation. It is the Port Authority�s responsibility�. The fact that they are unwilling to do so is their responsibility. If someone drowns it is the Port Authority�s responsibility and not the Broads Authority. I think the Navigation Committee and the Broads Authority have taken the right view that we have a general responsibility for people who use the Broads. This is the most dangerous part and it has been a very reasonable public organisation that has taken the stance it has.
529. LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: When somebody comes down from Birmingham and hires a boat are they not instructed when the high tides and low tides are, and where they should go and should not go?
(Dr Packman) That is right, there is a handover procedure. One of the things the licensing conditions would pick up, if the Bill went through, is that there would be agreed with the hire boat industry a standard code as to how that handover takes place. We know � from, and I am tempted to say, �blind tasting�, but I am not sure that is the right description but you will understand what I mean � that some of the boatyards do that handover exceptionally well and that these novice boaters actually get a very good introduction and understanding of it; others do it far from well; and therefore it is not unusual that the hirer does not necessarily understand the implications of the tides.
530. LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: Thank you.
531. MR SERMON: It does appear to be that at the moment the Authority is doing a useful service there primarily for the hire fleets. Should not the hire fleet owners be paying as it is not even your area of responsibility?
(Dr Packman) The hire fleet owners are contributing through their tolls. They also contribute directly to a towing service that runs out near Yarmouth. If one of their boats get stuck and it is pulled off they do pick up the direct costs of that.
532. MR SERMON: That, I think, deals adequately with that. One final question: in your evidence yesterday, Dr Packman, you referred in tab 10 to the qualifications, skills and expertise required of your staff, and the particular functions that they carry out Could you clarify for me, please, the qualifications and skills required for the Navigation Officer?
(Dr Packman) I do not have a copy of the job description for that post, but there is a job description; there is a person specification. Mrs Wakelin will be able to help you with that tomorrow or later on today.
533. MR SERMON: Thank you. That concludes all my questions.
534. CHAIRMAN: Mr Williams?

Cross-examined by MR WILLIAMS
535. MR WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, my Lord. I cannot promise to be brief but I will try and be concise.
536. CHAIRMAN: I trust you will not be covering too much of what has already been covered?
537. MR WILLIAMS: I have been ticking off, my Lord, and most of the things I intend to raise are different. If I may, Dr Packman, what I would really like to start with is to ask you if you would please explain for us, looking at tab 8 which is the general powers of the Broads Authority, what was the rationale � and you mentioned that you had changed the first two functions � of �Conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Broads�, which was formerly �conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads�; �Promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of Broads by the public� as (b), instead of what was there before, �promoting the enjoyment of the Broads by the public�; and yet the third item, which is about navigation, merely says, �Protecting the interest of navigation�? There has been no change to that at all, has there?
(Dr Packman) I think you ascribe to me a level of power (and that is not quite the right word) that I do not have. The changes to the first two were done by the Government; the Broads Authority did not have any significant involvement in that; they were done as part of the Natural Environment and Communities Act (I think I have got the right one) when the Government readjusted the first two National Park responsibilities so they matched up with the ones that the other National Parks had been given by the Environment Act. It was not relevant at that time to change the third. I suspect like you, Mr Williams, I am not a great fan of the third one because I do not think it actually properly reflects the duties and responsibilities that the Authority ought to have in relation to navigation. In fact, during the drafting of the Bill, working with the national boating bodies, I did look at what changes to those words could look like. We did come up with a form of words, but we were unable to get agreement. Therefore, my suggestions about how that could be modernised were not possible to be taken forward.
538. Thank you. That is quite an interesting answer because what I would ask you now is: why were the boating organisations not willing to consider an alternative form of words?
(Dr Packman) The boating organisations were; that was not the issue.
539. What was the issue?
(Dr Packman) The issue was � and I suspect you know the answer � something called the �Sandford principle�.
540. We have not had the Sandford principle raised very much so far, but thank you for bringing that out for me. I really would just like to understand and ask the Committee to understand what we actually mean by protecting the navigation? Protecting it from whom and from what? From the Sandford principle? From what. What are we protecting the navigation from?
(Dr Packman) It says not protecting the navigation from anything.
541. �Protecting the interests of ��?
(Dr Packman) �Protecting the interests of navigation�. Like the first two duties or purposes which were made clearer, I suspect the third one could be expanded and developed so that it is clearer as to what that means. You will probably need to ask a lawyer, but my understanding is that that sort of wording is the sort of wording you will often find in harbour authority legislation.
542. MR GEORGE: I hesitate to intervene, but I think your Lordships may find it helpful, and Mr Williams may also, if you go to section 10 of the 1988 Act where I think that the function of section 2(i)(c) is further expanded. If one goes to section 10 on page 12 of tab 2, �The Authority shall (a) maintain the navigation area for the purposes of navigation to such standard as appears to it to be reasonably required; and (b) take such steps to improve and develop it as it thinks fit.� It may be thought that that is expanding and explaining what is the meaning of �protecting the interests of navigation�.
543. MR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr George, that is helpful because what I would like to just ask you is, when you talk about developing the navigation as opposed to � what was the first thing you mentioned, Mr George?
544. MR GEORGE: It is in section 10 on page 12.
545. MR WILLIAMS: The point that I would like to make is that it is maintaining the navigation for the purposes of navigation to such a standard as it seems to be reasonably required, and the question I would ask you, Dr Packman, is who is deciding what is reasonably required?
(Dr Packman) Well, it says �as appears to it� and in that case, as I read it, it is the Broads Authority.
546. So it is the Authority. What contribution to that does the Navigation Committee make?
(Dr Packman) It is the key advisory body to the Authority.
547. But you have already told us yesterday that it is only a consultation body and that the Authority can do what it likes, so it does not have to pay any attention to the Navigation Committee at all, does it?
(Dr Packman) No, that is not the case.
548. It is the case.
(Dr Packman) What I said was that what this Bill does is it strengthens the advisory and consultative role of the Navigation Committee and particularly, if the Authority does not take the advice of the Navigation Committee, it then has to give an explanation back to it as to why it has not taken that advice. Now, that is a much-strengthened position.
549. Than what � what was there before?
(Dr Packman) Than the present role which does not have those provisions in it. The Broads Authority currently does not have to take any account of what the Navigation Committee says and does not then have to account back and explain why it has taken a different view.
550. MR WILLIAMS: Can I just bring the attention of the Committee to the 1988 Act because I do not believe that that is what it says. It says that it will consult the Navigation Committee and the Navigation Committee is a committee which is established under the 1972 Local Government Act, in other words, it does have a statutory role in this organisation which has been taken away by the Broads Authority and they have been turned into a talking shop, a consultative body, who have no influence on what is going on in the Authority and, as a consequence of that ----
551. CHAIRMAN: Mr Williams, this is beginning to sound like a speech.
552. MR WILLIAMS: It is, and I am sorry, my Lord, you are right to stop me.
553. CHAIRMAN: Cross-examination please.
554. MR WILLIAMS: Can I really change the frame of that question then and just say to Dr Packman: is it not the case that the Navigation Committee has actually got no ability to influence the Authority at all?
(Dr Packman) No, that is not true at all, given that the Chairman of the Navigation Committee is currently a member of the Broads Authority, as is one other member of the Navigation Committee. There is an argument that I think you would find a number of conservation bodies mount that actually the Broads Authority is more than well served by navigation interests and that it is actually the other interests that are not as well protected, so the Navigation Committee has a significant influence on the work of the Authority. Now, that is not just at a formal level, but it is also informally. We do take their advice seriously and there are things that I have referred to, like the Safety Management Group, where on a monthly basis we are sitting down with the lead member, who is a member of the Navigation Committee and a member of the Authority, discussing safety issues, and that advice is very seriously taken.
