Appendix

Transport Committee 21 April 2005

Item 4 – The Port of Authority

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): We welcome this morning the Authority (PLA). We are all very, very keen to hear what you say, as you are very powerful, very important in our city, and none of us know that much about you – particularly myself. Well, in terms of the public – the public awareness, not us per se – do not know that much. Roger (Evans, AM) says, ‘Us, too.’

This is an opportunity to begin to widen that view and understanding of what the PLA does in London, how you earn your money, and what you put back into us. That is why we are here today. As I understand it, you are going to give a 10-minute presentation, and then we will question you, but first, I would just like to run along the line, if you would introduce yourselves and what you do in the organisation.

Richard Everitt (Chief Executive, PLA): Thank you. I am Richard Everitt. I am the Chief Executive of the PLA and have responsibility for the overall management and operation of the business and report obviously to the board.

Rear Admiral Bruce Richardson (Chief Harbour Master, PLA): Bruce Richardson, Chief Harbour Master. I look after, effectively, safety and navigation and run all the marine departments for the PLA.

James Trimmer (Head of Planning and Partnerships, PLA): I am James Trimmer. I am the Head of Planning and Partnerships, primarily responsible for the formulation and implementation of the PLA’s planning policy in relation to the river and the riparian land and also for forming and maintaining the partnerships with local authorities, statutory bodies, and other interests on the river.

David Cartlidge (Secretary, PLA): Good morning. I am David Cartlidge. I am the Secretary to the PLA. I suppose I am definitely the undercook and bottle washer and support the Chief Executive, the Chairman (Simon Sherrard), and the board in their functions.

Nicola Clay (Environmental Scientist, PLA): I am Nicola Clay, the Environmental Scientist at the PLA, and I deal with just about anything environment to do with the port and its operations.

Richard Everitt: Firstly, can we thank the Committee for the opportunity to come here and tell you something of what we do. We hope that we will be able to give you quite a wide-ranging explanation of the many activities that the PLA is involved in. The PLA is a public trust, created by the Port of London Act 1908, which has now been incorporated into the Port of London Act 1968. We are very close to celebrating our first 100 years.

The PLA is made up of a board, and the PLA has responsibility to take such action as it deems necessary or desirable for the conservancy and improvement of the tidal Thames. We now are, in fact, primarily a harbour authority. When the PLA was set up in 1908, it had responsibility for dock operations. We ceased to have that responsibility with the sale of Tilbury in the early 1990s, so our responsibility is fundamentally around the tidal Thames from Teddington for about 150 kilometres.

1 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005

The PLA is made up of a board, as I have said – a majority of non-executives, currently appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport (Alistair Darling), following public advertisement and in accordance with the Nolan rules on public appointments. We have seven non-executives, with a very wide range of interests and experience, and three executives: myself, the Chief Harbour Master, and the Finance Director (Brian Chapman). Non-executive board members are sought from the widest range of applicants. As I have said, what the board is looking for is a good range of skills to operate or to secure the discharge of its functions.

We are the largest of over 100 trust ports in the United Kingdom. Our turnover last year was just over £37 million, and we have about 360-370 employees. A good proportion of those are ships’ pilots; engineers, who have responsibility for the boats on the river; and harbour-service people, who occasionally you see going up and down the river and discharging the responsibilities of the Chief Harbour Master.

We are responsible for the tidal Thames from Teddington to a line between, broadly, Clacton and . That is about 150 kilometres of waterway, of which almost one-third is inside London limits. About 60 separate terminals handle cargo on the river, with about 30 of those within London limits. They range from the oil refinery in Coryton to a small steel-handling operation, say, in Barking Creek.

We set as our principal responsibilities: facilitating the safety of navigation on the tidal river – that is the number one and absolute priority; ensuring that our services offer good value for money; that we play a full and active role in the stewardship of the environment of the Thames, and we have key responsibilities in that area; that we provide efficient, professional, and equitable services to our commercial and leisure users and the riparian owners – the neighbouring owners either side of the river; and that we safeguard access to and the viability of the port. In the course of the morning, we will obviously develop each of those points.

