Well, for those of you who hadn't realised the date, The Little People are heading off to the Lords this weekend. Monday sees the kick off!

No blazers, dress code is for suits AND ties! Its going to be an interesting experience.

I hope that doesn't lead folk to believe that the diminutive sapien are all on a crusade to meddle with the dental health of any one individual. Concerns relating to the Bloody Bill and standards of local administration go way beyond the career span of any incumbent.

When this chief closes his office door for the last time, the office will again become occupied by someone chosen by selected Authority members.

The toothache doesn't necessarily stop when the root is extracted, it's vital that the gums be protected from future disease.

In the (slightly out of context) words of the Authority's resident lawyer - "That's what law does."

Of course he should have said - "That's what good law does."

You be careful down there Peter (and the rest of the Little People).

Good luck and look forward to your safe return

Thanks folks, I don't expect that any of us will give the Authority an easy time.

It's easy to be upbeat when your time to attend the House of Lords and the travelling and accommodation expenses are being paid for by the little people, who have paid (one way or another) for every red cent spend on this unneccessary proposed Bill, and when those good folks who have the presentational skills to oppose it are having to take their own time off work and pay their own way.

Having neither the presentational skills nor the freeedom (or pockets) to take two weeks off and live in London, I can only wish my Agent, and all on the side of Right, the very best of times - I 'd like to say 'Good Luck', but all they reallly need is a Committee who can distinguish between right and wrong.

Go for it Folks!

From the EDP:

"In December the Norfolk Broads Yacht Club withdrew its opposition to the bill and its adjacent water control plans after it was reassured that any legislation would not affect their smaller yachts.
From the EDP
Last night Mark Wells, chairman of the Norfolk and Suffolk Boating Association, said: "We have always supported the bill's safety provisions. It is unfortunate there had to be so much wrangling for so long over other disputed parts of it.

"But now agreement had been reached between all the major organisations, both locally and nationally, it is time to move on.""
The BSS is already fact so as an argument for the bill it is irrelevant, as for these 2 organisations, it appears very much that their needs have been addressed and it is a case of "I'm all right Jack"
A member on here once told me that Packman's appointment was meant to be the "Jewel in the crown of his Career" I hope you guys can help turn it into "A poison challice"

Dave

Part 2 of 2:
Your Lordships need not read them at present but your Lordships will find in tab 13 the responses from the Royal Yachting Association, the Inland Waterways Association and the Campaign for National Parks. What your Lordships will not find is a letter from the National Farmers’ Union of 8 January 2009. When Dr Packman gives evidence we will have copies of that to circulate and they can slot into tab 13.
86. As the Minister said during the Second Reading debate, column 321: “If parish council members were to be appointed under the Secretary of State’s appointment this would restrict opportunities for some of the other interests.”
87. Fourthly, the question of parish council representation has been raised at a very late stage and not when the Bill was in Committee before the other place. Although perhaps not technically an extension of the scope of the Bill, there are those who might wish to petition against alterations, although strictly of course their time for doing so has now passed.
88. Fifthly, and perhaps most importantly, the whole question of direct elections to national parks authorities and to the Broads Authority is currently the subject of review by the Government. Indeed, the Government is at the very present moment considering responses to an extensive public consultation which was announced in the other place during the Third Reading debate on this Bill, and that public consultation concluded as recently as 28 November 2008. Your Lordships will find that consultation document, which was July 2008, and the Minister’s statement at tab 11 in the bundle. Could I ask your Lordships to turn to that matter. In tab 11 of the bundle, two-thirds of the way down the first page in the ministerial foreword by the Minister, Mr Jonathan Shaw, he says that he had told the House, and then your Lordships will see in the bottom three paragraphs of the page what he had told the House, and that was in Scotland there was direct election, and that it worked well, that he wanted to look across the piece, as he said, because the Broads Authority should not be considered on their own, and then at the bottom of the page: “As a number of hon Members have said, the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to change the constitution of the Broads Authority. As I have signalled, I want to look at this across the piece to take account of the other national parks in England. I will therefore issue a consultation ...”
89. If your Lordships would then look on in that same document, your Lordships will find that one of the particular questions in the consultation document - and one finds it almost at the end of tab 11 at the top of page 7, item 4: “Do you wish for the Broads to have parish members bearing in mind the overall size of the Authority and replacement of any existing members to accommodate them?” So page 7, item 4 is the question which was included in the consultation document which went out in July 2008. You have got the entirety of that document in your Lordships’ bundle. That is a matter which is being considered and if the Minister is satisfied in the light of the consultation responses that there is a case for change, he has said that he will bring forward legislation to deal not merely with the Broads Authority but with the other parks authorities. What we would say is that it is simply premature for your Lordships to start intervening and seeking to ensure special representation for parish councils at this stage. That was also the view of the Select Committee below. What they said is that it should be the subject of separate legislation and not in the Bill, but they alerted the Minister to the issue, and that is how it stands. Your Lordships are going to be dealing with a specific Petition seeking that something should be done about that matter now.
90. My Lords, that is the first Petition which I want to deal with. My Lords, the second matter is that there is a general concern by boating interests that in some way the Bill is seeking to weaken their protection and rights. In respect of that we say simply first that there has been a considerable amount of consultation about the proposals in this Bill. Could I ask your Lordships to open tab 9 which sets out in four pages the nature of the consultation that has taken place. I venture to suggest, my Lords, that it is an amount of consultation which is probably unparalleled in the case of any private bill. There has been very extensive consultation both before the Bill was deposited and since. That is why the Bill has got these various protective clauses. At the third reading the Minister described the consultation as being - I use his words - “extensive”. The Navigation Committee supports the proposals in the Bill, as do a wide range of bodies representing boating interests, including the Royal Yachting Association, who of course act for private boatmen, and the British Marine Federation, which acts for commercial interests. Both of those bodies have secured significant amendments to the Bill both before and during its passage through Parliament. Both Dr Packman and Mrs Wakelin are keen boaters. They are my two witnesses that I am going to call and your Lordships will be able to ask them questions on these matters, as will of course the Petitioners.
91. So far as the suggestion that the changes to the accounting provisions or the water skiing provisions or the six hour provision for recreational activities are part of an insidious undermining of traditional boating interests, we say that is simply misconceived.
92. So far as the accountancy provision, we have some sympathy with Petitioners who want the provision at paragraph 8(6) to provide that the navigation expenditure should be “not less than” rather than “equal to” the navigation income. That was what the Authority originally sought but as a result of strong representations from Defra, the Committee in the other place required amendment to incorporate the present wording. The Defra report, which you have at tab 12, makes plain that this wording is regarded as essential to make sure that navigation expenditure is fully funded by navigation income and the National Park Grant is not used for navigation purposes. On second reading in your Lordships’ house the Minister described this as a ‘key principle’.
93. A related concern is expressed by some Petitioners that the provision currently contained in section 17(7) of the 1988 Bill, namely that any deficit in the navigation revenue account should be made up by contributions from the general revenue account, should be retained rather than repealed. We say that is to ignore the old section 17( which provided for repayment to the general account of contributions made under section 17(7). The one therefore does not make sense without the other. Given that it is now proposed not to have separate navigation and general accounts, the need for both section 17 and 8 goes, hence the substitution of the new provisions on page 39 of the Bill, regulated by sub-clauses (5) and (6) to which I have already referred.
94. So far as the extended power to make special directions and the new power to make general directions, along with measures for dealing with non-compliance, the Authority rejects the suggestion that the powers are draconian and oppressive.
95. So far as the imposition of boat safety standards under clause 12, we draw attention to the fact that the clauses are now so worded that the benchmark set by the national standards is likely to prevail unless there is a very strong case for higher standards.
96. At tab 19 of the bundle, for a little bit of light relief, your Lordships will find some photographs of hazardous problems that have been found during boat checks under the existing byelaw regime. We say that it is absolutely necessary to have a system rather like an MOT test where annual registration is dependent on compliance with certain minimum standards.
97. So far as the application of the specified provisions to various types of unpowered vessels, and in particular the question of exemptions in adjacent waters particularly while vessels are being repaired, it is considered that the now relatively complex provisions of the Bill, including the new clause 16, along with the definition of adjacent waters in clause 2(2), achieve the appropriate balance, although some, such as Messrs Ping and Baguley would wish a further exemption to be inserted into the Bill to cover vessels being privately repaired in adjacent waters. Having heard arguments which were to all intents very similar to those which your Lordships are about to hear, the Committee in the other place allowed the Bill to proceed, the only changes being in respect of matters sought or raised in the Defra report.
98. My Lord, I am aware that we have reached one o’clock. I am almost finished but would it be convenient to have a break now and come back at 2 o’clock. As I say, I promise your Lordships I will be brief.
99. CHAIRMAN: I think, Mr George, it would be convenient to adjourn the Committee now and come back at five past two. Thank you very much. The Committee is now adjourned until five past two this afternoon.