555. MR WILLIAMS: Well, we are going to have to disagree about that, and I shall move on to something else.
556. LORD METHUEN: How often does the Navigation Committee meet?
(Dr Packman) Generally, six times a year, but on occasion it has extra meetings if there are particular issues, so once every two months. The Broads Forum meets four times a year and the Broads Authority meets six times a year, so the Navigation Committee meets effectively before each Broads Authority.
557. MR WILLIAMS: I just would like to make one other observation about the Navigation Committee before I leave it. Can I ask you about the role of Mr Broom in the Navigation Committee. How long did you say he had been the Chairman?
(Dr Packman) I am not sure how long he has been the Chairman, but he has been a member of the Committee for 20 years, more than 20 years, and he has been a member of the Authority, I think, for that length of period.
558. So has he always been the Chairman of the Navigation Committee?
(Dr Packman) You probably know better than I, as the First Navigation Officer of the Broads Authority, and you will be able to tell me whether he was in 1989.
559. You would be able to tell me whether he was in 2003.
(Dr Packman) Correct, yes.
560. Was he?
(Dr Packman) Yes.
561. The Navigation Committee at that time, was it not subsumed into an organisation that you had created called the �Broads Management Committee�?
(Dr Packman) It was not subsumed. It met as part of a wider meeting, but it still met as the Navigation Committee.
562. So the Chairman of the Navigation Committee was the Chairman of the Management Group?
(Dr Packman) That is right, and the Chairman of the Navigation Committee at that time was Mr Coe for a brief period.
563. So it was not Mr Broom at all, it was Mr Coe?
(Dr Packman) It was not for that brief period.
564. CHAIRMAN: Is this part of your Petition?
565. MR WILLIAMS: No, my Lord. This is about the ways in which the Navigation Committee has been dealt with by the Authority and the only way I can examine that is actually by asking Dr Packman these questions. If I could come more up-to-date, Dr Packman, could I just ask you what changes you have made to the Navigation Committee in the last two years?
(Dr Packman) You keep personalising it, whereas in fact ----
566. You were using the word �I� before, but you are talking about the Authority?
(Dr Packman) I am just making the point that I cannot make changes to the Navigation Committee, but it is the Broads Authority. I think the changes that you are referring to are the way in which the Navigation Committee is appointed. In 2004, so the previous-to-last time when the Committee was appointed, the Broads Authority is required to consult a range of organisations representing different user groups and, when that was done in 2004, I think there were seven places, and the Broads Authority consulted 23 different organisations, but only ten names came forward and many of the organisations produced the same name. More worryingly to members of the Broads Authority is that one of those individuals whose name was put forward had barely completed the application form other than his name. In 2004, the members of the Broads Authority said, �We need to have a look at the process by which the Navigation Committee is appointed because clearly this does not seem appropriate�. The other thing to bear in mind is that, in the 20 years that the consultative process and appointments have been going, no single woman had ever come through that consultative process. Now, what happened was that we took advice from colleagues at Defra who pointed us in the direction of the Office for the Commissioner of Public Appointments who publish guidelines about how public appointments should be handled, and in fact were rather surprised that the Broads Authority was not using that system. OCPA, as it is known, produces guidelines which advise on some criteria that need to be used, and those are based on merit, independent scrutiny, equal opportunities, probity, openness and transparency. The process that the Broads Authority went through is that it consulted user organisations about bringing in a revised system which would open up the process to a wider group of people, but still remain within the framework set by the 1988 Act. We consulted particularly the boating organisations. Now, as a result of that process, some changes were made to the Broads Authority�s original ideas, including offering longstanding members of the Navigation Committee the opportunity for a further term because clearly the OCPA guidance assumes, or makes the assumption, that after ten years or that sort of length someone would stand down, and we had three members, one who had served more than 20 years, one 16 years and the other about 14 or 15 years, but the Authority was anxious not to lose that expertise, so it did not adopt the OCPA guidance without bearing that in mind. Therefore, it adopted a new process which was open, so a public advert, and we wrote to every tollpayer, so all 10,000 tollpayers were aware of the new opportunity that they had to put themselves forward. We consulted the organisations, as we were required to by the 1988 Act, a job description was written for the role with the person�s specification, the first time that had ever been done, to make it clear what the role was and that was agreed, and then we set up a panel with an independent chairman, so we again used the offices of John Edmonds, the Chairman of IWAC, who chaired the panel. Then we sought the rest of the panel from the boating organisations, national and local, so the panel included the Chairman of the Norfolk and Suffolk Boating Association and it also included the Chief Executive of the British Marine Federation and the Chairman of the Broads Authority, so the Broads Authority was in the minority on the panel that did the shortlisting and the selection. Now, the result of that process is that, rather than having ten names for seven places, we had 48 names for seven places, so the panel met, and I was not involved in this process at all, I did not see the applications and I had no input whatsoever, but the panel met, they looked at the 48 names, they shortlisted them, they interviewed them and then they identified those that they felt had merit of appointment. They then conformed to the requi

Today's transcript:
HOUSE OF LORDS
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
taken before the
SELECT COMMITTEE
on the
BROADS AUTHORITY BILL
DAY TWO
Tuesday 20 January 2009
Before:
Berkeley, L (Chairman)
Brougham and Vaux, L
Methuen, L
Oxburgh, L
Trimble, L


Ordered at 10.30 am: that Counsel and Parties be called in.
201. CHAIRMAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we continue from where we left off yesterday I have a short announcement to make. I am afraid I have a hospital appointment on Tuesday next for this arm and it is in the middle of the day in Oxford so the members of the Committee feel the best thing is for us not to meet on Tuesday. I tried to change it to early or late but I am sure you all know the problems of getting bookings in hospitals, so I am sorry about that. We can discuss future arrangements later in the week about sittings next week generally. Mr George, I think we continue with you, do we not?
202. MR GEORGE: Yes, my Lord. Before I start, my Lord, we have got an absolutely excellent transcript from yesterday; congratulations to the transcript writers. As is to be expected, there are a number of extremely minor matters and we will simply feed those through in the normal way. There are just a very few matters which I think it might be helpful if I raise now just in case your Lordships are working on the transcript. The first is page 3, four lines from the bottom of the page, where it says �safeguards sought in particular by voting interests�. Those are, of course, �boating interests�.
203. MR HOWES: Excuse me, my Lord Chairman. If Mr George would be so kind, could he use paragraph numbers, not page numbers?
204. MR GEORGE: I am sorry; certainly. It is page 3, paragraph 7. four lines from the very bottom of the page. The second matter is at page 15, paragraph 69, but it is the fourth line at page 15, where it says �clause 6 (2)(a)�. The transcript writer was not to know that in the Bill it is actually �(2A)�. At the bottom of page 15, in paragraph 73 in the sixth line, where at the end it says �clause 25, sub-section 24�, there are not 24 sub-sections. It is simply sub-section 4 or sub-clause 4. On page 16, paragraph 74, four lines from the end of the paragraph, the reference to �clause 1(a)� is again simply �clause 1A�. At page 20, paragraph 93, the seventh line, it says �the need for both section 17 and 8 goes�. It should read �the need for both section 17(7) and ( goes�. The whole of section 17 is not going. Lastly of these matters, at page 21 in paragraph 103 there is a reference in heavy type to �a Lord Dran Arthar�. It should be that it had been raised �by Lord Glenarthur�, not �a Lord Glenarthur�, and no discourtesy to him is intended by anyone at all. My Lord, the very last matter is at page 18, paragraph 84, in the fifth line, where it says, �All the 93 parish councils which are within the executive area of the Broads will themselves fall within one or other of those nine areas�. I may well have said �nine areas�. Your Lordships will know that in fact there are eight areas which appoint representatives, and of those eight areas some of them are county councils, so the crucial thing is that all the parish councils will be in the areas of at any rate six district councils and one or other of the two county councils. I do not want your Lordships to be confused thinking of nine areas when there are not nine areas.
