The IWA National Festival takes place at Beale Park, near Pangbourne, on the River Thames over the August Bank Holiday .

If you are cruising up the Thames from Limehouse, you might be interested in the video available of the PLA’s Boating on the Thames website here. Click on the Cruising through Central London link on the home page to see the video. There is also some useful information and reference guides for narrowboaters and cruisers available if you click on the appropriate button to the left of the picture on the home page.

Wallingford is upgrading the mooring facilities by the swimming pool.  Mooring is free until 4:00pm, and overnight mooring is available at a charge of £5. Maximum stay is 24 hours. Showers are available free for overnight moorers at the swimming pool.  There are local shops and restaurants nearby. (As we understand it, there are no effluent disposal facilities. Water is available from a standpipe in the campsite area, but this is some distance from the moorings. There is no designated rubbish facility, but it may be possible to use the leisure centre’s own facility. If anyone can update this information, please contact us.)

The Bridgewater Canal Trust asked the public in March of this year to nominate local heroes to be represented on a portrait bench to be installed on the Sale to Stretford branch of the canal.  Bill Bleasdale, a founder member of the Watch House Cruising club, who passed away in 2008, will be one of the local heroes recognised on the bench. The cutting below, from the Trafford Metro News of Friday 21st May, explains the project.

 

With the Election now in full swing, below is the message AWCC National Chairman, David Pearce gave at the recent  National AGM. This article is in the latest Newsletter AWARE available from the Newsletter tab at the top of the page.

 

Why you should read their manifestos ?

I made the comment in my report to the AWCC AGM that I believe that the waterways’ movement is facing a major crossroad, maybe the first really major one since the 50s and 60s.The consultant’?s report, ‘Setting a Course’ put forward the options to BW. The option of becoming a full-blown charity to run the inland waterways has been chosen, so it is now a distinct possibility.  If it is sympathetically implemented, it could be of great advantage to the many thousands of people who appreciate the inland waterways. It will allow us, the users to have a positive say in the way the waterways are run, via a Board of Trustees.

Will it become a reality?  I have met with the politicians and all three major parties appear to be signed up.  In the run up to an election many things are said and promises made.  After the big day, reality then strikes home with those that have won.  I can well imagine that matters of inland waterways will not be at the top of the political agenda – it never is, but there is every reason why we must try, and try hard, to ratchet it upwards.

The party manifestos are all in draft and will be published as soon the election date is confirmed.  My advice to all members is to make sure you read what they say about waterways and then quiz them when they come knocking on your door.  If enough people do this, they might just get the message that it is important to a lot of people who may just vote for them.

What are the main political issues?  Funding remains the matter of key importance and a change to charity status does not rectify that overnight.  However, charity status does create a more liberal tax regime and with a greater emphasis on volunteering, improvements can be expected.

What is essential is that the Government of the day continues to provide their grant, as this is effectively the contribution from the non-boaters who can only pay for the waterways via their tax contributions.

Of equal importance is that the new charity must have a substantial endowment.  This has to be the current BW property portfolio.  All national user group chairmen have fought hard on this one.  You may recall that I got a personal assurance from Gerry Grimstone on the matter a year ago, but a new government with other financial problems may be persuaded by a recalcitrant Treasury to take it away.  This would be extremely short sighted.

I am asking you the membership to get out there and lobby:

      Read their manifestos,

      Talk to them on the door step and in the meeting place,

      Send them letters and emails.

Get the assurance that they will, when they get to Westminster:

      Support the charity proposal,

      Not cut the Grant in Aid,

      Give the new charity the property portfolio as an endowment.

You know it makes sense!

David Pearce.

National Chairman.

David Pearce, National Chairman of the AWCC, has written to DEFRA with the AWCC’s response to the draft “Waterways for Everyone” consultation published by DEFRA on 19th December 2009.  The text of the letter is shown below, and part one of the AWCC’s response is provided as a PDF document at the bottom of this post.

The consultation period closed on 26th March 2010.

WfE_response_pt1.pdf

Tags: Waterways for Everyone

Caroline Killeavy, Head of Customer Relations at BW, was the after lunch speaker at the AWCC AGM held on Saturday 13th March at Stafford Boat Club.

Caroline started her talk by explaining that the job included the complaints process,  freedom of information requests, and management of the Engagement Team, which included angling as well as boating.

She started with the Third Sector proposal and said that it had created uncertainty on both sides – there was neither a right, nor a wrong way of implementing the proposals. There needed to be much discussion and evaluation of all the perceived risks. There would inevitably be much political lobbying. A final decision would be taken when more detail had been evolved. However, it was not yet a done deal, but when it was it had to be the “Right Deal”, it had to be a partnership with the key stakeholders. In the mean time there was the small matter of the General Election, but the time was now much better than it was a decade ago. The Third Sector proposal was in principle approved by the three major political parties, but could a good political deal be achieved with a new Government?

