MICHAEL SHEFRAS PERSONAL NOTES
OF
“SCOPING” WWG MEETING
Held in the DEFRA Innovation Centre
5th Floor, Northgate House
21-23 Valpy Street
Reading, RG1 1AR
Commencing at 1000 hrs.
ATTENDANCE: As shown on the official list provided
1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS – JULIA SIMPSON
Everybody was asked to introduce themselves around the table.
1.1 Russ Turner (Lower Thames Recreation and Navigation Manager)
reported that he was representing the Middle and Upper Thames
managers) Gail Bradstock and Mark Hornrod.
1.2 All the RUG chairmen and Peter Finch are boaters, with Peter Moore
being a rower.
1.3 Additionally to the list was Mark Golding Stuart Taylors’ advisor.
1.4 Minor amendments to the list:
RFERAC members listed sit on WWG as RFERAC members not
necessarily representing their own organisations.
Paul Wagstaffe does represent TBTA
Louis Jankel does not represent NABO
Andy Soper does represent Dutch Barge Association, and the name of
this organisation should also be included as a member in the amended
terms of reference.
2. REVISIT WWG TERMS OF REFERENCE – JULIA SIMPSON
Julia Simpson opening the meeting said:
2.1 EA wanted to evaluate the role of the WWG.
2.2 The role of the WWG as seen as advisors to RFERAC and waterway
managers and staff.
2.3 The membership had been increased to include the chair of RUGs and
River Thames Society.
2.4 The challenge was to get the WWG message through to RFERAC.
2.4.1 RFERAC’s met three times a year and there was limited opportunities
to discuss waterway issues in depth.
2.4.2 JS was seeking the best way for WWG to get the knowledge through to
RFERAC.
Louis Jankel
2.5 Endeavoured to explain the role of RFERAC
2.5.1 As he saw it, it was for RFERAC members to advise EA officers
nationally and regionally on all issues, not specifically navigation.
2.5.2 He saw the WWG as the forum where the “nitty gritty” details was
fledged out and finally advice sent forward.
2.5.3 There was never enough time at RFERAC! There was a major
problem in the structure of the RFERAC Agenda.
2.5.4 For the last four to five years WWG is now officially seen as a conduit
to RFERAC.
2.5.5 The chair of RFERAC could be the conduit between WWG and
RFERAC.
Tony Davis
2.6 There had been a problem of delivery of minutes over the last 7
meetings it had taken between 4 – 10 weeks for the minutes to be
circulated.
2.6.1 With the group now approaching 24 from18 there will be longer
meetings if the new member made their contribution. Recognising this
the meetings should be scheduled for four hours.
2.6.2 With Angela’s agreement Julia actioned delivery of minutes within 14
days.
2.6.3 Louis interjected that it would be necessary for delegates to have
working papers well before the date of the meeting so that WWG
members could attend already briefed and the papers taken as read
not read line by line at the meeting.
ANGELA ACTION
Jeremy Munk
2.7 In his time there was always Navigation Group and this was changed
at the request of the EA to Waterways to meet current jargon.
2.7.1 The WWG works very well and he does want to ensure that the
membership is so diluted by the inclusion of disciplines other than
boating so that the ethos of the meeting will change.
Roger Flitter
2.8 Had a concern that the businesses he represents could be
overwhelmed at the WWG by alternative ideas that would affect
business. This had to be considered.
Michael Shefras
2.9 Apologised for rehearsing how we got to where we currently. He felt
that it important that everybody present here today understood the
background.
2.9.1 The idea of a separate boating discussion group within the ambit of EA
had its birth with the NRA where the regional consultation committee
was expanded by four boating members.
2.9.2 It was apparent that this committee would not be able to discuss the
various boating issues and with others he fought a rear guard action to
enable a working boating committee.
a. In due course the working group was set up but consisted only of the
members of the regional consultative committee.
b. Subsequently this met with objections from the organisation that did not
have membership of the consultative committee and subsequently
every boating interest was invited to an annual meeting which was held
in the Reading Cricket club, but this turned out to be completely
ineffectual.
c. With the advent of the EA, the Regional consultative committees where
formed. The navigation group continued and consisted of the
RFERAC members plus the major regional boating interests.
d. Within the last four to five years the name of the group was changed to
Waterways Working Group and the terms of reference agreed.
d.1 It was to be a conduit to the Waterways Management Team; the
Regional Management Panel and where necessary to EA head office.
e. If it was thought to be necessary, after due consideration membership
could be expanded. What has now happened is that the Regional
Director has arbitrarily invited the chair of RUGs and River Thames
Society, and today the Dutch Barge Association has been included.
e.1 MS had no problem with this as all the chairmen are boaters in one
form or another and Andy Soper is a RFERAC member.
e.2 The terms of reference allow the WWG to invite other disciplines when
necessary but as it is an EA committee it seems that this will initially be
in the hands of the Regional Director.