The Committee adjourned from 1.03 pm until 2.05 pm
100. CHAIRMAN: Mr George, will you be continuing your opening statement?
101. MR GEORGE: Thank you, my Lord, I am almost done. I have two very small corrections from this morning. First of all, I erroneously said that special directions would apply to the adjacent waters, they will not, they will only apply to the navigation area itself. Secondly, dealing with the question of the Association’s petition, I referred to the question of petitions against alterations and I said strictly the time for petitions against alterations had passed, that is not right. In these circumstances a petition against alteration could still be lodged, so I would simply make that technical correction. I have not reason to believe there will be any such petition, but just so it is accurate.
102. My Lords, finally there are three more general concerns raised by the Petitioners with which I should deal. First, that the Bill gives various powers to authorised officer and to the navigation officer but without prescribing qualifications which the authorised officer or navigation officer must have but that is, of course, a commonplace of legislation. Under the 1988 Act the navigation officers already have powers, for instance under Section 10, sub section 8, including the power to give special directions under Schedule 5, paragraph 18, but the 1988 Act does not prescribe that the post-holder must have any special qualifications. Similarly in the case of harbours at the present time, harbour legislation requires a harbour master but there is no statutory requirement that he have a particular qualification.
103. There is and there will be a proper process for officer training and at tab ten in the bundle, my Lords, you will find a report by the Head of Waterways Strategy and Safety of the Broads Authority to its Navigation Committee dealing with the whole question of training and qualifications for the exercise of particular functions. That matter is then set out in table one, which is the third page of tab ten, which sets out the particular skills which will be required, and table two sets out the appropriate qualification and training. It is proposed to deal with this matter in-house rather than seeking to specify these matters in the text of the Bill. This question of adequate qualifications was raised on the Second Reading debate by a Lord Dran Arthar and the minister’s reply at column 3.13 was that it was probably unnecessary to include great detail in the Bill. The Minister said, “The board will ensure that suitably trained and competent people will carry out the job” and that certainly is our position.
104. The second general matter raised by the Petitioners is a concern that common law rights of navigation, including the provisions of Magna Carta will be overridden by the use of directions to control the movement of vessels, including the power to close the waterways. These arguments did not impress the Committee in the other place and it may be appropriate to tell your Lordships what the minister said of this argument at Second Reading in the other place on 25 April 2007, column 1000. What the minister then said was: “It is legitimate for Parliament to restrict the common law right to navigate freely when it considers it appropriate, especially when it is necessary for the reasons of public safety”. It is accepted that legislation should provide for imposing limits making regulations and so on. That happens frequently with the roads and there is no reason for it not to happen on the Broads. I also remind your Lordships that common law rights of navigation are already interfered with by the existence of the power of special directions under the 1998 Act and by the power to make byelaws and the enforcement of byelaws, for instance the speed limits byelaws have precisely that effect. Of course they do interfere with the Magna Carta, but it is the circumstance in which it is being held appropriate that those rights should be able to be contained for public purposes.
105. Thirdly, as a general matter, there is a concern by certain Petitioners, particularly Mr Baguley, Mr Bennett, Mr Howes, Mr Waller and Mrs Howes, that the Authority is not to be trusted and that, therefore, for example, the legal constraints on the power to give general directions or the various consultation provisions of the Bill will not be respected by the Authority. To that we would simply say this, that the Standards Board, the Ombudsman and ultimately the courts exist so that improper and unlawful practices by public bodies can be regulated. The Broads Authority is subject to the same constraints as applied to other public bodies, but in any event, there is no hidden agenda. In response to similar points raised during the Second Reading debate, the minister said this at the Broads Authority at column 3.14: “An overall picture emerges of a competent authority exercising difficult responsibilities appropriately”. Your Lordships are going to hear a lot of evidence in relation to this Bill. Certainly the responsibilities are difficult ones and certainly some of the aspects are controversial. In the end it is for your Lordships to decide whether the Bill should proceed and if it is to proceed, whether there should be further amendments put forward. Lord, unless there are any questions from your Lordships at this stage, I propose to call my first witness.
106. CHAIRMAN: Please call your first witness.
107. MR GEORGE: My Lord, as I have already indicated, I have got these two witnesses, Dr John Packman, who is the Chief Executive of the Broads Authority and who will be now coming forward, and then Mrs Trudi Wakelin, who is the Director of Waterways for the Broads Authority. Basically, Dr Packman is going to deal with what I may call ‘strategic and financial matters in the Bill’. The details of when you would give a special direction with the boat standards and so forth will be dealt with by Mrs Wakelin, so it is the broader matters which are being dealt with by the Chief Executive, as you would probably anticipate.