Caroline then moved on to the increase in visitors to BW’s waterways over the last five years; the statistics suggest that 13 million people visited the waterways last year – that is about a quarter of the population of this country.  This increase in visitor numbers has resulted indirectly in good media coverage, and had been of much benefit to the BW cause. In recent telephone surveys, 90% of those surveyed considered the waterways to be very important.

Caroline continued by saying that there was a need to change attitudes within BW and particularly to the involvement of the key stakeholders. She assured us that BW management was changing! She assured us that there was a new model for involving and educating young people and also an increased emphasis on working with local communities and the capturing of a full range of volunteer skills in local communities; engineering, mapping, media, finance, etc. She emphasised the volunteering website, http://www.do-it.org.uk/ . She realised that BW had to do a good packaging job in encouraging volunteers in suitable areas for volunteering.

Caroline was keen to promote adoption schemes and gave the example of a bank in Birmingham that encouraged all employees to be actively involved in the canal outside their windows in their lunch hour. BT were running a similar scheme and providing a co-ordinator for free for six months. She mentioned a North West youth volunteering activity where ‘intergenerational’ relationships were seen to work very well.

The Customer Service Team was also involved in up to date IT techniques with Twitter and Facebook accounts. She invited us to “tweet” the team! It is more approachable and informal, she said, and in particular it allows BW to engage with users of these new social media websites.

Finally, she made the point that major change within any organisation is always hard. There was willingness within BW, but still a fear for jobs. She then tackled the many questions from the floor in a frank and informal manner.

Questions covered the level of director’s bonuses, the many thousands of visitors who make no direct financial contributions, how to attract volunteers who are not boaters and how to get greater involvement of Local Authorities, particularly those who appear not to value their local waterways.

Caroline would not be drawn on the level of executive remuneration packages other than to say that there was a need to attract the right people. She said that non-executive Board Members remuneration was relatively slight. (The remuneration position of Trustee Board members is likely to be considerably different!)

The continuation of the Grant in Aid will still be necessary in recognition of those who do not pay directly for waterway maintenance. There would be renewed efforts with Local Authorities via the Regeneration Team. She did, however, remind us that it was the taxpayer who presently provided much of BW’s funding, so almost everyone makes some contribution towards the waterways facilities that are free for all to use.

A comment from the floor then identified the recent report in Waterways World that said the main problem with BW management was likely to be “letting go”. The method of selection of Trustees for the new charity was then queried, with the suggestion that the recent BWAF letter to Robin Evans did not go far enough *. The loss of jobs was then queried, as volunteer numbers increases. The problem of controlling volunteers was raised.

Caroline agreed that changing culture would not be easy, but there was a need to get away from the complacent image of the public sector approach. She did confirm that in the most recent reorganisation, no bank-side staff was lost. She accepted that there were possible difficulties as volunteer jobs approached those done by “professionals”, but said that it was always important to make the volunteer role in some way different to avoid the problem. Overall, volunteers had to be properly organised and controlled – they could not be allowed to do as they liked!

The matter of how to effectively inform the average boater was then raised and how to avoid the “glazed looks” when mentioning the Third Sector. The possibility of the new charity covering all waterways’ authorities was raised. Erica Martin then made an impassioned appeal for the new charity to include everyone, which was widely applauded, including by our speaker. Caroline concluded by emphasising that there was no right deal with the government, that they still had to pay through the Grant In Aid and that whilst a single Navigation Authority may be desirable and achievable at some time in the future, it was not on the cards at the moment.

The AWCC President, in wrapping up the AGM, then gave the speaker a sincere vote of thanks for her informal yet frank approach, with the wish that local user group meetings should take a leaf out of her book.

* Chairman’s note. The BWAF meeting on 22 Jan did go considerably further in discussion on the matter of Trustees, who they should be, whether they should be paid and how they should be appointed, etc. However, it was decided that there was a limit to how much of this should be set out in the letter from BWAF to Robin Evans. There will be further opportunities.

Webmasters note: Thanks to John Baggs, David Pearce and Erica Martin for their notes on the above presentation.

The Club Handbook for 2010 is now available for purchase through your quartermaster, as usual, for the sum of £2.00. This year, although the layout and presentation is similar to previous years, we are providing the pages unbound but pre-punched so they can easily be inserted into an A5 two-ring binder which you can purchase from your local stationers or even your local supermarket.

From this year, there is an online version of the handbook pages in the members only area of the AWCC website. In this area, there is a PDF file containing the handbook information for each Club, which will be updated as soon as any changes are made. These pages are designed to be printed to your computers printer and can be interleaved with the classic handbook pages as updates are notified. If your Club secretary has not already got details of how your Club can access these pages, they will receive a communication shortly. Please note that at this time, access to the members only pages is only available to Club secretaries.