2.10 Taking all of this in account, he suggests that we moved onto next
business and after due consideration of the subjects see where it
would be possible to make a recommendation to RFERAC if
necessary.
2.11 Julia then suggested that the group signed off the Terms of Reference
and the meeting agreed and moved on.
(MS NOTE: There was no absolute message from this meeting to take forward to
RFERAC although there where many issues of advice and comment to officers.
There will be a further WWG meeting prior to the RFERAC and it might be that a firm
recommendation comes out of the next meeting. TUGn has shown that with the
proper management the various constituent bodies can come to a positive conclusion
and agree firm recommendations as a body.)
3. THAMES UPDATE – ANGELA QUAYLE
3.1 Lock improvement plans continue through 2008/09 and £3.6m will be
spent. The latest issue of the work schedule was tabled noting that
the majority of the work was in the middle and upper areas of the
Thames. MS complimented the EA staff in the amount of work that
had been achieved. He was delighted to see that the out of hour’s
power would be virtually completed by next year, and that was certainly
something we did not expect so quickly and should be noted.
3.1. 1 Andy Soper agreeing, but commented that Cookham was closed for a
long period, can anything be done to allow passage at any time?
3.1.2 Peter Moore said that in the past when there had been long closures
some compromise arrangements took place.
3.2 Teddington has been handed back to the EA, with a few teething
troubles to be agreed. The work had cost £2.m
3.2.1 AQ felt that there might be a PR opportunity at Teddington, and it was
noted that it was also the 150 year anniversary of the lock. Peter
Finch commented that there had been no Teddington Festival this year
and it had been missed. Angela had a thought that it might be an
opportunity to piggy back the Great Duck Race at Molesey the same
time, but this did not get much comment!..
3.2.2 Richard West asked if the skiff lock had received any attention but
Angela was not able to make any comment.
3.2.3 Peter Finch asked about visitor charges for those boats coming
through Teddington for a short stay.
ANGELA ACTION TO RICHARD WEST
3.3 The RTA AGM had been held on 10 July and had been a very
successful meeting with interesting presentations. There had been
suitable PR activity.
3.4 A schedule showing registrations this year was tabled showing that
there had again be a decline in numbers of boats registering in 2008.
This had not included Gold Licences, but these where seriously down
as well.
3.4.1 Paul Wagstaffe commented that the entire sector was “flat”
a. The 12% increase now into its third year is having an affect.
b. Boat sales were disappointing with TBTA taking marketing steps to try
build up business.
c. This reflects the drop in the economy; he was sure that TBTA
members would rather see better service levels to their customer than
capital spend all the time.
3.4.2 Trevor Rogers felt that there were fewer boats, other than narrow boats
in his area and there was a decline in use.
3.5 Jeremy Munk agreed that times were very hard for businesses on the
Thames. With the increased inflation and credit crunch the 12%
annual increase for 2009 was questionable.
3.5.1 Julia said that the entire programme was subject to review in October.
3.5.2 MS said that he had been instructed by his constituents to lobby for a
reduction of the registration charge for 2009. The heavy costs are
having the affect we suggested before the three year increase came
into force. He asked that the subject be put on the agenda for the next
WWG meeting (Now Thursday 6 November). A figure nearer 8%
would be more equitable. Users will also be facing heavy fuel costs
from November!
3.6 Angela tabled an example of the new signs that will start to appear on
the Tourist boards by the locks.
3.7 Thames Marketing was progressing very nicely and a small seven
minute video was screened.
4. ENFORCEMENT UPDATE – RUSS TURNER/JULIAN KENNARD
4.1 Russ was able to give a very bullish report on activity on the Lower
Thames Area.
4.1.1 Working with local authorities and the police action had taken place at
various moorings with one boat taken into custody.
4.1.2 Stevens Eyot had been taken back from the itinerant moorers and
working with the Small Boat Club it was now providing a very good
24 hour mooring.
4.2. New signs have been introduced which show free for the first night, £5
for the second and then £50 for any additional nights which enabled
the Harbour Master staff to manage the moorings.
4.2.1 Regrettably the signs at Walton have already been removed, but will be
put back.
4.3 Also regrettably itinerant moorers who where moved off EA moorings
migrate to Local Authority moorings and procedures are now in place
to enable the primary action be taken by EA Harbour Master staff,
leading to Local Authority being able to take action through the courts
which in turn can lead to High Court officers serving the summons and
taking fines.