205. CHAIRMAN: Mr George, before you carry on, can I just ask if any of the Petitioners have got any? Are they happy with those changes so far?
206. MR HOWES: Yes, my Lord, and I have one additional one. In paragraph 156, page 35, which is quite a long paragraph, towards the end where Dr Packman referred to �our Head of Safety and Strategy�, about five lines up from the bottom. I believe Dr Packman said that this gentleman was a qualified CORGI engineer.
207. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I recall that. Are we happy with that? (Agreed) Certainly on behalf of the Committee I think we should congratulate the shorthand writers for doing an extremely good job in spite of these small corrections. Mr George?

DR JOHN PACKMAN, recalled
Examination by MR GEORGE, continued
208. MR GEORGE: Dr Packman, yesterday we were looking at adjacent waters and I think that there are no other matters on adjacent waters with which it is necessary to deal. Can we just turn to the size of the Broads area, which is a matter which you cannot work out from our plan because it is a reduced version of a plan? What is first of all the size of the executive area of the Broads?
(Dr Packman) It is 301 square kilometres.
209. Then, so far as the navigable area is concerned, that is, the length of water, what length of waters do you administer?
(Dr Packman) It is 125 miles, 200 kilometres.
210. If we go east/west from Norwich to Great Yarmouth what is the approximate distance by water?
(Dr Packman) From Norwich to Yarmouth by water is about 26 miles and it is about 20 miles by road.
211. If we go north/south and take as an example Dilham down to Bungay in the south, what is the distance there by road?
(Dr Packman) As the crow flies it is about 24 miles, so in effect it is a square about 24 miles by 20 miles, but, of course, if you go by river it is a lot longer.
212. CHAIRMAN: Mr George, before we leave that subject, some members of the Committee were asking if these two plans in section 1 could have had scales on them. They do have squares on them. What is the length of the side of these squares?
213. MR GEORGE: I am told that it is a very unreliable exercise because there have been so many reductions that one should not seek to be too precise at all. I am told that on the one we are looking at, 1A, it is about 1:34,000. That was why I tried to give your Lordships the bigger picture by those figures. So far as the figure for a square is concerned, I will take instructions and come back to your Lordships. Can you deal with that, Dr Packman?
(Dr Packman) I think on the bigger plans where it is a kilometre, it is a kilometre grid would be my assumption, and, similarly, looking at the bigger plan (and some of them do not look very much square-ish), where you can see a square, again my assumption is that they are kilometre grids.
214. MR HOWES: If I might help, my Lord, Braydon Water is almost five miles from one end to the other, so that might give you some idea of the scale.
215. CHAIRMAN: Right, that is the yellow bit.
216. MR HOWES: That is the yellow bit, but it is also the main focus of the first plan.
217. CHAIRMAN: Yes, so probably the little squares, even when they are reduced, are one kilometre side lengths.
(Dr Packman) That is the standard unit used on Ordnance Survey maps which these will be taken from.
218. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, but a number of members of the Committee were talking about this and we just needed clarification. Are we content? (Agreed) Thank you, Mr George.
219. MR GEORGE: Could we next, Mr Packman, please go to the little bundle of correspondence with the Petitioners, which is a separate bundle, and go to tab 1? The first letter in that is one of 8 July which went out to a number of named agents for Petitioners, and accompanying it, if you turn on to pages 1-3, there is a response to certain specific issues raised by the Petitioners, and that came in a letter sent by Mr Keir Hounsome, who was the Solicitor to the Authority. Is that right?
(Dr Packman) That is correct.
220. I do not want to go through the full detail of that, but if we look, for example, at item 1 it says, �There is no definition of �pleasure craft��, and then an answer is given. Likewise, do we have for three pages particular points identified by Petitioners and a short response from the Authority to them?
(Dr Packman) Yes, we do. Mr Hounsome was trying to be helpful in terms of clarifying some of the points the Petitioners had raised.
221. So far as that is concerned, have you had an opportunity to look through that document?
(Dr Packman) Yes, I have.
222. Can the Committee take it that that sets out formally the response of the Broads Authority to those particular matters?
(Dr Packman) Yes, it does.
223. Then I think we can save time by not having to read out all those matters. There is just one I ought to take up on page 2, paragraph 5, dealing with directions, and there is a suggestion that directions �could be used to resolve conflicts with conservation�. The response is, �As already indicated, clause 4(1) makes clear the limited purposes for which general directions can be given. In addition, it is proposed to introduce an amendment which makes it clear that special directions can only be given for a similar purpose.� That amendment is clause 6(2A), which is the first page of the pages apart. Is that not right?
(Dr Packman) Yes. As I remember, this is a point raised by Mr Waller when we had a meeting with him, because it was pointed that within the existing 1988 Act there was a power to give special directions but it was not limited in the same way that we were proposing for the new general directions, and we were happy to agree that such a limitation could be added to the Authority�s existing powers.
224. As I say, we can see various other matters raised. Under paragraph 8 there is a suggestion that the compulsory insurance should come in by the registration byelaws, and the Authority�s stance is set out there. There is a point at paragraph 9 from, I think, Mr Howes, that clause 18(b) left him exposed and the answer is that the Authority felt he was not exposed because it would only apply to vessels if they continued to give rise to danger to persons or property or risk of pollution, and that appears in clause 18, and various other matters. As I say, we will not go through all those in detail in order to try and save time in that regard. Coming back, please, Dr Packman, to clauses 17-20 in the Bill, which are dealing with the inspection of vessels, I have already introduced the Committee to various safeguards which are contained in them. I just seek your view though, for instance, on clause 20, which is dealing with the removal of unsafe vessels. Why do you need provisions such as this?
(Dr Packman) This is another good example of how the Authority is seeking this provision following the experience it has had in recent years. There was a large, former World War II vessel called the Golden Galleon, which was a wooden vessel 110 feet long with which the Authority had considerable problems over several years. It was moored in the navigation area and at great risk of sinking. If it had sunk at the point where it was moored it would have been extremely difficult for us to deal with. We knew who the owner was but he refused to respond to our correspondence. We made strenuous efforts to contact his agents, his solicitors, and had still not got anywhere. Staff were having to regularly inspect it. There was an adjoining property owner who went on and pumped it out regularly, but whenever the wind blew we were fearful that this huge wooden structure would sink in the navigation area and the Authority would then be responsible for its removal. In the end we had to wait as long as necessary such that we could then treat it as an abandoned vessel and then very gingerly we took it downstream and the Authority broke it up, That is the sort of example where it does not happen very often but without the necessary powers to deal with it it could have created a major problem for the Authority and a major cost which would have had to be borne by the toll payers.
225. So far as Petitioners� points on these particular clauses are concerned, a number of them are dealt with in that document which we were looking at a moment ago, so I will not come back to them. In particular those are points on clause 18 raised by Mrs Howes and Mr Bennett, but there is one point on clause 19 which I want to ask you about. It is a point raised by Mrs Howes, who says she has got strong objection to anyone doing work on her vessel. You may remember that point in paragraph 14 of the Petition. What is the protection to Mrs Howes?
(Dr Packman) Clause 19(1)(b) provides only for authorised officers to carry out works and then only to remove any imminent danger or risk of pollution.
226. MR GEORGE: So at 19(1)(b) the only works that can be carried out are works to remove �any imminent danger to the safety of any person or property on or near the vessel, or any imminent risk of pollution�. So far as further protections are concerned, we can see in clause 19(4) at the top of page 15 of the filled-up Bill that there is an express compensation provision, is there not, if there is any damage caused by the exercise of the powers at a time that the vessel was not unsafe?
227. LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: Mr George, I am sorry to interrupt you, but who determines whether there is a risk, as you were saying in 19(1)(b), when there is immediate risk of pollution?
228. MR GEORGE: It will have to be the decision of the authorised officer who will have to make a judgment upon that particular matter. In most circumstances if consent is refused by the owner there has to be a warrant, in which case the magistrate will have to make a decision on that matter, and if at the end of the day the boat owner feels that the works were unjustified because it was an irrational conclusion that the boat was in imminent danger, then the boat owner can bring proceedings and achieve recovery of compensation under 19(4) because in those circumstances the onus would be on the authorised officer to demonstrate that at the time when the power was exercised the vessel was unsafe. If the situation was that it could be proved that the vessel had in fact been a safe vessel then the Authority would be exposing itself to compensation under 19(4).
229. LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: Thank you, Mr George, that is very helpful.
230. MR GEORGE: Can we then leave those clauses and move on to clause 41, which was the licensing of the hired boats provision. You have already dealt with the reasons why it is not satisfactory to work through the local authorities, and we will not go back over that matter. There is one matter which is raised by Mr Campbell which I want to pursue with you. What it says is that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency produce recommendations and, in particular, produce a code for small passenger vessels on inland waterways and that any powers which we obtain should be limited to their recommendations. What do you say about that matter?
(Dr Packman) The Maritime and Coastguard Agency are currently producing a hire boat code in partnership with the British Marine Federation and AINA, the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities. It is intended that this code will form the basis of the licensing conditions within the Broads. The small passenger vessel code only applies to helmed vessels, and is only advisory. It should not apply to self-drive vessels. Both of those codes are only advisory. The Authority will have regard to both of them when working with the local industry in drawing up the licensing conditions.
231. We then move on to the Navigation Committee. I explained in my opening what was going to happen in respect of the Navigation Committee, but there are I think three matters with which I would want you to deal. First of all, to what extent at the present time, i.e. before the Bill is enacted, is the Navigation Committee exercising executive functions?
(Dr Packman) The Navigation Committee does not exercise executive functions. In practice it is consultative and advisory only.
232. So far as the change brought about by the Bill is concerned, which removes the requirement to delegate functions to the Navigation Committee and extends the matters on which the Navigation Committee is to be consulted, what has been the reaction to that from both the Navigation Committee itself and the associations representing boating interests?
(Dr Packman) This is one area where we work very closely particularly with the RYA and the BMF. The Bill contains a number of provisions which will require the Authority to consult the Navigation Committee on. For instance, one of those is planning applications which have a significant impact on the navigation area. At the moment there is no requirement for the Authority to do that. That has been included, and those changes have been accepted by the boating organisations and the Navigation Committee.
233. If their Lordships would be kind enough to turn to page 37 of the filled-up Bill¸ they have a list of the seven matters on which the Navigation Committee is to be consulted; and they are going to include (i) being consulted �before delegating any function of the Authority in relation to the navigation to any person�. Then in (iv) there is the matter which referred to planning applications; and that is the matter which you were referring to a few moments ago, on which they are going to be consulted?
(Dr Packman) That is correct.
234. Last matter, what about the direct line of authority? Is that going to be significantly changed or strengthened by the changes?
(Dr Packman) One of the key points that came out of our work with the Port Marine Safety Code was in relation to how safety was managed. You will remember that one of the things I referred to earlier was that the Code requires the Authority to identify a duty holder � and the duty holder is the Authority; so it is the 21 members collectively and individually who are responsible for safety and they then delegate that responsibility down to officers in terms of their operational duties on the ground. What became clear was that it was not a good route to have that delegation going through a Navigation Committee which was essentially largely comprised of user and representatives of vested interests. Ultimately, that line of responsibility, in terms of delegation, has to be from the duty holder, from the Board if you like of the Authority, to its officers, so there is absolute clarity about how safety is managed. In practice it does not make a great deal of difference because the Navigation Committee has been a consultative body anyway; but certainly in the discussions with the RYA they were absolutely clear that the Navigation Committee should be an important both advisory body, so they have a wealth of experience to give members and officers advice, but also a scrutiny body, so that they should look at the way in which the Authority conducts its affairs in terms of the management and maintenance of the navigation; but it was not right that it should have executive functions; and that the line of delegation should be directly from the Authority to its officers. There is a relatively simple change, which has an important point of principle behind it but, in practice, compared to what happens today makes very little difference.
235. Dr Packman, there are three points raised by Petitioners in relation to the Navigation Committee with which I would ask you to deal. The first is a point raised by Mr Law, that the changes to the constitution of the Committee mean that it is unable to protect the interests of the boating community. What do you feel on that matter?
(Dr Packman) No, I do not think that is the case. By the addition of these paragraphs which require the Authority to consult on a wider range of matters it actually strengthens that advisory and scrutiny role.
236. Secondly, Mr Ping said that the Navigation Committee should be consulted on the level of tolls in adjacent waters. I think that is a matter where we have accepted his point and there is an amendment in the Bill to deal with the matter, is that right?
(Dr Packman) That is correct, on page 38 of the Bill towards the bottom.
237. Page 38 of the Bill, in Schedule 7, if we go to paragraph 7, line 26, there is a provision: �Amend section 13 (navigation charges) as follows�; and if we go to paragraph (2) there we can see that the Navigation Committee are to be consulted not only on tolls and charges �to be imposed in respect of the navigation area�, but also as a result of the proposed amendment, with the number 4, �or adjacent waters�. So they are to be consulted; is that right?
(Dr Packman) That is correct.
238. The last of the points raised is a point raised by Mr Atkins who says that it is not enough that the Committee must continue to be consulted on relevant matters, he says the Authority must follow its advice. What do you say on that matter?
(Dr Packman) Certainly the Broads Authority does listen; it does consult the Navigation Committee and generally follows its advice, but cannot be bound by that. Again, one of the things we agreed with the RYA at their suggestion is that, should the Authority not follow that advice, the Authority will report back to the Navigation Committee on why it chose not to do so; but, given that the Navigation Committee is a scrutiny and advisory body, the duty holder for safety purposes cannot be bound by the advice that it is given.
239. If your Lordships would turn to page 37 of the filled-up Bill in Schedule 7 down at the very bottom of the page in line 44 one has the new paragraph (9): �In exercising its functions the Authority shall have regard to any representations made to it by the Navigation Committee on matters relating to the navigation area and, where the Authority resolves not to adopt any recommendations made to it by the Navigation Committee, it shall provide full reasons for doing so�. That is the provision you were referring to, is that right?
(Dr Packman) That is correct.
240. Leave the Navigation Committee and then come on to the abolition of the separate navigation account. First of all, what has been the attitude of the associations representing boating interests to this change?
(Dr Packman) The wording in the Bill has been agreed with them and, in addition, the Authority has confirmed in its legal agreement with boating interests the format of the new accounts, and agreed that no changes will be made to that format without the agreement of the Navigation Committee.
241. So far as the annual report which is to be published is concerned, will it be possible from that - and the materials which the boating associations have insisted that the Authority should produce - that there will be transparency so that boaters can discover how the navigation income is being expended?
(Dr Packman) Yes, that is the result of the agreement with the RYA and the British Marine Federation. It means that the accounts will show how navigation income has been spent and what the expenditure is.
242. LORD OXBURGH: Dr Packman, may I ask whether the proceedings of the Navigation Committee are open and public?
(Dr Packman) Yes, they are. There is a regular member of the public who attends, and whenever there is a contentious issue we get other members of the public who come along. In addition to that, as with all our committees, the material, both the agendas and the minutes are all placed on the website so any member of the public can see very transparently how the Authority works and the issues it is considering.