There is also a revised Club Finder map available for download.

MARCH 2010: The BSS have published two news releases on the storage and use of petrol aboard boats.  If you have a boat which uses a petrol engine for propulsion, or if you carry a portable petrol generator on your boat which you use on or off the boat, then you will find these worth reading.

These are available as down-loadable files below.

Petrol Powered Craft – Be Vigilant NR00110 Petrol powered craft – be vigilant

Petrol Dangers with Portable Engines NR00210 petrol dangers with portable engines

The BSS has further advice on the subject here: www.boatsafetyscheme.com/downloads/avoidingPETROL.pdf

The BSS website is here: www.boatsafetyscheme.com

In the past six years the BSS has recorded 34 incidents of fire or explosion linked to petrol engines on inland waterways and coastal boats. 31 people needed hospital treatment, including some in intensive care. In the same period, seven incidents of accidental carbon monoxide poisoning have been linked to generators and outboard motor exhaust fumes.

Regretfully another AWCC North West and National stalwart has died. Terry Tomlinson became National Quartermaster in the 1980s when we had bills for £15 and £12 in the kitty. Through Terry’s drive we had various fund raising events and are here today because of his efforts.

Terry led some adventures. As Commodore of Sale C.C. the Club crossed the weir at Chester and went up the Dee. Easter cruises would see SCC boats on the River Douglas and the Ribble. In fact Terry led the first hair-raising cruise into Preston Dock from Tarleton as the start of the campaign by the NorthWest Region to build the Ribble Link.

Other fun trips to remember include MERSEYMAGIC when the Region took over the “Royal Iris” and entertained the newly appointed BW Chairman Sir Leslie Young and his wife. The previous chair, Sir Frank Price (our Patron) used to call Terry, Harold Stanley and I, the three b****ds off the Bridgewater”

Terry will be missed – they don’t make them like that anymore!

Keith Noble

---

[Webmasters Note - 15/02/2010] Funeral Arrangements – Monday 22nd March, 10.30 am Altringham Crematorium, afterwards at Lymn Cruising Club. Family flowers only please – donations to St Marys Hospice.

AWCC is a member of the British Waterways Advisory Forum, together with all other user groups, such as IWA and NABO, the British Marine Federation, fishing, cycling and rambling groups. We have written to the Chief Executive of British Waterways, concerning their “Third Sector” proposal, and he has accepted the comments in full.

[webmasters note: the paragraph headings have been added to this web version of the letter and did not form part of Nigel's original letter to Robin Evans.]

Nigel Stevens’ Letter to Robin Evans:

The members of BWAF have asked me to write to you following our very helpful meeting with Simon Salem on 22 January. We were most grateful to him.

Who Should Own the UK’s Waterways?

We have always believed that the waterways, whilst formally owned by the state, belong really to the people who use them in so many ways. Therefore a Trust has always seemed to us the natural home for the waterways. We of course think they should be managed in a business-like way, but we have never believed the waterways as a whole to be a business, suitable for privatisation. We are therefore enormously cheered that the government has approved BW’s project to consider moving BW’s waterways into the third sector. We will give you every support as the studies proceed.

How Much Government Control Should There Be?

The third sector contains a remarkable spectrum of organisational types, ranging from bodies only nominally independent of government, such as the Valuation Office Agency, to those so independent of government as not even to be registered as charities, such as Greenpeace. We recognise that because BW’s waterways are controlled by government, and large payments are made by government every year, government might find it much easier to place a new BW at the only-slightly-independent end of the spectrum. We would emphasise that for us this would entirely miss the point. In our opinion, a body of this type would be unable to attract either volunteers or charitable gifts. The further the new body is towards the charity end of the spectrum, the more chance it will have of success. Many large charities have contractual links with government, whilst remaining demonstrably independent. For example, Scope receives half its income, some £50m a year, as fees for services to public bodies.

What is the Users Considered View?

We therefore believe that the new body should be a full-blown charity. Its trustees should be appointed by a method, which reflects the widest possible array of stakeholders. This would include government representatives, but they would not have control. We were encouraged by Simon’s outline of the potential arrangements, and offer to work with BW as these ideas change.

How Should the Board of a New Charity be Created?

The new body should have a shadow board appointed at the earliest possible stage.  We think that BW should drop talk of ‘turning itself into a charity’, but rather make clear that a new charity will be formed to take over the running of BW’s waterways.  This would emphasise the scale of the new beginning, and encourage the volunteers and donations to start flowing. This approach would be entirely consistent with the secure transfer of staff to the new organisation. We consider that it will be necessary, over time, for the new body’s pay, conditions and pension arrangements to fall into line with other major charities. Compass makes clear, and you yourself have said, that BW’s staff will need to embark on a major culture change. We think this will be greater and tougher than most BW staff yet understand. We would like to help with this. The early establishment of a shadow board and chief officers would greatly assist.