In 2004, the PLA terminals handled 53.3 million tonnes of cargo. That was an increase of 4.4% and was getting quite close to the sort of tonnages that London was handling at the peak in the 1960s. As I said, it makes it one of the three busiest ports in the UK. Of this tonnage, 7.5 million tonnes is handled within the area.

About 1,000 commercial vessels visit the port each month. Our most recent economic impact study states that about 35,000 jobs are directly related to the port, of which 14,000 are in the Greater London area. Additionally, about 2.3 million tonnes of cargo is handled within the port, primarily refuse – and no doubt, you have seen the barges going up and down the river – and aggregates, and now, well over 2 million passengers are transported on water within the port limits. The most obvious example of that are the pleasure boats that you see going up and down for tourists and the scheduled services now operated by the fast catamarans.

The Thames, as we see it – and I am sure you share this – is a key asset for London. We in the PLA are determined to play our role to ensure the safety of navigation, an environmentally sustainable river, and one which is increasingly used for the transport of goods and people and contributing to the economy of London, , and that we are part of.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): Would you be able to lay out your key priorities for the PLA? You gave us a broad sweep, but I would like…

Richard Everitt (PLA): The safety of navigation is our absolute priority. That is discharged through the Chief Harbour Master, and I think he can develop some of the issues that we address in that area, but that is our principal responsibility. The environment is an increasingly important part of our activity, and that is one of the reasons Nicola Clay is here today. All sorts of issues in that

2 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005 area impact the port, and what we are trying to do – and I think we are in a very good position to do this – is make a very full contribution to the sustainability agenda.

In terms of trade at the port, we are not a direct operator, as I have said, of docks, but we have a very important role in promoting the port of London and the opportunities at the port of London, with our terminal operators, to shippers who may be interested in using the port. Developing trade to and from London is an important part of what we are engaged in. The river is not, however, just the commercial port, which it is, I suppose, essentially now below Greenwich. It is also a key resource in terms of people moving around, both in terms of tourists in this area and commuters. In the upper river, particularly, it is a great leisure resource for rowing, for sailing, for canoeing, for people in their pleasure boats.

Our priorities, I suppose, are around managing each of the interests, working in partnership with a host of organisations to try to ensure that people get the most out of the opportunity that the river offers. In that regard, we work very closely in consultation with many, many organisations to promote the development of activity on the river.

Within the port, certainly the idea of trying to develop commercial traffic, particularly using the river for refuse movement – I think about six or seven London boroughs use it at the moment – there is great opportunity there; it is an obvious resource. Aggregates are, very obviously, another opportunity, and possibly other things, as well. Therefore, we work very closely with the operators and those who are interested in developing trade on the river.

Rear Admiral Bruce Richardson (PLA): Unlike just about every other port in the country, there are really three different segments. You have a heavy-duty commercial port downstream, with approximately 35,000 vessel movements a year coming through the estuary, so that is about 100 a day. In the middle section here, which is tourism and tugs and tows, we are probably looking at, in terms of passenger boat movements, between 100,000 and 120,000 a year. Then tugs and tows, there are at least between 12,000 and 18,000 barge trips, if you like – either up or down the river – on a daily basis. Then upstream, it is very much more leisure. It is rowing; it is the boat race; it is riverside pubs; it is black Labradors chasing swans. It is a very different environment, and clearly in terms of managing that navigation and ensuring the safety, a different approach has to be taken in each area.

In terms of my responsibility for safety, there is a book that was published in 2000 by the Government, the Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions (DETR) then, which is called the Port Marine Safety Code. One of the requirements of that, and rightly so, is that all ports should conduct formal risk assessments throughout their area of responsibility and put in place a safety management system, which we have. It is an active one. It is not our safety management system; it is the port’s, and we both encourage and, indeed, require contribution from all the port users – the river users – to actually contribute to an ongoing process that is reviewing the whole time, going back to assess our risks, make sure we have them right. If there is an incident, we take the lessons from them and put that back into the system, so it is very much a continuous process.