MR JOHN PACKMAN, Sworn
Examined by MR GEORGE

108. Are you John Packman?
(Dr Packman) I am.
109. Are you the Chief Executive of the Broads Authority?
(Dr Packman) I am.
110. Have you been so since March 2001?
(Dr Packman) I have.
111. What position did you hold before then?
(Dr Packman) Prior to that date I was Head of Economic Development and Regeneration with Brighton and Hove City Council. Previously to that held posts with that Council, Hove Borough Council, the New Zealand Ministry of Works and Development, with the University of East Anglia and Norfolk County Council.
112. Amongst other qualifications, you have a postgraduate diploma in town planning, a Doctorate in Philosophy and a Master of Business Administration, is that right?
(Dr Packman) That is correct.
113. Are you a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Institution of Economic Development?
(Dr Packman) I am.
114. What is your role on the Committee of the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities?
(Dr Packman) I am a member of the Executive Committee of the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities.
115. What are the main matters your evidence is going to cover?
(Dr Packman) Three main parts: firstly a brief description of the Broads and the Broads Authority; the background to the Bill, including the consultations carried out by the Authority in advance and following its deposit in November 2006, secondly responses to the general comments made by the Petitioners and, thirdly, responses to certain specific objections raised by the Petitioners. My colleague Trudy Wakelin will deal with the more detailed technical issues.
116. How do you see the main purpose of the Bill?
(Dr Packman) The main purpose of the Bill is to improve safety for those sailing on the Broads. The secondary purpose is to modernise the way in which the Authority operates by updating provisions in the 1988 Act which set up the Authority.
117. Will you tell the Committee a bit about the decisions of your Authority prior to the deposit of the Bill?
(Dr Packman) I am pleased to say that the promotion of the Bill was agreed unanimously by the Authority at a special meeting on 3 November 2006 and confirmed unanimously at a further special meeting on 26 January 2007 in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1972. The unanimous support for the resolutions is particularly welcome given the range of interests serving on the Authority. I am also pleased to say that Government supports the provisions in this Bill and its ambition to improve safety on the Broads and modernise the constitutional and financial provisions relating to the Broads Authority.
118. If I just interpose this, we know there are a number of local authorities who have representatives on your board, have any of those local authorities expressed concern about the provisions of the Bill?
(Dr Packman) No, the local authorities have been supportive of the provisions in the Bill.
119. Let us turn to the background to the Bill. Could you introduce the whole question of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads?
(Dr Packman) My Lords may or may not be familiar with the Broads, but they are one of the most special places in Britain. They are unique and regarded internationally as important in terms of their landscape designation and that designation is equivalent to a national park. It was only in the 1950s that it was understood how the Broads were formed. Prior to that they were thought to be natural but the Broads are, in fact, one of the largest archaeological sites in Britain. They are the remains of medieval peat diggings and it was in the 1950s that through excavation they found that the lines of the Broads matched up with previous ownerships. They were subsequently flooded which gave generations later the network of rivers and broads that so many people know and enjoy today. They are known for the big skies that we have in East Anglia, the drainage mills, windmills that are dotted across its landscape, reed beds with bittern and swallowtail Butterflies, a place where Nelson learned to sail and where the concept of the boating holiday was invented. The railways and Arthur Ransome made holidays in the Broads popular and I am sure you will have in your own minds those very distinctive railway posters of young people disporting themselves on sailing boats. Local naturalist, Ted Ellis, called the Broads “a breathing space for the cure of souls” and that same idea of national parks being breathing spaces has now been adopted across England, Wales and Scotland as a motto for all the national parks. The Broads is one of those very special places that help us to recharge our batteries and cope with our modern busy lives.
120. Dr Packman, I think that since 1947 there has been consideration as to whether the Broads should become a national park, is that right?
(Dr Packman) Yes. 1947 is an important date in the history of the Broads because it was then that the Hobhouse Report identified 12 places in England that met the criteria of them becoming national parks. Of those 12, 10 were designated under the 1949 legislation. The Broads was designated under its own legislation and the South Downs, which is the one family which is missing, is under current consideration by the Government. It was because the Broads was different in its nature that it could not go through the standard 1949 procedures. However, the Broads did proceed because of the multiplicity of different authorities responsible for planning and management of the area, strong commercial pressures and the anticipated higher costs of management. It was recognised that it needed a specific solution. In the intervening years that pressure had grown from the intensity of its use and pollution, water quality declined and there was a real concern that many of the special qualities of the Broads would be lost. We now know that there was a complex combination of factors which brought that about, partly it was phosphates that came through the sewage treatment works from things like washing powder, bank erosion by boats, drainage of the precious grazing marshes also was a major consideration. In 1977 the Countryside Commission brought matters to a head by announcing that the area met the criteria for designation as a national park and sought views on the best way forward. The opinion that a standard national park was not the best solution remained widely held and negotiation with local interest led to the establishment of a Joint Local Authority Committee in 1978 involving the county industry councils, the Water Authority, the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Commissioners and other interested groups. A decade later in 1988 the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act was passed and the Broads Authority came into permanent existence the following April.
121. We have had 20 years. What have been the key features of the last 20 years?
(Dr Packman) The main thing is that the decline that had been worrying people so much has been arrested. Water quality has improved dramatically and plants that had not been seen on the Broads for 50 years you can now find again. In relation to the grazing marshes, which I mentioned earlier were being ploughed up, the Broads Authority introduced with partners something called the Halvergate Grazing Marshes Scheme, which was an innovative idea of paying farmers to farm in an environmentally sensitive way. That, as your Lordships will know, has been adopted much more widely across Britain and led to what was subsequently called the ESA, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas programme, and a more modern funding of agriculture to support environmentally sensitive farming. More recently the Broads Authority has received a major grant of some £700,000 from the Heritage Lottery Fund and we are in the process of training both reed and sedge cutters and millwrights to help maintain both the mills and the reed beds that are so much a part of the Broads. Tourism has seen major changes. It has faced increasing competition from overseas and, whereas the traditional holiday on the Broads was something that many flocked from the Midlands to, they now tend to go to Spain and elsewhere, and therefore the industry has been adapting and changing to those circumstances, but it is an area in terms of promoting sustainable tourism where the Broads Authority has been a lead, and of the national parks family the Broads Authority is the only one to be a beacon authority because of its work on sustainable tourism.