243. MR GEORGE: Could we please turn to page 39 of the filled-up Bill. At line 15 in paragraph 8 do we have a definition of �navigation revenue account� and a definition of �navigation expenditure�, and one of �navigation income�?
(Dr Packman) Yes, that is what is defined there.
244. So far as the navigation revenue account is concerned, that is going to cease to exist, is it not?
(Dr Packman) Correct.
245. So far as the calculation of navigation expenditure and the calculation of navigation income is concerned, that is going to continue, is it not?
(Dr Packman) Correct. The two things the RYA, the BMF and the IWA were concerned to retain were that navigation income and expenditure are equal, and that there is a transparent form of accounting so that can be seen.
246. If we look to line 6 and paragraph 6 there we have got: �It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that taking one financial year with another navigation expenditure is equal to navigation income�; and therefore that basic principle, as the Minister has described it, is going to continue?
(Dr Packman) Correct.
247. So far as Petitioners� points are concerned, Mr Howes would rather that paragraph 6 provided that a minimum of toll payer and other income should be spent on navigation, rather than as worded where it says �is equal to navigation income�. What is your response to that matter?
(Dr Packman) In the Committee in the House of Commons, having heard the evidence provided by the Government, the Committee decided otherwise so that the Authority will have to match navigation expenditure with navigation income.
248. In the 1988 Act in section 17 there are provisions in section 17(7) and section 17( for making transfers between the two separate accounts; and both of those go with the amendments you are proposing. There are some Petitioners who say that those provisions, or at any rate section 17(7), should stay. What do you say to that criticism?
(Dr Packman) I think the key point here is the new wording retains the phrase �taking one � year with another�. Income and expenditure rarely match in the same year but there is a level of reserves that the Authority holds and it is by balancing those reserves over more than one year that the Authority can manage its affairs. So that there will be the ability to move effectively money on an annual basis between the accounts, but taking one year with another income received from the navigation and spent on the navigation will need to be equal.
249. Is there any longer any need for the older section 17(7)?
(Dr Packman) No, there is not.
250. There are a number of objectors who say you should continue to have to have the two separate accounts. What is your response to that?
(Dr Packman) I think the two key things I have mentioned are: the assurance that the accounts are transparent so people can see how the money is spent; and we have satisfied particularly the Government�s requirement that income and expenditure on navigation are balanced. Having these two separate accounts - which are not real accounts, they are not real bank accounts � has proved to be a very divisive thing in the Authority, in that people feel that they are protecting the navigation account from the general account. In practice we all work for the benefit of the Broads, and having a separate account has been seen as almost as a totem; but in practice it does not deliver any more accountability or transparency. It does mean that when the Authority has to print its budget it prints it in three different forms: it prints a combined version; a separate general account version; and a separate navigation account version. I and the Authority feel that having one account, as long as it has these protections and the transparency built into it, is an important feature of trying to bring the different interests together, rather than seeing navigation as some separate entity from the overall responsibilities of the Broads Authority.
251. After Dr Packman on this matter, Mr Baguley is concerned about the repeals of certain provisions of the 1988 Act, because he thinks that they serve a useful purpose in preventing tolls being used for conservation purposes; and he fears that in the future it will be easier for you to use navigation income, that is tolls, for conservation purposes, which he would not want. What do you say to that?
(Dr Packman) No, that still remains not possible for the Authority to do. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 7 deals with that particular matter.
252. That is page 39 of the filled-up Bill which limits the nature of navigation expenditure and provides that you cannot simply spend navigation income on conservation matters. Is that right?
(Dr Packman) Yes, that is correct.
253. MR BAGULEY: Mr George, could you repeat the reference?
254. MR GEORGE: Page 39 at line 18, we have got a definition of �navigation expenditure�, and below it starting with the words �but for the purposes� one has the restrictions showing that one cannot simply spend navigation income on conservation matters, because it �shall not be classified as navigation expenditure unless ��; so it has got to have a navigation purpose, otherwise it cannot be spent on it. One sees straight away that there is this tension between those who would like more money to be spent on conservation and those on boating, but the two are kept separate in the 1988 Act and are still to be separate, are they not, because of the retention of those definitions. Is that right, Dr Packman?
(Dr Packman) Correct. That meets the requirements by the Government that navigation income equals expenditure, and the requirements by the boating interests that it is transparent and they can see how it is spent. In practice, the management of the Broads is what economists call a �joint product�, so all the activity that we do has a value for lots of different interests at any one point in time and it is, in practice, really quite difficult to separate out what is navigation expenditure and what is not navigation expenditure. For a little organisation, this is quite a big overhead for us. We employ 2½ finance staff who manage the budget of something over £6 million and, if you think about things like dredging, it is very difficult to decide when dredging becomes dredging for navigation and when dredging becomes dredging for the benefit of the wider community and conservation. For instance, one of the biggest projects the Authority has engaged on in its history was a £3 million programme to dredge Barton Broad where we took out 300,000 cubic metres of silt that was full of phosphorous and nitrate, and that was almost all paid for by the general account and the navigation account only contributed £160,000 out of £3 million. Now, you could argue that the main beneficiaries are the boaters who use it because it is now deeper and they can sail all over the Broad, but you could also argue it is the wider community because there has been a little runnunculus flower which has appeared on the Broad for the first time in 50 years, the water is much clearer and there is a wider public benefit, but the arrangements that were agreed in 1988, which this Bill largely retains, say that the Broads Authority has to distinguish between its expenditure on navigation and non-navigation, and we will continue to do that, but I would like the Committee to understand that it is a large task for a little organisation and we do it as transparently as we can, but, in practice, separating some of these things is quite difficult.
255. CHAIRMAN: Mr George, you have mentioned tension from the boating interests to make sure that navigation money was spent on navigation, but presumably there is a counterbalancing tension from the conservation groups who want the other, and we probably are not going to hear from them today, but presumably you get that and it comes also from Defra?
(Dr Packman) Absolutely. Particularly in the Commons Committee, the Defra officials made the point strongly in terms of the Government that it is a national park grant and it needs to be spent on national park purposes. I can understand from their point of view that, if you had a single account which was completely permeable and with no restriction in it, it would make the negotiations over tolls much more difficult because there would be a strong argument from the toll-payers that more should be going on the tolls and the navigation should be more supported by the state contribution, whereas, from Defra�s point of view, it is buying the national park grant, the national park grant is buying its delivery of the national park purposes. I can see the argument from both sides and the Authority has met that in the Bill, but the world is not quite like that, the world is much more transparent, so, even something as obvious as a mooring which you would think was obviously a navigation benefit, in fact having decent moorings, well-maintained and looked after, has a benefit for the wider public in terms of its amenity, but also for anglers who would use them, but we live in a world where particularly this annual discussion about how much owners of boats should contribute is a difficult one, so I fully understand, from a Defra point of view, that having that argument where basically the responsibility for maintaining the navigation from a financial point of view is with the users of the navigation makes a lot of sense. It is just that, if you are an economist or even have a wider interest, it is a fallacy because the Broads are there for everyone and we happen to have our money from different places.
256. MR GEORGE: I think it is fair to say, Dr Packman, that in the original version of the Bill you attempted to move the matter a little bit to get a little bit of extra for navigation and that is where the Department came in and made representations on the Select Committee and that is why we have the provision worded as it is now, which keeps the rigid demarcation.
(Dr Packman) It does, but, to underline the point, the Department was actually being really supportive of the Authority, not only with the Bill, but also recognising the backlog of the dredging that we faced and have made, as I mentioned earlier, a significant additional contribution to that, so the public good is helped along.
257. The last of the contentious issues is the Association of the Parish Councils, and I dealt with that very fully, I think, in my opening. There are only two matters which I want to raise with you. The first is the response of various other interests when you consulted them about what the parish councils were suggesting, that is, that some of the Secretary of State�s ten appointees should no longer represent their interests, but the two of them should specifically represent parish councils� interests, and I think that that is a matter which is dealt with in tab 13 of the bundle, is it not?