Helping us discharge that responsibility, we employ pilots for the deep-sea ships, where they are not local runners and have some form of certification themselves. We also have a very sophisticated vessel traffic control mechanism. We have two control rooms. One is sited close to the barrier at , which primarily brings monitoring navigation in the upper river, but specifically controls navigation through the . The other one, really, is down at , the big one, which is manned. There are five people, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year there, linked into 14 radar, 16 tide gauges, watching, monitoring, and managing navigation to ensure its safety.

3 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): The PLA derives 85% of its revenue from activities outside London, the Thames Barrier being a sort of familiar point at which to make that break. Would it be fair to say that you do not prioritise the development of the river west of the Thames Barrier? Is that fair, and what is your vision for the Thames west of the Thames Barrier?

Richard Everitt (PLA): I think it would be an unfair characterisation that we do not prioritise west of the Barrier. There are a lot of key issues that we are involved in in terms of trying to promote the port and promote activity on the river west of the Barrier. James Trimmer (PLA): In terms of trade, if you look at ships first of all, upstream of the barrier is around 5 million tonnes particularly aggregate and waste. In terms of what we have been doing, particularly with the GLA, is the implementation of the and particularly the Blue Ribbon Network.

For my own part, I have been working with the Mayor and the GLA since 2000, since the Mayor was first elected, in relation to safeguarding of wharves, all of which at the moment are upstream of the Thames Barrier. That is both to preserve the viable wharfage, and so it can actually be used by operators. Now to try to reactivate wharves that have been left vacant – with the Mayor and with the London Development Agency (LDA) – the PLA is looking to reactivate three wharves, all of which are upstream of the Thames Barrier.

We also work very closely with a number of partnership organisations, both regeneration in terms of Partnership and Cross River Partnership, and also more comprehensive river strategies: Thames Landscape Strategy Hampton to Kew and Thames Strategy Kew to Chelsea. For both, we were founding members of the partnership, worked to get the strategies, and now are looking to implement both strategies, which cover everything from ensuring that trees are kept off the tow path to increasing trade on the river. Therefore, we work very closely, particularly in terms of partnership working, within London and particularly upstream with the Thames Barrier.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): How easy is it? You say you work in partnership. When people come to you, who holds sway? You have the authority. How does it work, if someone approaches you?

James Trimmer (PLA) : The PLA has a degree of power over the river. A lot of the issues we find actually relate to the riparian interface between the land and river or issues on the land, particularly in relation to planning. In that sense, it needs to be a range of organisations. Particularly ourselves, the Environment Agency, and the local planning authorities need to work together in order to effect change that is foreseen in the plans and strategies.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): How quickly and easily does that process happen?

James Trimmer (PLA): Planning itself tends to work at a glacial pace, to a great extent. If everybody is working together or trying to achieve the same end, it is an awful lot quicker than if we are all batting around desperately trying to do different things. A lot of the trouble is getting the plans and the strategies in the first place, actually agreeing what needs to be done.

Murad Qureshi (AM): You have touched on what you do with the Mayor’s Office on the planning front. What is the PLA doing to promote the Mayor’s policies on freight and passenger services?

James Trimmer (PLA): I think we worked with the GLA in terms of the formulation of policies in the London Plan, particularly, say, those in relation to wharves and to the transport of freight. We are the advisor to the Mayor in relation to freight on the river, and in particular, decisions as they affect the safeguarded wharves, at the moment.

4 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005

We also worked with the Mayor to produce the Implementation Report on wharves, which reviewed the wharves upstream of the Thames Barrier, so the currently safeguarded wharves and another 40- odd downstream. That report is now with the Secretary of State and is recommending the safeguarding of 50 wharves in London.

