EA Navigation Charges Consultation

boatone

boatone

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 Jul 2001
Messages
12,845
Location
Just a few cables from Boulters Lock
www.tmba.org.uk
Some of you are aware that the EA have issued a consultation document seeking user input to their proposals to increase licence fees for the Thames for 2018.

The documents were sent to representatives of all the river user groups who have been asked to gather the views of their members and submit a collated response by the end of August. However, it is clear that the document is being more widely circulated and is reaching many individual boaters.

I have now clarified that the EA will accept responses from individuals that wish to do so.

The primary effect of the proposals would be to increase Thames powered craft registration fees for 2018 by 5.7% Different rates of increase are proposed for the Medway and other EA waterways and there are slightly higher increases proposed for unpowered craft.
 
The Consultation Questions highlight, I believe, a failure in the EA management style. After asking if you support the proposals and, if not, what level of increase would you support the final question asks "If we were not to increase charges, what elements of the service would you be prepared to see reduce or stop? " Any competent businessman would surely ask "What do you believe we could do to increase income without raising registration charges?" - I am sure, between us, we could provide plenty of suggestions to make EA more efficient and raise income from non-registration sources...

I am disappointed that the only option is an increase in registration fees with no obvious opportunities to reduce costs and/or raise income elsewhere.
 
Rascal Joe said:
The Consultation Questions highlight, I believe, a failure in the EA management style. After asking if you support the proposals and, if not, what level of increase would you support the final question asks "If we were not to increase charges, what elements of the service would you be prepared to see reduce or stop? " Any competent businessman would surely ask "What do you believe we could do to increase income without raising registration charges?" - I am sure, between us, we could provide plenty of suggestions to make EA more efficient and raise income from non-registration sources...

I am disappointed that the only option is an increase in registration fees with no obvious opportunities to reduce costs and/or raise income elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Well put
 
Rascal Joe said:
The Consultation Questions highlight, I believe, a failure in the EA management style. After asking if you support the proposals and, if not, what level of increase would you support the final question asks "If we were not to increase charges, what elements of the service would you be prepared to see reduce or stop? " Any competent businessman would surely ask "What do you believe we could do to increase income without raising registration charges?" - I am sure, between us, we could provide plenty of suggestions to make EA more efficient and raise income from non-registration sources...
I am disappointed that the only option is an increase in registration fees with no obvious opportunities to reduce costs and/or raise income elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree with your sentiments I have had to come to terms with the severely restricted opportunity that the EA have to vary the current charging regime. They do have some ability to vary the charges for those things they are permitted to charge for within the Thames Conservancy legislation but that really comes down to registration charges as they currently exist. Treasury rules also place severe limitations on their ability to seek new income streams. An example is the swimming events - they have no legal right to charge anyone for swimming in the river and it would require new legislation to permit that. I have already been personally informed by Defra that they have no plans to consider new legislation and, even if they did so, it would take several years. The 2010 TWO took almost ten years to push through and that was before Brexit started taking up government time. They can charge cost only attendance fees for monitoring events such as Henley RR but that doesn't actually add anything to the pot and takes staff away from routine duties.
They are also generally unable to "speculate to accumulate" so cannot spend money on improved IT systems to facilitate enforcement.
Any comparison to prudent business practice is completely pointless. They are a government department with none of the usual business attitudes that we would expect. Cash flow is not a problem as the books are not balanced until the end of the year.

Cost savings are always a difficult issue and there will always be areas where there are disagreements as to how the limited funds are best spent. However, the fact is that current year budgets are around £10million - 50% of the 2010 levels - and there is little fat left to trim.

Even a transfer to C&RT will take several years in the present climate so there is no opportunity for early salvation there. All the more galling to know that C&RT benefit from some £50million pounds of government grant funding every year and will continue to do so until 2025.

I would like to pray for a miracle but that doesn't seem to help as I get the feeling I am just talking to myself ........ and every boater that leaves the river reduces income even further.
 
Last edited:
I really hate the argument that government departments can’t act in a business-manner simply because they are government departments.

There is plenty they could do within the present legislative framework whilst waiting for some long-overdue changes (just ensuring all boats are registered would be a good start!)

The real problem is that the EA has no shareholders, does not need to show a return on capital, has no competition, is afraid of the Unions, is small fry in the government machine, and (worst of all) just does not care about leisure boaters...