(Dr Packman) That is correct.
258. If we just turn to tab 13, which we did not look at in the opening, there is first in tab 13 your letter to a number of organisations, telling them what it was that the Association were proposing. At page 2 of your letter of September 2008, you set out the amendment which the Association were seeking and which we looked at yesterday. Is that right?
(Dr Packman) Yes, that is correct.
259. There then follows, first of all, on the very next page, a letter of 3 October from the Royal Yachting Association and they say in the third paragraph of their letter that they have no �difficulty in principle with an individual parish or town councillor being appointed to the Authority if the Secretary of State considers that that person represents the interests of boating, conservation, farming and landowning or land-based recreation�. However, they do not �believe that it is necessary or appropriate for two parish or town councillors to be appointed simply by reason of their being parish or town councillors, particularly since this would then reduce the number of appointees representing� those various interests, so that was the line they took. Turning the page, we then have the Inland Waterways Association and, in the second paragraph, 19 September 2008, we can see that they recommended that you reject the request in its present form. Well, of course it is entirely for the House to decide on this matter. In the third paragraph: �As you know, there is currently a careful balance between what are effectively nationally appointed members and locally appointed members. This reflects both local concerns and national importance, interest and use of the Broads. The effect of the request would be to alter the balance to the detriment of national interests�, and they make the same point as the RYA have made. Then, thirdly, there is an email from the Campaign for National Parks, which, I think, is a body which used to be called the �Council for National Parks� and is now called the �Campaign for National Parks�. They say, in the second paragraph, that they do not support the amendment. �While not necessarily opposing the introduction of parish council members�we would object if the introduction of parish members resulted in a reduction of members appointed by the Secretary of State to represent the interests of boating, conservation�, et cetera. �All of these interests are essential to the effective operation of the Authority and its delivery of the statutory purposes of the Broads and they should not be diminished in any way by the enactment of the Broads Authority Bill. In our view, if parish council members were to be introduced to the Broads Authority, then these should either be additional to the current Authority membership or emanate from the local authority element of the membership. However, given the balanced way in which the membership has been operating since its reduction to 21, we are not convinced that there is sufficient merit in introducing parish members to risk disturbing this balance.� Then, I think there has been one further letter received which is from the NFU, to which I referred in opening, and I said we would circulate that letter. It is of the 8 January 2009. (Document handed in). This letter does not expressly say �NFU�, but it is from Mr Paul Hammett, the Senior Policy Adviser to the NFU?
(Dr Packman) Yes, in the Eastern Region, the East Anglian Region.
260. We see it is coming from Agriculture House, which is a very appropriately named office. He thanks you for the opportunity to comment and he welcomes the present proposals in the Bill. Then the third paragraph: �You have now asked for our views on a revised proposal�Again we would assume that the status quo for farming may be generally safeguarded which is essential in view of the reliance of the Broads on riparian and land ownership and management. In our view, membership of the Broads Authority could benefit from the representation of town and parish councillors, although we would not support a specific quota for this category (two members currently suggested) when other sectors are being asked to accept the concept of a �fair balance�. Moreover, we do not think that town and parish councillors should be appointed by the Secretary of State. Rather, we believe that town and parish councillors should be drawn from the �local democracy� group of constituent local authorities�, and those are the ones that are making up at present the nine members. Is that right?
(Dr Packman) That is correct.
261. Now, it may be convenient if the Committee simply insert that into tab 13 because that is where it ought to have been in the first place and it belongs in there. The other matter I want to ask you about is can you just tell their Lordships what is the position about the Boundary Commission review of electoral arrangements in Norfolk.
(Dr Packman) Yes, I think there are several points I would like to make in relation to this issue. The Broads Authority�s membership does not follow precisely the same as either the national parks in England and Wales, it is different in England from Wales and different again for Scotland. The Broads has always had its own membership to reflect the particular circumstances it has and the particular importance to represent interests like navigation which not only has two members from the Navigation Committee, but potentially members by the Secretary of State appointments. For land and farming, which has been a big issue and was an even bigger issue in the past when the grazing rights were being ploughed up, the Bill proposes to add back the conservation issues and the land-based recreation. Several of those letters refer to this idea of balance, the balance between the national issues and the local issues, with the local issues having 50 per cent plus one and the national having the remainder. Now, as I think we referred to earlier, in the Third Reading in the House of Commons, the Minister indicated he was going to consult on both the issues of direct elections for national parks and the issue of parish membership for the Broads Authority, and the Broads Authority fully supports his statement that it is not a matter for this Bill to relook at the membership and he will in due course make a decision about those things and, if he believes it needs further changing, bring forward further legislation, but this is all a period of potentially rapid change in Norfolk and Suffolk. As some of your Lordships may be aware, there is a review of local government structures currently outstanding. The Boundary Commission are due to report on February 12. Currently, in Norfolk we have the seven district councils and one county council and I cannot remember how many districts there are in Suffolk, but one county council. In those cases, the Boundary Commission is looking at unitary local government. One option for Norfolk would be a unitary Norfolk County Council and one option for Suffolk would be a unitary Suffolk County Council. You can quickly see that, if the Secretary of State finds favour with those and those go forward, then the Broads Authority, far from currently having nine local authorities that contribute, could be down to two local authorities contributing nine members. I think that would then pose some big questions, particularly as Norfolk has significantly more land area in the Broads Authority than Suffolk and it probably might argue that, of the nine members, it ought to have seven or eight. Again, if you go back to this idea of balance, certainly in other national parks where this issue has come up recently, the Secretary of State has made amendments to make sure that one local authority does not have a dominant position. In terms of the Broads Authority�s view about both direct elections and parish council membership, it has major reservations about both of those, but feels that, in particular, we need to await the outcome of the local government review because, in all those sort of unitary proposals for Norfolk, the Norfolk County Council one and the Norwich City Council one, they both make reference to the fact of seeing an enhanced roles for parish councils, so the Broads Authority could see that retaining its 21 members, which is probably big enough and some of them would see it still as too many, but, if it is retaining its members and retaining its ten Secretary of State appointees, two navigation and left with nine, one could conceive of a position where one would have five or six Norfolk county councillors, perhaps one or two Suffolk county councillors, and that would leave space for either directly elected members or a couple of parish councillors. The Authority, therefore, is not entirely against the idea that parish councillors or directly elected members might be appropriate, but it needs, in the view of the members of the Authority, to wait to see what the Government finally decides about the future structure of local government in Norfolk and Suffolk.
262. LORD TRIMBLE: Did I understand you in the midst of that to say you had major reservations about the concept of direct elections and parish councillors being on the Authority?
(Dr Packman) Members of the Authority have considered both of those. In terms of directly elected members, they support the principle of direct elections, but, when looking at the boundary of the Broads Authority, they have major reservations about how it might work in that there is hardly a whole settlement within it, so, if you take the 5,000 or 6,000 people who live in it, about 5,000 who would be on the six different electoral rolls, it is difficult to see how they would fulfil a constituency that would come forward with two people who would represent them, but would not represent the people who live immediately outside the boundary. For instance, I mentioned Wroxham and Hoveton where the largest parts of both of those settlements are in two different district councils and the Broads Authority has a tiny bit in the middle. It seems anomalous that the perhaps half a dozen people, or 100 perhaps, who might live within that little bit might be on an electoral vote for membership of the Broads Authority when those who live immediately outside who also have an interest in the Broads might not have, so, in terms of direct elections there, they have some reservations. I think the reservations in terms of parish councillors is that their experience, as I mentioned earlier, is that the issues that the Broads Authority considers have not generally seemed to be the ones that parish councillors are most interested in and that, by engaging more directly with parish councillors for a particular planning function, that might be a better way of local people feeling involved, but, as I say, members of the Broads Authority have an open mind on all of this pending the outcome of the local government review because they equally can see that an Authority that had, for instance, eight Norfolk county councillors and one Suffolk county councillor might not have enough local accountability in the way that the present district councillors do who definitely do have a very local feel about their patch and do have a local relationship with local people, so, if there is a planning application in a particular settlement, the district councillor who comes from Broadland district, for instance, would be open and available to members of the public who have an interest in that planning application and potentially will come along and speak.