We have worked particularly closely on the policy side, and now that the London Plan has been published, the issue now is the implementation. As I say, we are acting in order to reactivate wharves. The three wharves we are looking at would offer over a million tonnes of new freight on the river when we manage to reactivate these three wharves.

It is very close, and frankly, the regional dimension that the Mayor now offers with the rest of the London governance offers an extremely good opportunity to increase freight within London. Before that, it was disparate bodies trying to do disparate things. Now there is the regional dimension, we are certainly finding that it is better, and there is coordination, which is something that I think before we did not have.

Murad Qureshi (AM): That is the wharves, but what about the piers? That is the critical thing for the passengers.

James Trimmer (PLA): The piers: we were a major part of the millennium development of piers. Pier, over there, certainly, we have been instrumental with Pool of London Partnership, central and local government partnerships in order to develop those piers. In terms of where they go, more of that is down to our decision-making function in terms of the granting of licences, be it the new pier by Tate Britain, which we licensed, or other piers that are currently being discussed with us.

We, again, act through partnerships. Again, the Thames Strategy Kew to Chelsea: there are proposals there in terms of the development of new piers, the refurbishment of draw docks and other opportunities to get onto the river, and we are both taking part in the formulation of those polices and offering assistance in order to implement them.

Murad Qureshi (AM): You mentioned the Blue Ribbon Network earlier, but I am not convinced by what you said that you see a role for leisure, cultural, and social uses of the river in what you have said and articulated. Convince me.

James Trimmer (PLA): Leisure, to an extent in terms of social and cultural, there is a range of issues there. Certainly in terms of leisure the majority of that tends to be upstream from central London. Certainly, we have been assisting clubs with the provision of infrastructure. From my point of view, the main thing we can do is provide the facilities where these activities can take place.

David Cartlidge (PLA): Could I just add that as far as the leisure user is concerned, we do have a series of river users’ consultative forums. Leisure interests are represented on all of those. There are three of them: one for the upper river; one for the lower river – upper river is totally within London; the lower river is partly within London; and the estuary, which is the wider expanses and below to the east. Leisure interests are represented on all of those forums.

We work with other organisations, the Amateur Rowing Association (ARA) and the Royal Yachting Association (RYA) – they are consultees, and they are members of these forums – as well as down to club level. We facilitate something like 300 leisure events every year on the , ranging from the Boat Race to the weekend club event from round the sailing club at Putney. All that happens, if you like, under our lighter hand of part of our regulation.

5 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005

Murad Qureshi (AM): You do not have a statutory responsibility to do that. In other words, you could ignore them.

David Cartlidge (PLA): We have statutory responsibility as far as ensuring things are safe is concerned. The organisation that has a statutory responsibility for promoting leisure use of water is, of course, the Environment Agency.

Rear Admiral Bruce Richardson (PLA): If I may, Chair, and also to Mr Qureshi, we have no statutory duty, as you say for that business, but if you are going to achieve safety, that is not just a case of waving rules and regulations around and stomping around in uniform. In particular, the Harbour Master who looks after the upper office, his office – which has a staff of himself and two – their daily thing is advising people, liaising with people who have ideas on how they can do those safely. His staff actually organise the vast majority of the major river events, the leisure events, be that the Great River Race, the Boat Race, or whatever. There is a major contribution to that.

In terms of encouragement and advice, that is an ongoing process the whole time, and that is also discharged at a lower level by Harbour Service Launches going up and down with the Harbour Master on. They know most of the people by name. The whole business is actually trying to relate to the community they are dealing with and act as advisors and also being there just to keep the weatherwatch eye in terms of safety issues, if we have any to address. Therefore, we do see dialogue and relating to the users of the river as a fundamental way of achieving safety.

