Transition Trustees for new waterways charity

[boatone]

DEFRA ANNOUNCEMENT

Tony Hales, current Chair of British Waterways, has been appointed as the new Chair of the Transition Trustees of the new waterways charity following the recommendation of an independent advisory panel.
Other appointed Transition Trustees are: Nigel Hugill and John Bridgeman of the British Waterways Board; Lynne Berry, Chief Executive, WRVS; Jane Cotton, Human Resources Director and Deputy Chief Executive, Oxfam; John Dodwell, former Chair, Commercial Boat Operators Association; Tom Franklin, Chief Executive, Ramblers; and Simon Thurley, Chief Executive, English Heritage.

So its 3 x BW, 1 each for the WRVS, Oxfam, Ramblers and English Heritage plus the former chair of the Commercial Boat Operators Association.

 

[Chris_d]

Oxfam

 

[TrueBlue]

Oxfam

Similarly WRVS
Perhaps volunteer cusps of tea for all the voluntary workers?

 

[boatone]

The original search criteria were:

The Government is seeking FOUR new Transition Trustees from any sector, but particularly with expertise in: business and finance, heritage, navigation and boating, the environment, civil engineering, volunteering, fundraising and community engagement. A further three members of British Waterways’ existing Non-Executive Board will be selected to ensure continuity.

We seem to have 5 rather than 4 but not exactly an X Factor final line up? 3 BW incumbents and a solitary boat related A N Other.

Transition Trustees are expected to devote three to four days per month to their role during the transition period until British Waterways’ duties, functions and assets are transferred to the new charity. Following that it is anticipated their time is likely to reduce to two days a month. There will be no remuneration, Transition Trustees will be entitled to claim reasonable expenses related to their duties.

Hands up anyone who thinks the BW guys will give up their pro rata salaries for the time they devote to trusteeing

What I find particularly unacceptable is that BW - a direct report within DEFRA - has been encouraged to make all the running with this while the EA Thames 'division' - a sub section of the Environment Agency which is also a direct report within DEFRA - have been told to stay strictly neutral and not 'engage'.

 

[TrueBlue]

....
What I find particularly unacceptable is that BW - a direct report within DEFRA - has been encouraged to make all the running with this while the EA Thames 'division' - a sub section of the Environment Agency which is also a direct report within DEFRA - have been told to stay strictly neutral and not 'engage'.

That is why I am trying to encourage all folk to respond to the "consultation" and answer question 1 (should EA waters be included at a later stage) with a resounding "No"; giving reason(s) why not might add weight.

Don't take the attitude that your submission would be ignored or lost. There were only 19 objections to the TWA Order and each and every one was examined and answered AND changes made.

 

[apollo]

That is why I am trying to encourage all folk to respond to the "consultation" and answer question 1 (should EA waters be included at a later stage) with a resounding "No"; giving reason(s) why not might add weight.

How and Where do we do that?

 

[TrueBlue]

How and Where do we do that?

Keep up there - the consultation waffle is on the link that B1 posted at the head of this thread, but for you, here it is again

If you are British you're expected to wade through an huge pdf document - probably designed to put you off...
If you are a Welsh speaker, then it looks as if the questions have been summarised for you - but as I don't, I'm just guessing.

Next time it rains I just might extract the questions and publish them here.

For brevity you could reply to:
Inland Waterways Team,
NWCresponses@defra.gsi.gov.uk

Consultation: moving inland waterways into a new charity in England and Wales

and answer the following question, perhaps with short reasons, such as:-

• The Thames is different
• Lock keepers are essential for the safe running of the River,
• River levels can only be effectively controlled by a person resident on site at each lock.
• It is difficult to separate navigation duties from flood control duties.
• EA doesn't own the "track" or some of the locks

BW canals don't suffer from any the above challenges

Question 1: Do you agree that, over time, the charity should work towards including other navigations, including the EA Navigations in the next Spending Review?

There you are done all the work for you.

 

[Gumpy]

• The Thames is different
• Lock keepers are essential for the safe running of the River,
• River levels can only be effectively controlled by a person resident on site at each lock.
• It is difficult to separate navigation duties from flood control duties.
• EA doesn't own the "track" or some of the locks

BW canals don't suffer from any the above challenges

Im afraid its a done deal!
The trust will be welcoming the thames in a few years like it or not

As for your list:
Point 1 is imaterial: The Severn / Trent / Soar / broad canals / narrow canals are all different as well but are all included
Point 2 Even if the thames stays under the EA, lock keepers will go, look at this year where are the paid summer reliefs?
Point 3 There could be one weir keeper dealing with severel weirs so not resident at any one
Point 4 There are several rivers where this is already done
Point 5 cant answer that as I dont know

Oh and as for canals not suffering there are several places where rivers cross the canal that in times of heavy rainfall are far more dangerous that the Thames could ever be

 

[boatone]

Im afraid its a done deal!
The trust will be welcoming the thames in a few years like it or not

Don't you be so quick to write off the traditions of the non tidal Thames.

This government's not doing so well with its original intentions - so far the Forests, the NHS and the Justice proposals have all suffered pretty ignominious defeats so who's to say we can't save the day if we get organised properly.

This isn't just about what can be done - it's about what the users actually want, and I, for one, value the services of the traditional lock keeper regime.

For far too long now the EA management approach has been about what can be done to manage with the money available. It's high time they tok a more positive approach to assessing the cost of providing the first class service we all value and how to raise the funding to provide it.

 

[Gumpy]

Its not that I am writing anything off, but having been involved in this since the beginning and having attended more BW/EA meetings than I care to remember, I have seen from that just what is going on as far as the government are concerned.

The forests and the justice proposals were affected by many many people, how many boaters are there on the Thames a few thousand........?

Personally I would have liked to have seen increased government funding for canals and rivers but we all know thats not going to happen.

I have to say I am bored of the whole thing as it doesn't matter what anyone says the government will do exactly as it likes.

 

[oldgit]

"Point 3 There could be one weir keeper dealing with several weirs so not resident at any one"




Also They could totally automate all the smaller weirs as elsewhere and at the very least control all the major ones from a remote central location
Think all the tidal barriers are activated from the control room at Charlton ?

 

[teddington_lock]

I can't really get involved in this discussion.

Just to say that controlling all the (current ) weirs from a central location would be extremely hard.

The weirs don't react like that.

I love people who have never worked a Thames weir telling us what can be done with them. I was the same until i actually started using the weirs.