Consultation Response: Charity mission & vision (Questions 8 - 12)

Question 8: Do you agree with the proposed governance model for the new charity? What improvements could be made?

 

The consultation outlines the government’s intention to ‘best nurture the spirit of cooperation by devolving power, assets, money and knowledge to those best place to find the best solutions to local needs’.  It goes on to explain how the transfer of the waterways to a new charity will give stakeholders a better say in the running of the waterways.  By way of a diagram, reproduced below, the consultation outlines what Defra is proposing as a governance structure.

The Waterways Project notes that the consultation presents a single governance model rather than creating a space for a broader ranging dialogue about what the various types of governance arrangements could be alongside an analysis of their benefits and drawbacks.  As such this may be a missed opportunity to bring expertise, previously untapped, to bear on a challenging organisational restructure.

 

Our response to Question 8:

The Waterways project believes that for the governance of NWC to truly achieve its mission and become an exemplar of best practice a number of fundamental changes need to be made:

• The organisation should opt to become a membership body immediately rather than leave this as an option to be considered at a later date.  Practically this poses a number of challenges in order to ensure balanced representation but we believe the upside outweighs the downside for a number of reasons:
  • A membership structure aligns with NWC’s desire to build a strong voluntary donor base, voting membership being the ‘hook’ to get people engaged and contributing financially;
  • NWC needs to proactively engage with a much broader constituency of current and future stakeholders than it does at present if it is to realise BW and Defra’s vision for the new charity.  A membership structure provides this; and
  • NWC needs to foster a strong mechanism to build new constituencies, as is the intention of BW and Defra throughout this process.  A membership structure, as outlined here, drives the charity to proactively do this, rather than the current proposal, which focuses on existing historical stakeholders.  Taking a memberships approach requires NWC to become forward looking in how it shapes itself and its engagement with stakeholders.
  • The local partnerships need to be further localised.  Currently, the proposed 11 local partnerships are in reality regional bodies.  The Waterways Project proposes at least 30 local partnerships are established to ensure that local needs and concerns are appropriately represented and addressed.  Local partnerships would have powers to:
    • Nominate members to the national council;
    • Act in an advisory role to local waterways management units and all local stakeholder groups;
    • Scrutinise local waterways management units, with a power to refer problems from local management to national management;
    • Arbitrate and resolve conflicts between local user groups.  This is a particularly important point.  By devolving the power of arbitration in disputes out to a local level and by placing these in the hands of stakeholders NWC management frees itself from this resource and time consuming activity where it is perennially perceived as the enforcement agency.
    • Set strategic ambitions for the local waterways units to deliver.
    • Fee paying members would be able to stand for and be elected to these 30+ new local partnerships.  Members would stand for election onto each local partnership as representing particular user groups, for instance as listed on page 33 / question 18 of the consultation document.  Perhaps to a maximum of 20 members per local partnership.  This allocation of non-executive positions on the local partnerships would ensure issues of adequate user group representation are addressed.  To further stimulate good stakeholder representation and build further relevant constituencies / stakeholders The Waterways Project recommends a review of stakeholder groups to be represented on the local partnerships and that this list include social enterprise and community asset development.  By ensuring that organisations who operate from NWC assets are also members of NWC will change the nature of the relationship, ensuring that based on a shared ownership and responsibility for the asset rather than a purely contractual relationship.  Further, NWC should be mandated to seek an ever-broadening base of membership drawn from an increasingly diverse set of stakeholder groups.  The purpose of this is to fulfil Defra and BW/NWCs aspirations of involving ‘those best placed to find the best solutions to local needs’.
    • Local partnerships would then elect one representative to the national council.  Importantly this representative would attend the national council with a remit to be geographically representative rather than representative of a specific interest.
    • The national council would then elect roughly two-thirds of the final number of trustees.  The remit of these trustees would be the furtherance of the waterways network as a whole, rather than having a specific. Geographic or interest group remit.  The remaining one-third of trustees would be co-opted onto the board by trustees to ensure an appropriate and relevant spread of skills required for the board to be effective.

Included in the proposed governance structure diagram is the commercial subsidiary Community Interest Company (CIC).  The Waterways Project Addresses this fully in our answer to Question 23.

Question 9: Should funds be raised locally by Local Partnerships be spent on local priorities? Why?

The consultation document details what the intended role of local partnerships will be.  These include agreeing a 10-year vision, endorsing the local area budget, endorsing and monitoring customer service standards, championing volunteering on the waterways and running an annual waterways festival.  Working closely with local management teams is flagged as necessary across every element of NWCs work at the local partnership level.

The Waterways Project notes the extensive list of activities to be undertaken by local partnerships comprises roles as advisor, endorser and champion.  There are no proposed elements of the role that provide local partnerships with the ability to directly effect the management or governance of NWC.  This is not something that the consultation poses as an area for discussion.