Richard Everitt (PLA): There is a considerable part of our resource spent on planning what one would call ‘leisure events’ on the river, be it firework displays at New Year; the Great River Race; the tennis match or whatever it was that was played out here – as it were organising or helping the organisers reconcile some of the many events with each other that they are having upriver, be it a rowing race, a sailing race, or whatever it may be. That is done actively, not passively. The bottom line, of course, is safety, but safety of operation involves quite heavy involvement in how things can be organised to best effect and bringing in other resources.

For the Great River Race, the safety is not just managed by us, but we are certainly significant advisors on what safety provision there needs to be and making sure that is marshalled. Perversely, I think, a lot of our effort and energy is spent on leisure-type activities in this part of the river and further west, in addition to the big issues of commercial development through the safeguarded wharves policy.

I think looking at the way that has gone, very much in conjunction with the Mayor’s Office and others, if we are going to have growth in commercial activity on the river in this part, we need the infrastructure to do it. That has been recognised by everybody involved, hence the strong alignment behind safeguarded wharves policy and the reactivation work on three wharves which we are now engaged in with others.

David Cartlidge (PLA): Could I just add one thing: there is another guiding document issued by the Government in 2000: the Guide to Good Governance for Trust Ports, which we are also guided by. Although we do not have statutory duty to look after, if I can use the phrase, ‘non-beneficiary stakeholders’, i.e., people who have an interest, but not a commercial one in the port, we are actually obliged under the Guide to Good Governance to have regard to all stakeholders.

That includes leisure users; it includes people who walk by the river, and Londoners in general, because the river is a resource for London. It is not just riparian boroughs, and it is not just people who live by it. It actually is a resource for all London, and we have a duty to those stakeholders – and we look upon them as stakeholders and treat them as such. The board are very aware of that.

6 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005

Murad Qureshi (AM): Finally, on this point, would you agree that there could be a lot more done for cultural activities on the Thames, if you compare what we do on the Thames with other rivers, say, in Europe? Now, I have not seen any studies, so it is all anecdotal, but I would suggest, for example, in Paris they probably do more on the river – they even have beaches, for God’s sake. There are loads of other pursuits there which are not open to Londoners.

Richard Everitt (PLA): We are very open to participation in ideas, but I think you have to remember one thing: this is a tidal river. It has a tidal rise and fall of seven metres every six hours – I defer to the sailors – and a current of three knots. That is very different from Paris which is always drawn as the parallel. Paris is non-tidal at that point; the Seine is non-tidal.

That brings with it a lot of very significant challenges in terms of doing things on the river, because this morning – I am not sure where the tides are this morning, but in six hours’ time, that river will be very, very different to what it is now. We participate in and help 257-260 events on the river, as I understand it, and as I say, we are open to working with organisations and people. New ones come along with ideas, but safety is the bottom line here, and this is a challenging piece of waterway.

John Biggs (AM): At least two of you will be aware this is an issue I have been picking away on in various ways for some time, so I should start by saying that I think that the PLA does an excellent job in regulating and managing London’s port. There is, however, a question which has been asked repeatedly – and we are not the first people to ask it today, then – which is whether the character of the Thames in its upper reaches – and I think, conveniently, you could draw a line at, say, the Cutty Sark and go up stream from there – whether the character of the Thames has changed so much that the fundamental principles on which the PLA was founded no longer really, adequately apply to the management of that part of the Thames.

Murad (Qureshi) has spoken at length about leisure issues, but there is the increasing residential character. There is the increasing range of commercial activities which are not seafaring activities. There are environmental concerns, people’s wish to access the shore. There has obviously been a lot of work on safety issues following the Bowbelle incident, and various statutory changes have happened since that. I guess one of the questions fundamental to our scrutiny today is whether in that upper reach of the Thames, so much has changed in the character that some other statutory arrangement might be needed.

Now, I am sure this question has been asked of you before, so in what ways have you formally responded to that, and can you point us to ways in which you have reviewed your operations, so that you can better address the needs of the modern Thames upstream?

Richard Everitt (PLA): I think the Thames evolves, and the PLA evolves to take account of the changes.

