Click on:
http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnli ne&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED 23%20Oct%202008%2019%3A10%3A01%3A807

I see that Packman is predicting cutbacks to dredging if a 9% toll is not backed.

Perhaps Packman should look at the salary levels at the higher end, his amazing staffing levels, unproductive 'desktop' studies, the Bill and Ra for example.

And then he wants to take on the added expense of Breydon!!

I really do despair at the BA's fiscal policy.

There are some sections of the Public Service who do not seem to accept that the present financial situation should inconvenience them in any way. The notion that tolls should just continue to rise at the rate we have seen over the past few years needs to be challenged. They have doubled since 2000 most of which has been in the presidium of the present Chief Executive. His 13% every year for the next five years boast at the National Parks conference being a highlight.

Note the threatening tenor of the response to the Navigation Committees rejection of a 9% increase for the coming year. "There is no slack in the budget and we will have to cut back on Dredging and River Patrols". Front line services should not be the first thing to come to mind when reacting to this objection. It might suit the Authority to blame toll-payers for their failures over waterway maintenance but as a way to overcome an inequality dispute with staff it is despicable. The high salaries are paid to largely unproductive administrators.

The proposal to load this increase on large craft might suit the Authoritys environmental objectives and will meet with approval in some quarters. However,we should not overlook the fact that it is essentially discriminatory and that is not the purpose of a tolls structure. There must be a case for this being an unreasonable increase under the terms of the Harbours Act. Users should lodge an objection to it. Big boats this time but who will be next?

The 1988 Act required the Authority to make up any deficit in the navigation account by contributions from the general revenue account. It is to be removed in the new Bill and will ensure that toll payers are endlessly subject to excessive rises in tolls. Their masters at DEFRA have re-enforced this with statements insisting that Grants should not be used for this purpose. Yet they do it for the EA and BW.

I suspect that Old Salt is right, The Authority has history in disregarding their Navigation Committee and they will use the quiescent Authority members on the main committee to overrule them. It will show the intent of the Authority in changing the structure of this committee. That is to reduce it to a forum which can be ignored at will.

While I agree with a lot that Richard has said, he misses one crucial point.

Previously JP dismissed the Navigation Committee as uncooperative dinosaurs, out of touch with the needs and wishes of the toll payers. Hence his justification of a number of policies by referring to the toll payers' survey results.

This year, despite resistance from the organisations which claim to represent toll payers, he persuaded the BA to alter the method of appointing people to the Navigation Committee. He did not alter the structure, just the appointment process. Instead of the BA considering names put forward by the representative organisations, application was open to anyone and an independent selection panel was asked to recommend the successful candidates based on selection criteria laid down by JP himself.

47 applications were received. Shortlisted candidates were interviewed and recommendations were made.

Net result - of the eight people selected by this process, 2 are members of the committee of the Hire Boat Federation, 3 are members of the committee of the NSBA, one is a river cruiser owner and member of several yacht clubs and one is a rower.

So the complexion of the committee has not changed much, but the important thing to remember is that they have been appointed as the result of a process devised by JP in accordance with criteria laid down by JP. He ought to find it hard to dismiss their views as unrepresentative or lacking in understanding of the role of the authority. To quote the paper presented to the old committee after the appointment process (for more information look on the BA web site at the Nav Com Agenda 5th June 2008):

"Overall the process has been considered to be extremely successful, and one which will provide the Authority with a strong, committed, knowledgeable and challenging Navigation Committee over the next three years."

We can but hope.

GR

Timely that you should suggest the formation of a Toll Payers' Association now, Peter. On November 21st we will have received a clear message from the BA main committee telling us whether or not one is needed.

A few questions for consideration...

Where would a new TPA get its teeth? What would it use for ammunition? Would the BA officers give a toss? How would a TPA force them to give a toss?
Sure, an association with massive membership would have the capability to demonstrate how 'executives' employed in public service are doing anything but serving, but who would listen? Who would have the necessary power to do something constructive?

It isn't just the BA top level public servants who are happy with an untouchable quango, their appointers in national government invented these democracy bypass organisations specifically for the purpose of ignoring the little people nationwide.

Isn't the NSBA a toll payers' association? Individual membership is unbelievably cheap, particularly when you consider the value of the Green Book. So if it took a doubling, trebling or more of the annual subs to finance a fighting fund, would you be in? What percentage of Broads boat owners would? Look at the NSBA's individual membership volume compared with boat registrations. What does it tell you, keeping in mind the insignificant membership cost? How many Broads boaters belong to the National Association of Boat Owners? Two or three? The NABO has no presence in the Broads because no volume voice has asked it to.

This all tells me that Broads boat owners largely want to be uninvolved - with anything. Boating is a form of escapism for many, a way to achieve detachment from the world at large. Look at the number of contributors to the tolls discussion threads on the light forum - it's a minute fraction of the forum membership. People just don't want to be bothered.

BT

When it comes to cosiness, Poppy, I think you are confusing the Navigation Committee with the Broads Authority.

The NSBA's problem is that it has been far too cosy with The Powers That Don't Be.

However, much of that is apparently due to end with approaching regime change, and those of us hitherto unsure of whether to sleep or squirm through one of the Blazers' agms will view the prospect with interest.

Personally I do believe that there may be more fair revenue to be had from tolls, and we best be aware of the trap of fighting for others vested interests.
Its a particular Broadland ailment, commonly termed 'support me or you'll be next'.

Isn't there a BA public meeting due soon?

DEFRA isnt a Quango, John.

Its an acronym.

I was using "dismiss" in so far as it applied to the advice he will give the Authority at its meeting on 21st November.

GR