122. Dr Packman, if we turn in the bundle to tab 20 there is the annual report for 2007-08. Some of the matters you have been mentioning are referred to, are they not, in that document? For example, at page 5 there is the section dealing with dredging and various pictures and some text showing what has been done, and if we turn to page 7 the matter you mentioned about reed and sedge cutters and the necessary training and so forth is dealt with, is it not?
(Dr Packman) It is, and it is perhaps worth looking at page 5 in terms of dredging. Dredging has been one of the major issues that the Authority and the port authority previously have had to deal with. My Lords, you will know that these slow East Anglian rivers that wind across this very flat landscape bring down with them quite a lot of sediment. Looking back even as far as the 15th century, dredging of the route up to the port of Norwich was a major issue. The Broads Authority has carried out a major piece of work in identifying how much material needs to be taken out, something called sediment management strategy, and has been very successful, with considerable support from Defra, in applying more money to get more mud out of the system. However, a year or 18 months ago we did face a major challenge when our principal contractor, May Gurney, indicated that because its business was diversifying well away from Norfolk it no longer felt that it could continue to carry out the dredging that has been done for so many years. The Authority was faced with a major challenge because there was no other obvious contractor that it could use, and therefore, with the full support of the Navigation Committee, we carried out an in-depth study with external consultants, and following that, through a very favourable deal, purchased the dockyard that May Gurney worked from and some of the equipment, and they gave us the rest of the equipment and transferred over their ten staff. That has proved to be hugely successful and in the last period since taking it on board we have managed to achieve more dredging for the same amount of money than was the case under May Gurney, but it has been one of the most significant shifts in the way the Authority has managed the navigation since it was set up.
123. Dr Packman, this matter is relevant to the Committee because at least one of the Petitioners complains that not enough is being done about dredging and feels that the powers in this Bill may divert attention from the important task of dredging; is that not right?
(Dr Packman) That is correct, and there is a backlog that again with Defra’s support we are addressing. We are taking out probably twice as much material this year as is coming into the system but there is a backlog that we need to catch up on that has accumulated over many years, and that is made more difficult by the fact that 25 per cent of the Broads is within an internationally designated site and that means that, while it is quite easy to take the material out of the rivers and broads, finding somewhere suitable to put it is a major challenge. That is not just a challenge the Broads faces. Friends and colleagues in British Waterways and the Environment Agency face exactly the same, and the costs of dredging across the inland waterways has gone up considerably, but again, thanks to Defra, we are doing a lot more than we had been able to do in the past and are making good progress on that.
124. Turning to the constitution of the Broads Authority and your general duties, I think I explained those to the Committee in opening. What is the difference between the purposes of a national park and the purposes of the Broads Authority?
(Dr Packman) The first two purposes I almost call the national park purposes because they are identical. In fact, they were made identical again because in 1949 there was a simpler set of words that was given to national parks and the national park authorities had some changes made, and it was relatively recently by the NIRC Act that ours were brought back into line. The first one, concerning enhancing natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage is identical, as is promoting opportunities for understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities. What makes the Broads Authority different is that not only do we have this third one, protecting the interests of navigation, but also, perhaps more importantly, we have under clause 10 a duty to maintain the navigation to the standards that the Authority sees fit. That does make us quite different from the other national parks.
125. What is the position about being a harbour authority?
(Dr Packman) The Broads Authority is a harbour authority and that gives us a set of powers which enable us to operate, but it also brings us in with another family, the inland navigation authorities. British Waterways and the Environment Agency are the two largest inland navigation authorities and the Broads Authority is the third. Under navigation their responsibilities include the public safety for navigation boats and the maintenance of navigation, including moorings, dredging and marking.
126. I think you are also a local planning authority, that is, dealing with planning applications and enforcement of planning control; is that right?
(Dr Packman) It is, and that has proved to be absolutely essential in terms of our navigation responsibilities because the land and the water are so inextricably connected that being able to control and influence what happens on the land can be of considerable benefit to what happens on the water. For instance, there is currently a £100 million programme by the Environment Agency to modernise and upgrade the flood defences throughout the Broads. The larger parts of those schemes require planning consent and very often one of the issues is about moorings and the retention of moorings, and being a planning authority has proved to be very valuable in balancing the interests between those of boaters and users of the navigation and those of the wider public in terms of flood defence.
127. If we can turn on to membership of the Broads Authority, because this is a matter which comes up under the Association’s petition, what is the special feature of your membership?
(Dr Packman) Generally in the national parks they have two parts. They have national representatives who are there to represent the national interest, because national parks are of national significance, and that is balanced by a blend of local interests to represent local constituencies. There are three parts to the Broads Authority’s membership. There are ten who are appointed by the Secretary of State to represent the national interest. There are nine from the eight constituent local authorities, two county councils and the six district councils, combined with two members from the Navigation Committee who are there to represent the local interest.
128. And that is particularly the local navigation interest, is it not, the representatives from the Navigation Committee?
(Dr Packman) That is correct.
129. What changes have been made since 1988 to membership?