263. MR GEORGE: Lastly, there are some clauses of the Bill which are not specifically objected to but it will be within their Lordships� remit, nevertheless, to look also at the unopposed clauses, but I hope we can take them pretty quickly. If any of them particularly trouble any of your Lordships, of course, please ask any questions you want on them. Can we start with clause 37, the Haddiscoe Cut. That is the one where there is not a public right of navigation at present, albeit there is no obstacle to someone passing through it. Clause 37 amends existing legislation. Is that correct?
(Dr Packman) It does. As I think I probably referred to earlier, there is an anomaly. So this should be part of the navigation, and what the Bill will do is ensure that the Environment Agency, who own the Cut, effectively � that that jurisdiction passes in full to the Broads Authority, removing that anomaly and protecting for boating interests the right of navigation along that bit of the waterway.
264. LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: Haddiscoe Cut. What is it? Is it a river or a viaduct or what?
(Dr Packman) �Cut� is probably a good description, in that it is a very straight line that was cut out probably in the early part of the 19th Century (I am not sure of the date) ----
265. MR HOWES: 1830.
(Dr Packman) ---- when, as I understand it, Lowestoft was competing for the trade that came down the River Yare from Norwich with Yarmouth. Therefore, they deliberately cut this straight line so that they could get down and out through Lowestoft rather than going through Yarmouth. But it is very much, as is said, like a canal; it is dead straight and quite narrow, so it is not easy to navigate. There has been some recent work carried out by the Environment Agency�s contractors stabilising one side where there is a railway line, where we had some concerns because they use something called gabion (?) baskets; they are wire-framed baskets that are filled with flint because it is quite difficult to shore up that side. Because that was all part of the floodplain originally, the underlying rock strata � well, it has not got an underlying rock strata, that is the problem; it is gooey mud, and stabilising these flood defences has been quite difficult, but the Authority has been working very closely with the Agency in terms of ensuring that it is safe to navigate down there.
266. It was basically built to save you going all the way up the river and back down?
(Dr Packman) Yes.
267. CHAIRMAN: Mr George, before you move on, Dr Packman said that the Environment Agency had been repairing the banks with gabions and everything to protect the railway line. Who will be paying for that in the future?
(Dr Packman) That will still rest with the Agency and its contractors, in terms of the responsibility for the flood defences.
268. So Network Rail will not have to pay anything towards that?
(Dr Packman) I suspect they do not, no.
269. MR GEORGE: That is a matter between the Environment Agency, as the Riparian owner, and Network Rail; not a matter to which you are committing the Broads one way or the other. Is that right, Dr Packman?
(Dr Packman) Thankfully. There are a number of areas where we try and keep well away because some of the issues in terms of flood protection are extremely difficult and expensive in the context of the Broads.
270. Clause 38, �Agreements with others�. What is the purpose of this clause?
(Dr Packman) This power will enable the Authority, in particular, to enter into agreements with the Environment Agency and British Waterways to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the application of the National Boat Safety Scheme.
271. So far as clause 39 is concerned, provision of information, again why is it needed?
(Dr Packman) This clause will allow the Authority to provide information to external agencies � information held by the Authority � where it will help those agencies exercise their enforcement responsibilities. It will also allow information to be passed to others, provided there is no breach of the Data Protection Act and there is good cause. This will, in particular, allow the Authority to pass on certain details of vessels which have been involved in hit-and-run incidents, and I can think of examples where we have had people complain that their vessel has been damaged and they have got the number but they would like to find out who owns it and what their address is so they can contact them. This would make provision for that sort of arrangement.
272. We can see from the proposed amendment to clause 39(3) at page 27 of the Bill that there is an express incorporation of reference to the Data Protection Act 1998 in manuscript at the bottom of the page.
(Dr Packman) Correct.
273. Clause 40: �Removal of Vegetation�. Why do you need that?
(Dr Packman) We have not talked about this so far, but one of the other big maintenance issues for the Broads is that trees readily grow in the Broads� environment; it is nice and damp, relatively warm (apart from this time of the year) and because the banks are relatively soft one of the major problems we have is overhanging vegetation, which then, on a not-infrequent basis, is undermined, topples over and can fall on boats. We have had several examples in the last couple of years where Broads Authority staff have been out and removed that vegetation that has fallen on someone�s boat. We have a programme now in terms of being proactive, and we have better equipment to go and deal with some of this, and 99 times out of 100 we work very closely with the landowner and the landowner is quite happy for us to gain access and deal with the trees, or they will deal with them themselves. However, we have had a number of examples where there are clearly dangerous trees overhanging the navigation and, for one reason or another, we either cannot find out who the landowner is or the landowner is not available, and therefore this provision allows the Authority to go and deal specifically with those dangerous trees, but again with certain protections to make sure that we are not arbitrarily going along and cutting down trees. Clearly, in an area like the Broads there are a whole bunch of other interests that would like the trees protected. We have to survey them carefully to make sure there are no bats; anglers like overhanging trees because they provide spawning places for fish. So it is another one of those areas that is difficult to manage but we have a programme of doing a strategy and a survey, and this allows us to take account of particular trees which are dangerous.
274. CHAIRMAN: Do you charge the landowners for lopping their trees under these circumstances, if they are dangerous?
(Dr Packman) My recollection is that we do not. Generally, we regard it as carrying out our navigation functions, and we have the equipment. Sometimes it is easier for us to do it than the landowner. It can be quite difficult (a) in the marshland areas for them to actually get to the spot, and (b) in terms of dropping some of these trees we do have staff who are trained and equipped with the right equipment to make that safe.
275. MR GEORGE: Let me go quickly then to the Schedules to the Bill, starting at page 30 of the Filled Up Bill. Schedule 1: �Procedures as to General Directions�. You have already commented upon them, and they are intended as a protection, are they not, to boating interests that general directions will be subject to a consultation procedure?
(Dr Packman) Yes. This is an important part of the provision because, obviously, there have been concerns about general directions (even though the Government support them many harbour authorities have them), and the Marine Navigation Bill would make that easier for the harbour authority to receive it. In fact, I understand that the Royal Yachting Association in their comments back to the Department for Transport on the draft Bill have suggested this sort of arrangement for other harbour authorities, but I suspect other harbour authorities will resist such a process because, clearly, they would like to be able to make general directions rather faster.
276. Schedule 2 is �Provisions as to Appeal Panels�, and I do not think we need spend further time on that. I mentioned yesterday that an amendment was likely to be brought forward in respect of the Water-ski-ing and Water-boarding Panel. Schedule 3: �Requirements as to Insurance Policies�. The requirement for insurance is not a provision to which anyone objects, and here one has got set out the detailed matters relating to insurance which will be required and, under paragraph 4, what will not be required. Schedule 4 is Breydon Water, and you dealt with that yesterday. Schedule 5 deals with what is now the clause 41 matter in relation to the licensing of boats. Schedule 6 is the �Transitional Provisions�. Are they all fairly standard to accommodate the new provisions of the Bill over time and to phase out matters such as the existing Boat Safety Standards under byelaws?
(Dr Packman) That is correct, yes.