Financially Independent?

We do not believe that BW’s waterways could or should be made financially independent, because so much of the expenditure is to provide benefits to the public, for which they cannot individually be charged. Drainage, flood control, upkeep of towpaths, and maintenance of heritage are examples of this. We therefore support the project to establish stewardship scores by which BW’s performance in providing these public goods by contract with government could be measured. Logically, such contracts might be with several government departments rather than the present single one – for example, the provision of safer towpaths in deprived areas to encourage greater local use, or the maintenance of freight waterways. Such contracts must be of a rolling, long term nature, and the associated risks carefully considered.

The Cost of Maintenance?

It would be in the interest of the new body not to be seen as subsidising the hobby of wealthy boat-owners. It would therefore seem sensible to establish the cost of maintenance work, over and above that mentioned above, solely to provide for navigation. This could then reasonably be related to the income from boating, in contrast to present unreasonable assertions that boat owners contribute ‘only 20%’ of BW’s costs.

Who Pays in the Long Term?

Our greatest concern about these proposals is that they do not in themselves close the funding gap. We are nonetheless optimistic that they may provide the basis for reducing costs, raising income and taking a more long-term view. We believe it is essential that reliable funding for the foreseeable future be secured in order to produce efficiencies of operation and clearer deliverable strategies for the benefit of all users in the years ahead.

What About the Law?

We accept that it is highly unlikely that new legislation will be available. Accordingly, BW’s waterways will continue to belong to government. We presume that the British Waterways Board will continue to exist, its responsibility reduced to the oversight of a very long contract with the new body. This would answer our concern that government should retain the responsibility of maintainer of last resort, continuing the safeguards in the 1968 Act. Statutory duties and powers would remain, along with accountability to Parliament by government. We understand that government has expressed interest in some solution, which would absolve it of this responsibility. We absolutely reject any such arrangement on the grounds that our inland waterways and the right to navigation are a part of our national heritage that must be preserved for future generations.

BW Property?

It is of the essence of any arrangement that the estate be passed intact to the new body alongside the track, as part of the very long lease or other arrangement, which devolves responsibility from the British Waterways Board. The estate includes important parts of the waterways heritage. The new body would fail at birth without the income producing property endowment. The structure adopted should put the endowment beyond reach of government, and give reasonable borrowing powers to enable better long-term planning. The new body should be freed from the restrictions suffered by BW on the location or type of investment it may make, thus facilitating site assembly and long-term investment alongside waterways eventually to be restored. It should also be freed to choose whether or not to engage private-sector joint-venture partners for development schemes. We envisage that, over time, trustees might diversify their investments beyond waterside property.

What Will Be the Local Involvement?

The idea of establishing stakeholder advisory groups for each major waterway has merit. We welcome the intention to put down stronger roots in waterside communities, and will play a full part in fostering this. We consider that, as much of the benefit from the waterways is felt in local communities, it would be reasonable for more of the new body’s funding to come from local authorities. We greatly welcome the contribution of those local authorities, which already have contracts with BW, and will encourage others. We should like to see further work on the concept of a levy on local inhabitants, collected via the local council (but not a levy on the council itself), similar to the way fire and police services are funded. We also believe that riparian developers who benefit from the waterways should make payments under S106 or other agreements. We are disappointed that Waterways for Everyone contains no commitment on this matter.

We suggest that a group be formed so that our member organisations can work alongside BW staff to gain greater understanding of how large charities engage volunteers and raise funds. That group could also explore the potential to use our members to help form community-based support groups that comprise a broad range of users.

What Will a New BW Be Called?

We agree with Compass that a major branding exercise needs to be undertaken, building on the ‘Yours to Enjoy’ campaign. It is essential that more people be encouraged to share ‘ownership’ of BW’s waterways. The name of the new organisation will have to be market-tested, but we have no suggestions at this stage beyond the probable need to exclude the words ‘British’ and ‘waterways’!

We have long argued for more unified management of publicly-owned waterways. Therefore we strongly hope that the successor to BW will in due course provide a home, satisfactory to all, for the waterways presently managed by the Environment Agency and other navigation authorities.

We agree that the window of opportunity is very small, and offer every encouragement to make the most of this opportunity.

A United View From All British Waterways Advisory Forum Members

Both BWAF and its member organisations greatly look forward to working with you and your staff to develop these proposals. Member organisations will use their contacts and influence to the best possible effect. We wish you every success.

Yours sincerely,

NFS Stevens
Chairman, BWAF

The minutes of this meeting are attached as a PDF file

Minutes Nov 09