(Dr Packman) When the Broads Authority was set up in 1988, at that stage not only did each of the local authorities want membership but some of them wanted to have two members, one representing the majority party and one the opposition. That meant – and we can do the maths – that with eight local authorities the district councils all wanted two so that gave you 12. The county councils wanted two but Norfolk said it was making a bigger contribution so it wanted four, and Suffolk County Council wanted two, so the Broads Authority ended up with 18 local authority members. Looking at the national park formula, that meant that there were 17 other places, so overall the Broads Authority had 35 members, and I am sure, my Lords, that you will know that getting 35 members of anything to agree was difficult. After a considerable consultation, some three or four years, we managed to get agreement on a restructuring of the Authority from 35 down to 21. That was supported by the Government, it was supported by local voting organisations and local environmental organisations, and that reduced the number from 35 to 21. More recently some of the national parks have also had their numbers reduced and 21/22 is now the general size of authority boards. Even that is large by many organisations’ standards. For instance, I think British Waterways has 12 or 13 on its board, but certainly that move from 35 to 21 has made a big positive difference to the way in which the Authority’s work is structured.
130. That restructuring was done by an order in June 2005; is that right?
(Dr Packman) It was.
131. But what you are now seeking is something which cannot be done by an order, which needs an express power to alter the way in which the Minister is to appoint his representatives, the ones who represent the national interest?
(Dr Packman) That is correct. There were some bits of the membership that we were able to change, so the number that the local authorities appointed we were able to deal with. We were able to delete certain categories, so the Environment Agency, English Nature, the Countryside Agency all had representation but we were not able to address that issue at that stage, so, for instance, the two members of the Navigation Committee transferred directly into the new arrangements but the present 1988 Act only requires the Secretary of State to consult land and farming interests and boating interests in the appointment of its two members. It does not require the Secretary of State to consult nature conservation or land-based recreation, so one of the things that this Bill seeks to do is redress the balance so that that balanced representation from a wide range of different users is put back in place.
132. As far as numbers go, because there is a suggestion that the parish councils should be represented in some way, would you be concerned if that led to any increase in the numbers above the 21?
(Dr Packman) Certainly 21 is already large enough, and I think the Authority’s view is that it would not wish to have that increased.
133. Can you explain what the Broads Forum is?
(Dr Packman) When we were restructuring the membership one of the things that we were very conscious of was that we wanted to engage with a wider group of stakeholders. If you drew a stakeholder diagram for the Broads Authority you would find it had a huge number of different interests, which can be a blessing to our work, but finding a way in which they can effectively engage with the Authority has proved tricky. One of the things we put in place was something called the Broads Forum, so we have taken the 50 or more organisations that have an interest in the Broads and they are now represented through 23 individuals who come together on a quarterly basis. The key thing about the Forum is that the Forum considers contentious and important issues before the Broads Authority. It has an independent chairman who attends the meeting at the Broads Authority and then he can feed back to the Broads Authority the views of that broader stakeholder group. So it is a way in which the members of the Broads Authority can be better informed about the broader views and interests of the wider stakeholder group.
134. Two questions in relation to parish and town councils: first of all, what steps have you taken to involve them in the Broads Forum?
(Dr Packman) We have identified two of the 23 seats, one for Norfolk parishes and one for Suffolk parishes, and until recently the arrangements were that we invited parishes to put forward potential parish members to sit on the Forum, and then I selected a couple from their number, one to represent Norfolk and one to represent Suffolk. In fact, that has not proved very successful. One of the things we find is that the nature of the discussions at both the Broads Authority and the Forum are not necessarily the issues that parish councillors are most engaged with, so things like the Water Framework Directive, which will have a profound and important impact on the management of the navigation and on its conservation value, is not something local parish councillors necessarily want to engage with. So we have gone back to the two Associations, the Norfolk Association and the Suffolk Association, and discussed with them a different way of handling it. They have suggested - and we have agreed - that they would nominate and find particular individuals who would be more interested in the work of the Authority rather than perhaps the very local issues that some parish councillors are concerned with. So far we have had a gentleman from the Norfolk Association who has attended a couple of meetings and been very active and very supportive but we have struggled to get anyone so far from the Suffolk Association to attend.
135. The second matter is: as a local planning authority what arrangements do you have for the involvement of parish councils in the discussion of planning applications?
(Dr Packman) Here it might be helpful, my Lords, if I just briefly explain some of the changes we have made about the way we handle planning applications. The Broads Authority has been the planning authority since 1989 when it was set up, but at that time it was agreed that the district councils, who were reluctant to give up the planning role, would continue to handle the administration of planning applications. That meant if you lived in the North Norfolk part of the Broads, you would submit your application to North Norfolk District Council, and a North Norfolk District Council officer would then attend the Broads Authority Committee and give advice. That had a number of problems which became more and more serious. One was it lacked consistency because you had six different officers from different district councils giving slightly different advice to the Broads Authority members about planning applications. The other was when the Government introduced something called the Planning Delivery Grant, which was a performance-related system to reward those local authorities that handled their applications more rapidly, the district councils gave precedence to their own applications rather than the Broads Authority ones. That meant that the Broads Authority became a standards authority because of its poor performance, but I as the Chief Executive could do nothing about it because the performance was down to the individual district councils. So, again, with the help of Defra, and Alun Michael in particular, who provided us with an additional £120,000 a year, the Authority has now taken the whole management of the planning system in-house, and within a year we have turned round the whole system so that not only have we met all the Government’s guidelines but in the recent decision on Planning Delivery Grant we were awarded £602,000, which was the highest amount of any local authority in Suffolk or Norfolk and the highest of any of the national parks. The by-product of changing that system has meant that over the last year we have had a much closer engagement with the parish councils, so we are talking to them on a very regular basis, we are feeding their comments into the process, and we are looking to have much closer dialogue with parish councils on planning matters, which is very often the area where they have a particular interest.
136. In the report of the Select Committee in the other place they said that the Government should look at the principle of direct elections to the Broads Authority and to the national park authorities more widely. Can you just update us on the position?