277. Schedule 7 we have looked at from time to time, at page 36. There are a number of amendments to the 1988 Act, most of which we have already dealt with. There is one matter I want to ask you about in Schedule 7, at paragraph 2, on page 36, where in section 4 of the 1988 Act for �the Agency� substitute� Natural England�. Why is that happening?
(Dr Packman) �The Agency� referred to would have been the Countryside Agency. Of course, the Countryside Agency has now merged with two other bodies to form Natural England, and Natural England is the Government�s advisor on national parks.
278. So far as the other matters are concerned, is there anything else in Schedule 7, other than the matters we have already been dealing with, which you think we ought to draw their Lordships� attention to? We have already dealt with the financial provisions and some of the others.
(Dr Packman) No, I do not think so, Mr George.
279. The only other matter is why are you going from having two navigation officers to only one?
(Dr Packman) When the Authority was established in 1989 the Port of Norwich was still very active and therefore the 1988 Act made provision for a Norwich Navigation Officer and a Broads Navigation Officer. In practice, they have always been one and the same person, and therefore it seems rather generous to have two positions for one person. So this simplifies it to bring it together.
280. Schedule 8 is Repeals. Are all of those consequential appeals?
(Dr Packman) Yes.
281. MR GEORGE: Thank you very much indeed.
282. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr Packman, and thank you, Mr George. It is now the turn of the Petitioners to cross-examine Dr Packman. I would like to ask Mr Howes to start, please, on behalf of Mollie Howes, Marc Ollosson and Stephen Law.

Cross-examined by MR HOWES
283. MR HOWES: Thank you, my Lord. Now I have the opportunity to speak for a moment, I would like to pay tribute to the transcribers who do such a wonderful job for us. Firstly, Dr Packman, do you understand what a Green Paper is?
(Dr Packman) In the context of government, it is usually a consultation document. It precedes a White Paper, which then sets out the government proposals, which then usually leads to legislation.
284. Why did we not have one here?
(Dr Packman) The process the Authority went through was one, I think, which Mr George referred to, which was unparalleled in terms of the consultation that the Authority went through. As I mentioned, as early as July 2005 the Authority was talking to users about what a Bill might contain but, of course, many of the ambitions of what the Authority has now got in the Bill precede that by many years, in terms of things like third-party insurance and the Boat Safety Scheme. So, although we did not have a government system in terms of publishing a Green Paper, in fact the Authority went through probably even more of the equivalent in terms of the rounds of consultation on two drafts, and further discussion particularly with the main interested parties.
285. You said the first time you mentioned a Bill was in a meeting with the Broads Society in July 2005. What kind of meeting was that? What was said and how? What I am trying to get at is were you imparting information or asking questions?
(Dr Packman) The first time I, or the Broads Authority, had talked about a Bill would certainly have been well before that. In terms of the meeting ----
286. You said yesterday it was the first time you mentioned it. Did you not?
(Dr Packman) Certainly in terms of what I would call a discussion with a wider group of people about what the contents of the Bill might contain it was the first time. It was a meeting in Hoveton of the Broads Society�s Executive Committee when I gave them a presentation on the work of the Authority and an outline of the key elements that a Private Bill might contain and answered questions and tried to answer them as best I could at that stage.
287. One of my fellow Petitioners will follow up on that topic. Why did you choose to start with a draft Bill before engaging in what I would call serious consultation?
(Dr Packman) The timescale that the Broads Authority set � bearing in mind that some of these things we have been seeking have been 15 years � was that we knew that Private Bills had to be deposited in Parliament by the November of a particular year for them to be then considered the following year. So it was only towards the end, I think, of 2005 that it became absolutely clear that � probably it was a bit earlier, probably the late-summer/autumn 2005 � we could not use the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, and I indicated the help that Defra officials had given us. We therefore set ourselves a timetable which said that what we need to do is get ourselves to a position so that by next November (so more than a year away) we would be as close as we could to a Bill that all the interested parties would have agreement in. So the first job was, really, to spec out precisely what that Bill might contain. Bear in mind, this was all new to the Authority as well; we did not know what a Private Bill was earlier on. We drafted a Bill and we drafted some advice with it to explain what the provisions were and had two rounds of consultation. I can well remember the Navigation Committee that considered it in April, and we went through it clause by clause, and they gave some very helpful comments, and at no stage did anyone suggest that that was not the right way of doing it, or suggest that there should have been consultation any earlier. They had been made fully aware of some of their ambitions in terms of some of the provisions, so they were fully aware of what the Authority was doing.
288. Did you not bother going to the Parliamentary website and looking up the guidelines for Promoters of Private Bills, in terms of the process that you ought to adopt?
(Dr Packman) We sought professional advice about the appropriate way of doing it.
289. Who drafted the Bill?
(Dr Packman) The Agents for the Broads Authority.
290. On whose authority?
(Dr Packman) On the Broads Authority�s authority.
291. Yet you started the process with the draft Bill. I do not quite follow that point.
(Dr Packman) Certainly back in July 2005 when we had a site visit with members, we were discussing the way forward to meet their ambitions of bringing forward some of these provisions, so they were aware of it.
292. Whose ambitions were they?
(Dr Packman) The members of the Broads Authority.
293. But some of those had been present for 15 years, and the people on the Broads Authority , the members of the Broads Authority, change frequently, do they not?
(Dr Packman) Yes, but the Chairman of the Navigation Committee has been on the Navigation Committee since 1989, has been a leading member of the Broads Authority and has certainly been someone who has advocated third-party insurance and the Boat Safety Scheme.
294. I am not sure if you have answered this question properly yet, but why did you choose to start with the draft Bill before engaging in serious consultation ?
(Dr Packman) In my experience it is very difficult to consult people about something unless you are sure about what it is, and therefore, actually, it was a very sensible place to start to give them a clear idea about what the Authority�s potential ambitions were and then consult them on those provisions and get their views.
295. �It is difficult to consult unless you are sure about what you want�.
(Dr Packman) Certainly, as I have observed before, the nature of this Bill has changed. Although the basic safety provisions that the Authority agreed back in March or April 2006, although many of those safety provisions have come right through until today, the detail of it has changed considerably, because we have worked very closely with the RYA, the BMF and the IWA, and local stakeholders. We have met Petitioners and adapted the Bill to try and meet their requirements. So we have done our very best, but I do think if you just go out and consult people and say: �We�re going to have a Bill, what would you like in it?� that might be one way of approaching it but, in practice, it is a lot easier for people to respond when an organisation says: �Here are the key issues that we feel need addressing. This is the way the Authority is proposing to do it. What views do you have?� I have to say that one of the things that I do recall us doing is that we do have a very good, close working relationship with the RYA, the British Marine Federation and the IWA ----
296. I am sorry, that is not answering the question.
(Dr Packman) We did have meetings with officers of those organisations prior to the drafting of the Bill because, clearly, things like the licensing of hired craft the BMF have a great interest in. The other thing is that the RYA�s solicitor has a great deal of experience particularly in things like the 1995 British Waterways Act, and the Environment Agency�s Transport and Works Act Order, so we were actually able to learn from the national boating organisations and get their advice and the sort of difficulties and issues that we might come up with. So we were engaging with people who knew about these particular issues.
297. I am sorry to interrupt, Dr Packman, but you started with the outcome you wanted and then proceeded to consult with people about what their reaction to that was. Do you not think it is not surprising that you then had to engage in unprecedented consultation, as you called it, because so ma

I hope that Packman came across half as arrogant and condesending as the transcript reads, the Lords may then get a true understanding of the nature of the beast!
Thanks for the heads up!

Dave

On rereading the transcript and reliving the day, and considering what was said, I have to admit that it all went very well. Packman has given the petitioners much to think about! Their responses should make interesting reading. Me thinks that there is a scent of blood in the air!

Terry said:
'I hope you guys can help turn it into "A poison challice"
Peter says, I don't think that we shall have to!