As a commercial organisation they would long since be history.
 
Ok, so let's see if I've got this right - we go to Reading, call a meeting of all EA Thames staff and tell them they are going to do things differently - simples.
Unfortunately they are all employees of GB PLC, value their jobs, and tend to comply with the requirements their superiors place on them. Their lords and masters have decreed that if more money is needed it can no longer come from the public purse and we who play must pay.
 
Last edited:
Their lords and masters have decreed that if more money is needed it can no longer come from the public purse and we who play must pay.
Click to expand...

This typifies the approach that government departments take and which, seemingly, you believe also. There is absolutely no logic that links the second part of that sentence with the initial assertion. In business when no more money is available, the management turn to costs, other sources, efficiency improvements and more - putting up the prices is always a last resort simply because most commercial organisations have competition and customers have choice.

And therein lies the nub of this issue: the EA has no competition and their users have no choice - it is a dreadfully bad management style that simply takes advantage of that position...

it really is time that the EA (and many other government departments) were run on commercial lines with business-experienced managers in charge.

Needless to say, the EA has already decided to put up registration charges and the 'consultation' is a transparent attempt at involving customers (most of whom, I suspect, will not be fooled for a second!).
 
Apart from all the normal "talk" and "moaning" how many boaters have actually put pen to paper and sent in there thoughts on the consultation paper to the EA or recognised representatives of the river users?
 
Rascal Joe said:
I suspect that most boaters think the decision is already made so submitting comments is not worth the effort...
Click to expand...

So once again the EA has spent money on producing a consultation paper which was a waste of time and effort. So do we all lay down and take the bullet in the head and go quietly?
 
Not a complete waste of effort - it is a softening up exercise. By the time we get the bill for 2018 most of the angst will be faded to quiet compliance...
 
Perhaps I've been living under a rock or just not paying attention but what is this I hear about the EA now having to pay refunds to houseboats that previously paid registration fees and now apparently have a court ruling saying they didn't need to?

Asking here because apparently half the money being raised by the above inflation increase the EA want us to pay for our registrations will be used to pay refunds to houseboats - NOT IMPRESSED!

Most mobos only move for 6-8 months of the year yet have to pay for the full 12 months, so how come a houseboat that is floating in the same Thames water for 12 months of the year doesn't have to pay anything? I suspect they might complain if there was no water to float in.

Think I might have to register my boat as a houseboat, wonder how many nights a year you actually have to spend on board to qualify...

Seems to me yet again the EA are taking the easy option and targeting motor boaters as an easy source of cash, rather than looking to ensure all river users pay their fair share towards the cost of maintaining the river.
 
Big John said:
I think you will find the House Boat issue is nothing to do with the Thames.
Click to expand...
Not so. The case applied to houseboats in Hartford Marina (Anglian region) but the EA decided that the judgement also impacted on similar houseboats on the Thames. As far as the refunds are concerned we are told they can only be a cost against the current year revenue account.
 
Tone i get very tired of hearing this, makes me wonder whether you will reflect your members views - you seem almost resigned to accept it.
Let me make this point- if they cant change anything why have a management team? Just keep it to front line and a bookeeper and sack the managers. Simples as you put it.
 
Rascal Joe said:
I really hate the argument that government departments can’t act in a business-manner simply because they are government departments.

There is plenty they could do within the present legislative framework whilst waiting for some long-overdue changes (just ensuring all boats are registered would be a good start!)

The real problem is that the EA has no shareholders, does not need to show a return on capital, has no competition, is afraid of the Unions, is small fry in the government machine, and (worst of all) just does not care about leisure boaters...

As a commercial organisation they would long since be history.
Click to expand...

with out wishing to be to contentious :) be careful what you wish for as you may just .......etc etc.

Any commercial outfit would have purely been interested in creating the best shareholder value return possible over the shortest term possible. Anything worth something to somebody would have been flogged off, an asset stripping binge the pre financial crash bankers would have been proud of. .
Anything left in the hollow shell organisation (probably Qatar Thames Water PLC) would have be expected to provide an impressive return on some no doubt highly leveraged borrowing.
Any sane business would shut the leisure side down instantly it never can and never will break even in commecial sense..
The best hope is that the rest of the UK agrees to continue for some peculiar reason to subsidise the Thames and every other navigation.
Wonder when every other sport or leisure industry will be holding their hand out for public cash ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top