(Dr Packman) Direct elections is an interesting issue because Scotland, which has its own slightly different legislation for national parks, has direct elections, and they have found that it works well. In the Second Reading debate in the Commons a Welsh MP raised a particular matter in relation to national parks because it is a current issue in Wales, so to some extent this issue has come from outside into this Bill. I support the comment that the Minister made that it is actually an issue that belongs outside it, but in the Third Reading debate Jonathan Shaw, who was the Minister then, indicated that he would carry out consultation, both on the principle of direct elections to the national parks and Broads Authority and the specific issue about parish council membership. That consultation finished at the end of November; the Broads Authority submitted its views to that consultation; and we are now waiting for the Minister to take his view on both those matters, that is whether direct elections would be appropriate for England and whether parish membership should be something that should be included in the Broads Authority’s constitution.
137. Their Lordships have a copy in tab 11 of the bundle and I have already referred them to that. They have got the consultation document. We know that the consultation period came to an end on 28 November. Has the Government given any indication as to when they are likely to publish the result of those consultations and a suggestion of what they perceive to be the way forward?
(Dr Packman) No, they have not. I understand that they are currently considering the representations that have been made.
138. Let us then turn to the executive area and the navigation area. In tab 1(b) we have got the pink area and that is your executive area, is it not?
(Dr Packman) It is. One of the things that is very different for the Broads compared to the rest of the national park family is if you look at the Lake District or the Peak District you will find that they are a large blob. When the executive area was drawn for the Broads, it was drawn very tightly round the rivers and deliberately excludes most of the settlements. One of the good things about it, as you can see, is that it goes right up into the middle of Norwich which actually helps with our relationship with Norwich, but if you look at the Suffolk border you will see that it skirts Beccles and Bungay. Slightly to the north you will see Loddon and it does not include Loddon. t will not be easy for me to pick out Wroxham and Hoveton, but if you see where number 3 is, which is just above where it says Wroxham Broad, there is one settlement there called Wroxham and Hoveton, and on the south side of the river it is called Wroxham and is in Broadlands District Council, and on the north side of the river it is called Hoveton and it is in North Norfolk District Council, and the tiny little strip in the middle is administered by the Broads Authority. The recent changes in the planning legislation mean that there is something called ‘action area plans’. We envisage, as do our district council colleagues, working on an action area would look at the whole settlement, but the net effect of having such a very closely defined boundary to the rivers and broads, and you can see the big pink area of Halvergate Marshes, is that there is not a single parish that is wholly within the Broads area. Many settlements are excluded and some small villages are bisected. It means that the total population within the area is only 6,000. You can see that 6,000 is dispersed across quite a large area.
139. So far as the Bill is concerned, it does not make any alterations to the executive area of the Broads Authority; is that right?
(Dr Packman) Correct.
140. What about the navigation area, can you just explain that concept to the Committee.
(Dr Packman) In 1988 when the Bill was passed, it did not attempt to define the navigation area because that was thought to be too difficult, so what the 1988 Act says is that the navigation area is those areas of the Broads which were navigated by the public at the time in 1988. The only really sizable difference between the executive area and the navigation area is at the back of Yarmouth, and you will see the big yellow patch which is Breydon Water; that was originally part of the inland sea. When Burgh Castle was a Roman fort, you could navigate up to Burgh Castle and Yarmouth was just a sand spit. You will see if you are enjoying a holiday in the North Norfolk Broadlands part, in the northern Broads, the Ant and the Thurne and the Bure, and you want to go to Norwich or you want to go to the pub at Geldeston Lock on the River Waveney, then you have to go all the way down the River Bure, which gets more and more tidal and more and more dangerous, if you have just picked up the boat for a holiday, and then you have to enter an area at the bottom of Breydon Water and transverse up Breydon Water up the Yare. For many that is perhaps the highlight but also the most worrying part of their holiday. For the seasoned sailors obviously they time it with the tide and they do not have any trouble. Breydon Water has large wooden posts which mark the navigation because this is a special protection area because of its interest to bird life because of the mudflats. However, it is for a visitor and a novice the most dangerous part of the Broads to transverse. In the Lower Bure there are in particular two very low bridges which, if you time it wrongly and the tide is running fast and you have not lowered your screen on the front of the boat, can be extremely dangerous, which is why we lease a yacht station from the district council there specifically so that staff can alert people to the danger ahead. At the time of the 1988 Act the Port of Norwich was still just about working and there were small commercial vessels - large commercial vessels by Broads standards - going up to Norwich, offloading grain at the flour mills, and other cargo. For that reason, the Port of Yarmouth wanted to keep control of Breydon Water so that it could ensure the safe passage under the Breydon Bridge and the management of that route through. Since that time, the interest of the Port Authority has moved downstream and very recently it has been constructing an outer harbour, and in fact the Port Authority has now ceded most of its powers over to a private company. That means that they have very little interest in the Lower Bure and Breydon Water, and in fact for many years because of their lack of interest, and the concern particularly that members of the Navigation Committee from the hire boat industry have, the Broads Authority has been patrolling those waters with two members of staff on it at any time because of the danger, and we have been sharing the costs of the maintenance of that. That is an anomaly and it would be an important part of this Bill to make provision for the transfer of that jurisdiction so that there is a complete management of effectively the Broadlands system. The port authority are content with that arrangement. Since they have passed their responsibilities over to the port company, the focus of the port company has been building out a harbour and, therefore, we have had little success in getting the new port company’s engagement on the issue. What the Bill provides for is a mechanism for that transfer to take place when both sides are content. As Mr George indicated in his opening speech, the Authority has always thought that it would seek some financial compensation from the port authority, now the harbour company, in terms of that transfer because the maintenance and patrolling of Breydon Water would be a significant responsibility for the Authority to take on.
141. Can we just look at tab 18, please, which is the Breydon analysis.
(Dr Packman) Yes.
142. Was I right in telling their Lordships that this comes only from your own figures so that there may be other incidents known to Great Yarmouth Harbour Authority which would not be included in this?
(Dr Packman) Yes, both that but I suspect the first heading, which is about groundings, that number is vastly under-representative of the number of boats that go on to the mud. Certainly we are very well aware of the ones that get firmly stuck there and occasionally we have had members of staff who have stood by, supported and helped those visitors because they have been worried that the boat might tip over as the tide comes in. I would have thought there would be several hundred groundings a year on the mud across Breydon Water.
143. Is there any way by which this transfer of Breydon Water to the Broads Authority can be accomplished other than by a Bill?