4.4 They where working on a memorandum of understanding with the
Police similar to that in existence with the Surrey Police.
4.4.1 MS commented that the Surrey Police initiative came from constant
work at RUG 8 which led to the complete co-operation between police
and EA in the Surrey area.
4.4.2 Russ reported that work had started with Thames Valley and the Met
Police may again have a presence in the non tidal Thames.
4.4.3 Peter Finch asked who RTS should talk to in the Thames Valley Police,
and MS reminded that individual action by the RUGs would also help.
4.5 There would be a full report to the WWG’s next meeting and an action
plan would be tabled during the lunch break.
4.6 MS reported that he was expecting to meet with Angela and Russ to
update his earlier Discussion Paper and this would also be covered at
the next WWG meeting.
4.7 Julian reported that the Boat Removal Contract was shortly expected to
be finalised.
4.8 EA head office where revising official notices which are very dated and
includes section 16 notices.
4.9 A guidance note regarding mooring on the non tidal river will be shortly
introduced available to new boats coming onto the Thames from other
waters.
4.10 Chris Turner reported that the met police wanted to work closely with
his members and was pleased to hear Russ’s report. He would
welcome Met Police boats on the lower non tidal Thames.
4.10.1 Russ commented that Met and Surrey Police were happy to cross
boundaries to get results.
4.11 Paul Wagstaffe commented that he had been told by BMF insurers that
there was a concern on the level of marine crime on the upper reaches.
4.12 Louis asked several questions on how registration could be withdrawn.
4.12.1 It appeared that under current legislation this could not happen but
should the Transport and Works Order finally come to government this
situation might well change.
4.12.2 Julia asked Stuart Taylor to update the meeting and it appears that
finally the rump of the order will be placed before parliament in the next
session. The work was now in the hands of the minister.
4.12.3 Paul asked if any action by boaters would assist the progress, but it
appears that all was moving on quite well at the moment.
4.13 Finally the two page release will be more widely circulated on
enforcement.
5. IMPLEMENTING BWoW – PROJECT OVERVIEW TO INCLUDE
FUTURE LOCK MANNING PROPOSALS –
ROB SUTTON/ANDREW GRAHAM.
5.1 Rob Sutton was introduced to the meeting as the lead of a project team
to take control of the Better Ways of Working process.
5.2 Rob introducing himself explained that as a new “face” to take the
process forward..
5.2.1 He said that he had to come clean – having no background in
Waterways he will head up the BWoW team. Andrew Graham would
be in close support.
5.2.2 He saw some advantage in not having the waterways background as
he would be able to lead an objective and thorough review, with
completely fresh ideas but he would not be working in a vacuum.
5.2.3 He would continually work with the Waterways Team but no doubt he
would be asking some questions that might appear silly. But he
would be using all the information currently available in the process
which would not stop him garnering more.
5.2.4 It is expected to be a six month process.
5.3. Rob’s background was that he had worked for the EA for five years and
prior to that with Royal Mail covering flexibility and social policy matters
and was experienced in “Change Management”
5.3.1 He has to ascertain what is right for the EA and take a “broader role
with more delivery of services”.
5.3.2 He had already had talks with staff representatives group who had
been nominated by Unison and has talked to users and customers.
5.4 With that he said he would pause for a moment to take any questions.
5.5 Andy Soper asked who he would be reporting to and the answer was to
Jill Anderson (Head of Human Resources Thames Region EA) and the
regional management team led by Robert Runcie.
5.5.1 MS questioned the process. He congratulated Julia Simpson on her
new appointment to manage the NE area of Thames Region which he
understood started in October. Whilst Julia will continue to be on the
Regional Management Team with her two day a week secondment to
the Thames she would not have much time to consider this most
important work once she has taken up her new position.
5.5.2 Julia responded by saying that Mark would also be part of the
Management Team so there would be continuity and a new Thames
Waterways Manager would be appointed as soon as possible.
5.6 Rob then stated that he would be going to the lock keepers to negotiate
their new terms and conditions.
5.6.1 At that point MS wanted to make a statement as he was not
comfortable with the last statement by Rob.
5.6.2 What would he be putting to the lock staff? MS did not think that Rob
was in a position to talk to lock staff until he knew what was on the
table, and whilst he was aware of the amount of work that had been
done no user was properly aware of the full plan and the costs and
savings envisaged.
5.6.3 The following statement was made by MS
1. MS major concern is that Andrew’s first paper specifically deals with the Lock House
Review!