Rear Admiral Bruce Richardson(PLA): The issue was addressed in some depth by Lord Justice Clarke as part of the Thames Safety Inquiry, and he concluded – and I think we have given you in our background brief, some of the quotations of that – that really, it is an impractical proposition in terms of safety and navigation to try to segment it and say, ‘We will have a little bit here with its own set of rules and one there.’

There are 35 mariners employed looking after the upper Thames, of various descriptions: harbour masters, vessel traffic control officers, lockkeepers, and whatever. That is specifically to here, but more importantly, they rely on the PLA services that deal with hydrographic surveys; the maintenance and moorings; salvage, as and when there is a need for it; and environmental monitoring. Frankly, they can only be done as part of an overall system. If you try to do them in

7 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005 segmented, either it is going to become extremely expensive – if you are going to hold all the equipment we have to hold to do that, or if you are going to contract out.

In terms of the regulation for the mariner, it really is not sense to have some form of artificial barrier halfway down the Thames where the rules change. By way of example, our control room at the Barrier has radio contact all the way up and controls navigation to the inward limit.

We are actively looking at the moment – and I am really quite encouraged with the progress we have managed to make on one of the projects that came out of the Marchioness formal investigation, which is the fitting of transponders which we have been promoting for a long time. The technology now is with us so that hopefully by next year, we will be able to ensure that suitable transponder technology, which we can monitor, is fitted in all passenger vessels, and also all commodity vessels. Putting it crudely, Bowbelle sees Marchioness, and Marchioness sees Bowbelle.

That has to be monitored from a control room with all the infrastructure up and down the river to do that. To try to say, ‘A different authority will do this bit, and a different…’ will actually just duplicate all that equipment and make co-ordination almost impossible.

John Biggs (AM): Insofar as I understand your answer – because, again, I am a landlubber, whatever the technical term is – it makes sense to me, but I think there are issues around the relationship between the river and adjoining land and land-use issues. I have come across a number of – I am not going to dwell on local case work, which will take us to the middle of the afternoon, I suspect – but there are issues where the local planning authority has a relationship with the PLA in terms of licensing or regulating the boundary as to who is the planning authority for a piece of work. There are issues about, if you take it to the other end, major economic development, and I question whether the PLA has sufficient economic development powers to carry out its work in relation to adjoining land, for example.

There are questions about Convoys Wharf, where the PLA has a very clear desire to have a cruise- liner terminal on the site, but the planning authority in the local council and the have a different view about that site, and so there is no single vision for the use of the river at that particular point. They would point, in my mind, towards there being possibly an anomaly in that what has happened in the last few years is far more people are more interested in the boundary of the river than they used to be, and it has become rather a crowded field in which we are not resolving problems adequately.

Richard Everitt (PLA): I think the key issue is how we fit into the partnership process with the various interests. Remember, in one sense we are limited. We have responsibility for the water, the tidal Thames. We do not have direct responsibilities in relation to the adjoining land.

Therefore, to take your Convoys example, which is a disused site further downriver, we certainly made and have worked very hard on putting our point forward, as it were, as to what should happen there. Ultimately, in the democratic process, others have other views, and whilst we were able – very adequately – to put our case, the view was that something different should happen there. Obviously, we regret that, but that is the way we work, and I think we worked very well with the Mayor’s Office on that and, indeed, with the London Borough of Lewisham. I certainly went to see them to discuss it. That is a specific example, and as David (Cartlidge) reminds me, with community groups.

I think the reason we have a Head of Planning and Partnerships is because there are many issues of that type up and down the river where we have a part to play, but we are not the determining group. We can bring an expertise to the debate, which helps inform the debate and ultimately, the

8 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005 end decision. We are not determinative of most of the things or virtually anything that happens on the side of the river.

James Trimmer (PLA): If I can just add, the local planning authorities in London, their planning responsibilities – as all of their local responsibilities – exist to the midpoint of the river. Therefore, there is local planning authority control over the entirety of the tidal Thames within London. What we have to do is to assist local authorities in terms of our position in relation to the water itself, both in terms of applications and, again, in terms of the formulation in policy.