(Dr Packman) A harbour revision order, I think, would achieve the same ends but certainly in our discussions with the Department for Transport about harbour revision orders they are things that take a very long time and there is a long in-tray dealing with those. I know from my discussions with the port authority that they have been waiting for a harbour revision order for a good number of years. The advantage of the Bill is that it allows that to happen when both parties are content that arrangements are satisfactory to both of them.
144. Dr Packman, this provision appears to be non-controversial except as to its possible financial implications for the Authority. Is there anything you want to say about that? What is said is that you are short of money for navigation purposes at present and that this is not the moment to take on an additional responsibility because it will have deleterious consequences for other of your navigational purposes.
(Dr Packman) I can understand that view. The way the finances are set up now and the way in the future they are set up is that navigation income and expenditure are ring-fenced, so the responsibility for the large element of funding, the maintenance of the navigation, is determined by the amount of tolls that boaters pay. Clearly we have always tried to strike the balance between not putting the tolls up too much but gaining additional income to get the work that boaters want done carried out. There is a lot more that we would want to do and we could spend a lot more money if our colleagues in Defra could find extra support. In terms of Breydon, we are committed to negotiation with what now will be a private company to see if there can be what we have always thought would be a dowry, some form of financial settlement, that would enable the Authority to have confidence that the maintenance of Breydon Water could be affordable both in the short-term and the long-term. If one is concerned about the safety of those using the Broads, this is an area that really must be managed effectively. Having an arrangement where the Broads Authority is doing it because it thinks it is important but does not really have the responsibility does not strike me as a very satisfactory arrangement. This is an important provision in the Bill.
145. Let us then turn to the way in which you deal with finance, please. I think it may be helpful if the Committee have in mind the relevant provisions of the existing Act which govern financial matters and that is section 17, is it not? It may be helpful if in the Keeling Schedule I ask the Committee to go to tab 3, page 17, so they can there see both the existing system and the proposed changes all set out on pages 17 and 18 of the Keeling Schedule. First of all, what are your two principal sources of income at present?
(Dr Packman) Two-thirds of our income comes by way of National Park grant from Defra. In the current financial year that amounts to £4.30 million. The other third, as I have hinted at, is by way of charges levied on boats that use the Broads, principally the annual toll which runs from 1 April to 31 March. We have something like 13,000 boats, about 10,000 toll payers and collectively in the current financial year they will pay approximately 2.24 million. It is not quite as much as that because there is a bit of interest. Most of the toll income comes in on 1 April and certainly until the rapid changes in interest rate the Broads Authority benefited from one of our district councils investing that money and giving us some significant amounts of interest, something like 35,000 a year. In addition, there are other charges. For instance, if you go through Mutford Lock from the sea at Lowestoft into Oulton Broad you pay a charge. The bulk of the navigation income comes from the annual toll.
146. LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: How do you raise that?
(Dr Packman) Every November the Broads Authority sets the toll having consulted the navigation committee and that is based on the square metreage of the boat. Motorboats pay more than sailing boats. If you have got a very large motorboat you might be paying up to £300 a year, if you have got a large sailing boat you might be paying £120 a year, whereas if you have got a canoe you will pay about £26 a year. A bit like the council tax, that is an annual interesting debate that we go through and figures largely in the pages of the Eastern Daily Press but, as I hinted, the Broads Authority has a balancing act to make there. The toll payers are obviously concerned that they do not want to pay more than they have to but they want better services and the Broads Authority wants to deliver better services but without the income it cannot. The way the Authority was set up in 1988, we have two separate accounts, a general account into which the National Park grant goes and things like Heritage Lottery funding, and a navigation account into which the toll income goes, but these are virtual accounts, in fact all the money just goes into one bank account. It is an accounting process we have to manage. There is a duty that we basically have to spend navigation income on navigation expenditure and National Park grant on the National Park expenditure. As my Lords will see, following the view of the House of Commons Committee, even though the Bill seeks to have one account so that we can present our information in one place, there will be a requirement for us to keep separate accounting so that we can demonstrate to our Defra colleagues that all the money that we receive for National Park functions goes on National Park matters and all the money we receive from the toll payers is spent on the maintenance of the navigation.
147. MR GEORGE: Just pausing there, we were in tab 3 of the Keeling Schedule at section 17 and it is section 17(5) in the passage which is deleted there which is the existing provision that you have got to keep separately a navigation revenue account and a general revenue account, is that right?
(Dr Packman) That is correct.
148. Although in the future it is planned no longer to have the two separate accounts, there is still to be the provision in 17(b): “It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that taking of one financial year with another navigation expenditure is equal to navigation income”. That is the matching of the two and that is to remain as hitherto.
(Dr Packman) That is correct.
149. Just to clarify one matter which you mentioned just now, so far as the Government grant, National Park grant, normally that cannot be spent on navigational purposes, is that not right, unless the Government determines and tops up its grant with a bit extra which it says you can spend on navigational purposes, for instance on dealing with sedimentation?
(Dr Packman) That is correct. In fact, when Alun Michael was minister he not only gave us extra money for planning but he also gave us extra money for trying to do something about the backlog of sediment, and that was most appreciated by everyone.
150. It is a bone of contention really between the Government and both you, the Broads Authority, and boating interests. You would welcome more grant for navigational purposes, but the fact of the matter is you will have to fight for it and you do not get it regularly but you do get it sometimes.
(Dr Packman) Absolutely. Over the last six years we have made tremendous progress on that. Until four years ago there had been no money that came forth from the Government for the navigation. Over a six year period we now have £2.8 million of extra grant that Defra has given us above our normal National Park grant. That has meant that not only have we been able to do more about dredging but also in terms of some of the conservation areas, so some of the isolated broads that you cannot navigate we have managed to pump dredge, which are sites of special scientific interest and, as I mentioned earlier, the seeds have been in there for the last 50 years, we have pump dredged them and almost by magic the water clears and the whole quality of the environment has improved.
151. Now let us come to the question why do you need a private bill.