1.1 Are there no other working papers for the majority of the BWoW work – it is a much
larger issue than the disposal of lock houses!
2. Personally MS believes, and feels that the majority of users believe that the BWoW
process is a very good move and the majority of the proposals are really acceptable.
2.1 For MS part that includes Better Ways of Working with the Lock Staff at all levels.
2.2 MS also can live with the thought that the term “Resident” lock keeper might need to
be really visited to enable managers makes best use of available trained staff.
2.2.1 There is not a universal acceptance by colleagues, and MS also requires better
advice how the locks will be serviced!
3. MS believes that the Lock House Review is deficient in the most important aspect
which are the “FIGURES”.
3.1 The following table was in MS Notes of meeting held on 22 May.
a. What will the wage structure be?
b. What will be the career structure be?
c. When there is no lock keeper how will the rota be developed?
d. When there is no lock keeper how will the weirs be managed economically as it will
require two operatives for health and safety.
e. The ongoing over head costs of additional transport
f. What are the risks in getting trained staff under any new wage and career structure?
g What is the cost of continual training of seasonal and relief lock staff?
h. How will the lock grounds be maintained when there is no resident lock keeper
i. How will the lock house gardens be maintained if the houses are rented out?
j. How will the weir management differ from what happens now?
k. What is the implication of weir management being upset by road flooding getting to the
weir?
l. What are the costs of getting the rental properties in good state for rental and ongoing
rental costs delivery?
3.2 It was MS expectation that all the answers would be provided by the WWG and
RFERAC
3.2.1 MS note says “There was an undertaking that full reports would be given to the WWG
at their meeting on 17 June, followed by a supplementary report to be held on 19
June.
3.2.2 BUT this did not happen! Hence the disaster of the meetings!
3.3 Andrew’s paper dated 23 July brings together all the work that has been carried out in
the past eighteen months and is appreciated, but it is still deficient!
3.3.1 WHERE IS THE BUSINESS PLAN?
3.3.2 WHERE ARE THE COLD FIGURES OF WHAT ARE GOING TO BE
THE SAVINGS SHOULD LOCK HOUSES BE SOLD?
3.3.3 WHERE ARE THE COLD FIGURES OF WHAT IT IS GOING TO
COST TO CHANGE THE LOCK KEEPERS TERMS OF CONTRACT?
3.3.4 WHERE ARE THE COLD FIGURES OF WHAT IT IS GOING TO
COST TO HAVE MOBILE STAFF?
3.3.5 WHERE IS THE BUSINESS PLAN FOR THE RENTAL SCHEME –
THE COST OF PREPARATION FOR RENTAL; THE COST OF
MANAGING THE BUSINESS; THE SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS WHEN
THE PROPERTIES ARE LET?
5.7 Rob took cognisance of MS comments and suggested that one of his
priorities was a communication plan with the lock staff. He would be
talking with everybody!
5.7.1 Louis asked if he was in contact with GMB as he understood that the
majority of lock keepers were now part of that union. He understood
that there was to be dual representation, but from the earlier statement
it seemed that Rob was only talking with Unison and he felt that
representation was subject to doubt! At this stage it would be silly to
further alienate the lock staff.
Further, Louis commented that Rob had to be sure that Unison and
GMB could deliver the lock keepers to whatever comes out of the
consultation.
5.7.2 Dick Mayon-White asked if there was PR work to combat the bad
publicity the EA have already had on the issue of lock house disposal.
5.7.3 Paul Wagstaffe commented that the lock keepers had a wider role
than just being a resident lock keeper. Jill Goddard at the RFERAC
meeting said that to sell houses used by staff who were in the lower
band of payment had proved to be a disaster in other fields.
a. Users require a sensible level of lock manning; the ability for lock staff
to have a career structure. It might be that some of the capital spend
be used to finance the new contracts of employment. Louis Jankel
interjected that John Edmonds had indicated at one of the meetings
that the EA Board might find new money for this.
5.7.4 Roger Flitter - with Rob now being the project manager was he in
possession of all the correspondence from so many members of the
public, organisations and the MP’s. The answer was yes. Roger
then asked about the Human Resources cover.
a. Rob said his team was Andrew Graham, (operations) Andrew Avenell
(HR issues) and Dave Ferguson on communications.
5.7.5 Chris Turner said that he would try not to repeat what had already
been said, which he agreed with, however a proper costed plan is
required, and if EA continue to carry out the suggested programme on
lock houses as envisaged thus far would be like jumping into a “frying
pan”.
If it was important to add to the criteria list the “Fabric of the Thames”,
the Thames heritage, the social implications of lock houses with EA
lock staff.