Our response to question 9:

The Waterways Project welcomes the intended increased involvement of stakeholders in the new governance structure.  However a number of fundamental issues are not addressed by the proposed local partnership structure.  These include:

• Local partnerships are not truly local.  The catchment area proposed for local partnerships is akin to the old Regional Development Agency areas and as such are unworkable as truly localised mechanisms for inclusion in NWC’s new governance structure.  As per our proposals detailed in our answers to questions 8 and 18 The Waterways Project sees a more realistic and workable set of local partnerships comprising circa 30 geographic areas and associated partnerships;
• Local partnerships, as we propose elsewhere, should be elected from a membership base who stand as representatives for particular stakeholder groups.  In this way governance, while rooted in a membership structure, is representative at a local level and provides a strong mechanism for arbitration between user groups close to the ground, which is where issues arise.
• The role of local partnerships should include governance and management.  Further work on what this would look like would need to be undertaken but as a minimum local partnerships should have the ability to recall decisions made at a local level and refer them to national management and the Council or Trustees.  In this way the role of local partnerships strengthens and they become a more significant stakeholder and contributor to the success of NWC.

It is the view of The Waterways Project that the issue of funding and whether local partnerships should keep any money they raise is obfuscating.  In practice, due to the nature of funding and also local partnerships’ motivations funding will mainly be ring-fenced for particular, geographically based, projects.  Consequently the consultation document is asking a pointless question.

A more pertinent set of questions to ask, would include:

• Is the geographic size of local partnerships appropriate?  Our answer is no, that they need to be smaller to work properly;
• Is the remit of the local partnerships configured to best serve NWC?  Our answer is no, that they need to be given direct purchase on the management of NWC at a suitable level;
• Do local partnerships have the right level of input to the overall vision, mission, aims and objectives of NWC?  Our answer is that the remit is a good start but that the mechanisms for such input need to be formalised so that local partnerships are at the centre of the process for setting the strategic direction of NWC.

The Waterways Project recommends further work on the configuration and role of local partnerships is undertaken as a priority, with further consultation being undertaken once the Ministerial Order is issued and, as we understand it, a further round of consultation is required.  This consultation should cover not only the powers to be transferred within the Ministerial Order but also on a revised governance and membership structure which will provide for greater accountability and local ownership of the waterways.

Question 10: Who do you think should be encouraged to sit on Local Partnerships? How should the nominations panel be constituted; who are the essential parties?

 

The consultation document proposes that the Local Partnerships should be made up of 8 – 12 members selected through an undefined ‘locally based and transparent process’. It suggests that the Chair would be selected by the Appointments Committee following an open invitation and transparent process and that all proposed appointments would then need to be formally endorsed by the Trustees.

 

All members of the Partnership would be expected to act in the best interests of the waterway rather than to represent any particular interests or causes. All members would be local, credible and knowledgeable in their area of expertise.

 

Our response to Question 10

 

The Waterways Project believes that the most appropriate place to address the overlapping needs of different user groups is at the local level.  This will help to overcome the current difficulties that British Waterways has of seeking to mediate between essentially local disputes from a national level.

We therefore recommend that that the Local Partnerships are made up of representatives of the main user groups currently proposed for the national council, expanded to include local representatives of local social enterprise and community asset development organisations and other representatives of the local community with an interest in the waterways.  Whilst drawn from specific constituencies all members would be expected to act in the best interests of the waterway.

Representatives should be elected by members of the new charity and nominated by their respective constituencies.  The Local Partnership should elect its own Chair.

We believe that such an approach will best serve the development of a vibrant local waterway, managed in order to link and support the aspirations of local communities.

The Trustees should only intervene in the make up of Local Partnerships in exceptional circumstances.

Question 11: Is between 8 and 12 the right size for a Local Partnership?

Question 11 in the consultation document follows immediately after question 10 and has no dedicated discussion preceding it.

 

Our response to Question 11.

 

The needs of each local area – and the range of local interests in the waterway – will be different in each locality.

 

The Waterways Project believes that the NWC should not put seek to specify the number of representatives that can sit on local partnerships.

The number should reflect the number of relevant stakeholders in that specific area although practically a maximum of 20 would seem reasonable.

Question 12: Which are the particular subjects or activities you think may require the attention of a specific sub-committee of a Local Partnership?

 The consultation states that Local Partnerships would decide if it wanted to establish any permanent or time-limited subcommittees, to consider specific cross-cutting issue, chosen from a list of possible subjects, agreed at a national level.

The Waterways Project believes that whether or not sub committees would be required should be the decision of the Local Partnership – smaller, more truly local partnerships may not require are be capable of resourcing a proliferation of sub structures.  We also note that the degree of centralised control envisaged by the current proposals extends to seeking to define the subjects which Local Partnerships may seek to scrutinise or consider.

Our response to question 12:

The Waterways Project believes that the level of detail being consulted upon is inappropriate when the nature, structures, responsibilities and accountabilities of NWC have not yet been decided.  We are also concerned at the degree of centralised control over the operation of the Local Partnerships that is envisaged by the question.

Local Partnerships should be much smaller than envisaged and have the autonomy to set their own priorities working alongside local management units based on the needs of local communities and the local waterway.