Another week passes by in the blink of an eye.

No 4th draft on BA website.
No public meeting review on BA website.

Promises promises.

"Partnership Inaction".

Definitely voiced the word 'fourth' Peter.
Unless it was 'Forth', but even they must realise that's pushing 'adjacent waters' a bit.

But Kerry Packer, a legend in the world of games with one ball (insert your own comma at will) or one of them stated that the FOURTH draft would be on the web this week...

But: "...is in the process of being redrafted and the new draft will be put up on the website, probably week commencing 9 October".

Probably next week then.

Probably.

He might have sailed through on his topper, but he wasn't unscathed.

Well known, and much loved Broadsman Mr Jamie Campbell asked if it was true that 60% of our toll was swallowed up on admin. Packman, in true style, rubbished the suggestion. But as Jamie said, the 'rumour' came from within the hallowed walls of Colgate. Another well known character, much loved by us all, lurking at the back of the hall, asked that if the Bill failed what would be the senior management employment plans. A very constrained request that Packman pack his bags!! Well put with good humour.

Richard Williams also stood up and, I believe, spoke for all of us when he laid into Packman. If Richard should read this thread then I for one should like to say thank you. An excellent performance. As many of you know, Richard worked for the BA and if any one should know then Richard should.

We were told that the questions of the night would be featured in a report on the BA web site. We were also told that the final draft of the Bill would also be featured.

If Packman did not get the message from the floor then he has an incredibly thick skin.

Sustainable development? Sandford by another name.

This evening I read the third draft of the Bill. I didn't have the energy to lay it out side-by-side with the second draft. So I probably missed a few things and won't go into detail.

But I do want to share my two big reservations over the bill with everyone:
- I don't like the powers to restict navigation.
We have common law rights to navigate tidal waters that go back to Magna Carta, and we shouldn't give them up without a real fight. If the authority wants power to issue orders in the case of an emergency, no problem, but that shouldn't take pages of the draft bill to draft. So why are they going much farther than that?
- I'm not happy with the amendment to the goals of the authority, namely, the addition of the italicized words in the following:
It shall be the general duty of the Authority to manage the Broads in accordance with the principles of sustainable development for the purposes of –
(a) conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage for the Broads;
(b) promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public; and
(c) protecting the interests of navigation

I must admit that I hadn't realized that the BA's goals had already been amended since 1988 to de-emphasize the third goal, but that phrase "principles of sustainable development" worried me quite a bit. So I made a web search to see what I could find.

Turns out that these principles seem to mean what you want them to mean.

One website which has the DEFRA logo on it says: "The guiding principle of sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable development recognises the interdependence of environmental, social and economic systems and promotes equality and justice through people empowerment and a sense of global citizenship. Whilst we cannot be sure what the future may bring, a preferable future is a more sustainable one"

Another website operated by HMG says "This page sets out the shared UK principles of sustainable development in the UK. They apply to the UK Government, Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Administration. For a policy to be sustainable, it must respect all five principles. We want to live within environmental limits and achieve a just society, and we will do so by means of sustainable economy, good governance and sound science"
1 - Living within Environmental Limits
Respecting the limits of the planet's environment, resouces and biodiversity - to improve our environment and ensure that the natural resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for future generations
2 - Ensuring a Strong, Healthy and Just Society
Meeting the diverse needs of all people in existing and future communities, promoting personal well-being, social cohesion and inclusion, and creating equal opportunity for all
3 - Achieving a Sustainable Economy
Building a strong, stable and sustainable economy which provides prosperity and opportunities for all, and in which environmental and social costs fall on those who impose them (Polluter Pays) and efficient resource use is incentivised
4 - Using Sound Science Responsibly
Ensuring policy is developed and implemented on the basis of strong scientific evidence, whilst taking into account scientific uncertainty (through the Precautionary Principle) as well as public attittudes and values
5 - Promoting Good Governance
Actively promoting effective, participative governance in all levels of society - engaging people's creativity, energy and diversity

Overall, it feels like you can justify almost any action under the above. For example, could increasing the amount to be spent on dredging fall under ensuring "that the natural resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for future generations"? I doubt that JP would hurry to interpret it that way! But it shows how much flexibility there is.

My basic point is that these principles are undefined, will make bad law. and look like they can be used by an untrusted CEO to push through whatever he wants.

It would be interesting to ask JP at the meeting in Acle just what he understands by the principles and what their impact will be on the third goal of the Authority.......

No, TH, it isn't sad, it is good. JP must go and it is just possible that his replacement may be more sensible. But we all thought that when A. Clarke departed.

No, what is needed is for the BA to stand up and support its own byelaws. Quite simple, really.

Looked at the NSBA website Phil and can only say it tells us nothing. Which is worrying because you presumably have access to this draft. Why can't the rest of us see it. Would we be horrified?
Alarm Bells.....?