(Dr Packman) Promoting a private bill has not been a course of action that the Authority has chosen lightly, but it has followed after many years of discussion with government officials. It became clear that this was the only route open to the Authority if these important safety matters were to be addressed. We are following a path in many of the proposals already paved by our colleagues in British Waterways who look after the canal system. They had an Act in 1995 which gave British Waterways very similar powers to the ones sought in this Bill. Similarly, our colleagues in the Environment Agency, who look after the second largest part of the inland waterways, are in the final stages of a transport and works act order which will again provide them with very similar provisions. In our discussions facilitated by our colleagues in Defra we looked at a whole range of things, harbour revision orders, transport and works act orders and various things. The transport and works act order that the Environment Agency is using is not open to us because we are a harbour authority. We cannot use a harbour revision order for some of the provisions. In fact, it was a Treasury Solicitor who in the end gave us the advice that a private bill was the appropriate way forward. Incidentally, our Defra colleagues did try and get some provisions in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, but in the end for legal and other reasons it proved not possible. This is the only way the Authority can achieve this end, although some of these things the Authority’s navigation committee has been seeking for nearly 20 years. Things like the Boat Safety Scheme and the third party insurance have been there for a long, long time. It has been a long road for the Authority to get to this point.
152. So far as, for example, the Boat Safety Scheme and the way you envisage it with an updating provision and third party insurance, is there any way in which you can achieve that other than by a bill?
(Dr Packman) In terms of updating the Boat Safety Scheme and third party insurance, no, as far as I am aware this is the only route we can do that.
153. What is the relevance of the Port Marine Safety Code to what you are doing?
(Dr Packman) If I can just clarify my last point, of course you could update the Boat Safety Scheme by byelaws but I meant in terms of the speed of doing it, although there is no requirement to consult on byelaws there is a provision whereby there could be an inquiry so byelaws are a very long process. What this Bill allows us to do is to update our boat safety standards relatively quickly, but byelaws could not do third party insurance.
154. The Port Marine Safety Code?
(Dr Packman) The Port Marine Safety Code was developed by the Department for Transport between 1998 and 2000 for harbour authorities and is a national standard for all aspects of port marine safety. What it requires us to do is to evaluate all the risks in the harbour and reduce them to as low as reasonably possible. We are required to appoint a duty holder and in this case it is the Broads Authority members, the Broads Authority itself, a designated person which is our Head of Waterways Strategy and Safety. As I say, it requires us to use risk assessment principles to look at all the risks and see what the Authority can do to reduce them. Specifically, we have to put in place a safety management system. The Broads Authority is a very little organisation. We have a core staff of less than 100 and some of these tasks have been very large and onerous but over the last couple of years, with the benefit of really outstanding staff, we have made fantastic progress. Many of the things which a couple of years ago were identified by our stakeholders as being significant risks, we have now, through various actions, been able to reduce. Although it is quite an onerous process, it has meant that we have now put in place a lot of things which were not in place. We have written procedures rather than just what we do. It has been welcomed and beneficial. One particular the code states is, “It is for each harbour authority to keep under review whether their powers and the extent of their jurisdiction are appropriate for maintaining the overall safety of the harbour and to promote changes where necessary”. One of the triggers for the private Bill has been the Port Marine Safety Code has forced us to both review all the risks but then see if the Authority has the necessary powers to manage those.
155. Dr Packman, it is a theme of a number of the petitions that the Petitioners in question are experienced boaters and yachtsmen and that they can handle their boats safely and there is no need for you to interfere. You have mentioned the question of novices and so forth, can you address that matter and would it be possible to have provisions which, so to speak, exempted the more experienced and only applied to the less experienced?
(Dr Packman) The Broads is a wonderful environment for people to learn to sail but also an environment for them to have their first experience of handling a boat. People get in their car in Birmingham, they drive across to Wroxham, they pick up a boat for the first time and they are out in the Broads and they have a wonderful holiday, but a boat is not the same as driving your car. We spend a lot of time encouraging them not to try and go at 60 miles an hour, to take the right course on the right side of the river, to be aware that boats do not stop on a six pence, but inevitably they do need help and support and guidance. Many of the Petitioners are much more experienced than I could ever be in terms of handling a boat, therefore it is unlikely that my staff will ever need to give them advice and guidance. To some extent the Bill is not built for them, the Bill is built for public safety as a whole. Having said that, one of the things which has come out of the boat safety scheme is we have had individuals who have said, “My boat, there’s no requirement to go through this, I don’t need for it to be inspected, it is perfectly safe” and low and behold, when the inspectors actually looked at their cooking facilities or their fuel lines, there is one example of where one has put a screw through the bulk head right through into the gas pipe taking the gas into the kitchen facilities. Even for the experienced boater, some of these safety provisions are of benefit. We have had people vehemently opposed to the boat safety scheme who subsequently have said, “Oh, we are glad that it was inspected”. It is a bit like one’s own car, unless you are an expert, you may not know that the break fluid is low or whatever. While respecting the experience and knowledge of some of the Petitioners, the Bill is about public safety as a whole and there are many novice boaters who we will need to help and give guidance to.
156. Could we turn to tab four which deals with a capsized or breakaway and its relevance to what is in the Bill?
(Dr Packman) This was July 2003 on a weekend I well remember. The Broads is generally a safe place. We have about two drownings from a boat a year on average and about two and a half from drownings which are not associated with boats, but on this particular weekend three people unfortunately lost their lives, two missing their footing when trying to board a boat, two women were drowned, and then this unfortunate occasion when a party boarded a boat at Wroxham, ten people, and it capsized without warning and one of the women was trapped underneath and lost her life. The key elements of that were about the stability of the boat in terms of the number of people who were on board. Interestingly, it raised a whole series of issues which were of a national significance in terms of the weight of the people up on the boat. It was their positioning on the boat but also their weight. The fact that the standards by which we calculate stability were out of date with the size of the population, so we are getting bigger and heavier as an nation, and the stability test had not kept up with it, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch of the Department for Transport looked at this in great deta

Many thanks for keeping us updated.Good luck.John