A large number of local authorities do seek our advice, in that they are quite happy on the land in terms of planning, and they understand what is going on. As soon as they get into an area where the tide goes in and out, there is a far lesser degree of confidence in terms of what planning should do, and how it should interact. Of course, as we have licensing powers, the Environment Agency have powers in terms of licensing works. Clearly, there is a combination of consents that are needed on the water, probably more so than there are on the land.

What we aim to do, again with local authorities and with the Environment Agency, is ensure that our positions are fed properly into applicants that are going into the local authority, so they are aware of what applicants need to do. It is certainly an issue that needs to be developed. Bear in mind, we do have 23-odd local authorities, and it is something that is getting particularly into policy, so then the decisions naturally fall out from an appropriate policy base where they are aware of the water and what actually happens there.

Nicola Clay (PLA): Can I add as well that this is actually an issue that is being looked at at both national and European level. I was only yesterday at a workshop with the Environment Agency, which is trying to develop its maritime strategy. The land-sea interface is one of the specific questions that they are addressing themselves. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are looking at interface with coastal zone management to address this issue. I think it is a problem across the whole of the coast and the whole of Europe.

On the Thames, where we have the PLA with its very, very good relationships with all the local authorities, I think it is probably less of an issue than it is in the rest of the coast, where the planning authorities do make decisions without really being aware of what the issues are, once they get to the water line.

On the other issue of having a single body and maybe having a dividing line, if you think of the environment, we are being encouraged to take an ecosystem approach now and to be aware that a decision made on a development or an action in one part of the river will not just have its effect confined to that part of the river. Those effects might actually be quite far-reaching, so you have to have a single body looking at all of those effects. That is in the context of the ecosystem approach and taking a holistic approach to development.

John Biggs (AM): I am not suggesting a single authority. I am just not clear the relationships work fantastically, but yes, let us move on.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): Yes, the perception of the PLA that you paint does not square exactly with the perception of other people who use the river. I am going to quote from two organisations. The first one says:

‘The PLA’s governance has not changed with the times. It is hard to divine what the PLA objectives in respect of leisure, culture, and social use are. We see no evidence of an acceptable or clearly stated plan as regards to residential and other moorings and little

9 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005

evidence that the PLA is keen to create the sort of vibrant river the Mayor and other interested parties want to see.’

That is one organisation. Another one says, ‘I believe that an unreformed PLA, a public trust and unaccountable to anyone in its day-to-day operation, could be the wrong body to implement the elected Mayor’s vision for a river that should be London’s largest public leisure space.’ You say that the PLA evolves. Other people do not seem to see it that way.

Richard Everitt (PLA): Well, people have their views, but I certainly think the PLA continues to evolve to meet the demands of a changing river environment. We now put a huge emphasis on environment. We put a lot of resources into that area. We put a lot of resources into planning, and we – as Bruce (Richardson) has outlined – put not insignificant resources into the management of the river – management of the upper river.

I did explain earlier that something like 260 events we are involved in in the upper river, in addition to the fact that we have consultative forums specifically with the upper-river groups. Now, various people have various ideas, of course, and it is part of our job to receive those ideas, listen to them, and work them through.

We have a very clear vision of how the river should evolve. Firstly, it should evolve in partnership. The Mayor’s policies we work very closely on, and I think we are essentially the authors of or had a very big hand in the Blue Ribbon Network work in the London Plan. Of course, leisure is going to grow or will continue to grow in the river. Part of our challenge is to help that growth in a safe way, because there are conflicting interests. We have put moorings – and I know certain people are very keen on moorings and the number of moorings, some of which are well used; some of which are not used.