5.7.6 Jeremy Munk – at the RFERAC Runcie had already commented at the
antiquity of some of the weirs.
a. He agreed with Chris, what is being suggested does not makes sense!
As well as the comments made by Jill Goddard at RFERAC the
Thames Water representative on RFERAC confirmed that Thames
Water subsidise low paid staff with housing. He knew that the NHS
b. subsidised housing for some of the lower paid staff to ensure the
availability of proper trained staff. EA are doing exactly the reverse!
c. He is usually a quiet when making his points but he was very upset
with that is happening now! To his mind it is a complete nonsense.
d. So far we as representatives of the users do not have any answers,
and it seem neither does the EA!.
e. It is turning into a complete shambles, we are rapidly losing confidence
with EA senior management in their approach.
5.7.7 Peter Finch joined in expressing forcibly his objection to the Lock
House Disposal plan. The press announcements had caused
concern, EA had completely underestimated the reaction to the
proposals. Lord Smith, new to the job should reverse the plans, not
putting the process on hold.
a. He asked if the list published would be withdrawn?
5.7.8 Tony Davis suggested that this had to be the worse time to consider
any property disposal. Property value is in a depression and by the
time EA start the process it will be two to three years into it. In his
opinion it will be the same for the next five years! It would be a brave
decision to put a brake on the entire process.
5.7.9 Tony Moss said that if we had to consider any criteria certainly
financial considerations from all aspects; social requirement for key
workers; heritage and public relations needed to be added.
5.7.10 Louis Jankel commented that it was the impression throughout the river
was that the Lock House Disposal plan was on hold.
5.7.11 Julia responding said that the announcement was that the programme
was on hold for six months whilst negotiations took place with the staff.
a. They where taking a systematic approach with no pre-conceived ideas.
5.8 As the subject was coming to a close MS asked that the following
undertaking is given to the users.
5.8.1 We ask for a business plan for management of the river as a
whole as part of the BWOW process.
5.8.2 The EA give an undertaking that the lock house disposal
programme will be put on hold for six months pending
negotiations with the Unions cognisance of what has been said at
this meeting.
5.8.3 We do not think it unreasonable to ask for the production of a business
plan at the end of that period which could be discussed by WWG
RFERAC and the Waterways Management team prior to plan
implementation. (This Committee consultation should take place after
Union agreement and before any wider publicity implementation.
At this stage of the meeting Paul, Jeremy and Roger had to leave and
discussion then took place on Andrew Graham’s second paper on
manning levels.
Users present where not comfortable to discuss manning details until
EA management had produced the service levels being suggested and
not until agreement had taken place with the staff.
Andrew asked for input on designation of Winter, Shoulder and
Summer periods. As the paper had only just been tabled or recently
sent out he would appreciate input after the meeting.
5.9 Chris Turner – There should be full manning on every bank holiday
regardless of when Easter falls. He felt there was room for movement
on 24 hour manning at Teddington and Richmond.
5.10 John Dalton – EA require two ropes being used all the time, older
people find it hard to manage the locks without the lock keeper service
and if there was an unreliable service it would lead to even more boats
being taken off the river. He questioned the use of Summer
Assitants.
5.11 David Moss – There should be service when there is yellow and red
boards during the boating season.
5.12 Louis Jankel – We have had hours of meetings on the Funding
Strategy – all we have from two years of 12 and 11.5% registration
charges are problems! How can we make any commitment until we
know the result of the full BWoW plan?
6. FUNDING THAMES WATERWAY PLAN ASPIRATIONS – HOW CAN
WE RAISE THE MONEY? STUART TAYLOR/ANGELA QUAYLE
The meeting adjourned at 1330 for a short lunch break and resumed
shortly before 1400. Until 1520 there was a small workshop used to
consider various funding ideas.
7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
7.1 Taking the minutes of the last WWG meeting as read, Julia suggested
a status report would be issue.
7.2 MS asked if we could see the result of the survey on lapsed registration
carried out earlier in the year.
7.3 The Henley Royal Regatta payment situation would be on the next
agenda
8, DATE OF NEXT MEETING.
8.1 The next WWG meeting was scheduled for 24 September, and the
next 10 November. As the RFERAC meeting was now scheduled for
13 November there would not be time between the meetings.
8.1.1 It was agreed that the next two meetings be combined to a date week
commencing 20 October, suggested Thursday 23 October to be
confirmed. NOW CONFIRMED AS THURSDAY 6 NOVEMBER
The meeting finished at 1530.
MS Notes – 80808 – 1700
RFERAC - WWG new file from 0608