We are working, as I said earlier, in a tidal river, which is challenging. It is not a static canal, and we have to make sure that the activities that are undertaken here are properly organised and safe. I believe that our participation in a good number of groups – and in one of the booklets we have sent you, our Annual Review, we list the groups that we are engaged in – is evidence of our continuing commitment to the evolution of the river in the way that the Mayor and the London Plan is hoping to see.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): Well, the smaller organisations that deal with you seem to find you extremely difficult and frustrating to deal with.

Rear Admiral Bruce Richardson (PLA): We have actually conducted a very extensive customer survey and things on this, and that is not really the reading we are getting back. I am quite sure there will be individuals or maybe some organisations coming from a particular point of view and a particular interest who may have those views.

Introducing a slightly lighter tone, in terms of navigation, if I could explain that we have power boats on the river – I am speaking at the recreational end – we have rowers, and we have the dinghy sailors.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): You also have boat lovers.

Rear Admiral Bruce Richardson (PLA): Just staying with those, each one of those groups thinks they should have absolutely uninterrupted right-of-way on the water. Of course, they do not, and our job is to integrate them, to try to ensure that there is a harmonious and safe way that all their desires and wishes can be accommodated. We are dealing with a fairly disparate set of requirements, certainly in terms of the water, and part of my job and my staff’s job is helping mend

10 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005 fences, trying to find ways through sometimes quite protracted positions that people take, because they all have their various groups and their various interests.

David Cartlidge (PLA): Could I just add that I can probably name the people who have made those quotations, and I can probably give you a list of all people who may have similar views. Considering we deal with millions of people, I think that speaks volumes that we can actually name all the people who have those sorts of grievances as far as we are concerned.

I would just add, though, that I am not aware that the PLA has refused a licence application for a residential mooring in the 10 years that I have worked for it.

Elizabeth Howlett (AM): I do not want to duplicate what my colleagues have said, but I think I would like to say that I am very much of the same opinion. I represent Wandsworth and Merton, but Wandsworth particularly in Putney, which is at the upper reaches of the river. I agree with you. It is a dangerous river, and I think you do a grand job piloting the river, but I do wonder whether, in fact, the PLA is as open-minded and as advanced as some residents in London who want to use the river more safely, but for their own entertainment.

Therefore, while I would not say to you, ‘Well, there should be another authority doing that,’ I think perhaps your authority to take on different sorts of people into the PLA who have a more open mind in that regard… One issue, which I hope we come to later, is the cost of licensing. This prohibits new piers and new access to the river. I just want to say that, and I would like to come back on that.

The other issue I want to ask is you say there is going to be three extra tonnes of freight. When – in a month, in a week, in a day? What is it, and how far upriver will all this freight come?

James Trimmer (PLA): If we are talking about the reactivation of the three wharves, it will be about a little bit over a million tonnes. Now, as I say, we are working with the Mayor, the GLA, and the LDA. The sites are owned, currently, by developers, so they are not owned by us, and they are not owned by the operators.

We need to find mechanisms in order that those sites which are safeguarded wharves can be brought back into beneficial use for the carriage of cargo. Now, whether that be through negotiation or ultimately, as it says in the London Plan, the implementation of compulsory purchase powers, is something that we are discussing with the Mayor and the LDA at the moment. Again, it is in planning; we are hopeful it will happen, say, within the next year-18 months, but it has taken four years – nearly five years – to prepare the ground for where we are. Those wharves – one is in Newham, one is in Tower Hamlets, and one is in Fulham, near the Wandsworth Bridge.

Richard Everitt (PLA): The furthest upriver is Fulham.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): Right. Thank you. Okay, we are going to move on to the next section, which is about corporate governance and accountability.

Murad Qureshi (AM): We understand that the Secretary of State makes the appointments for the PLA, and that you are a non-departmental public body. Is that…?

Richard Everitt (PLA): I think that is a fair characterisation, yes.

Murad Qureshi (AM): The impression we are getting is that the current board does leave a significant proportion of the PLA stakeholders unrepresented. I wondered if you could point out to us, with the list of the PLA board, how many are actually, I do not know, residents of London or

11 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005 river users and dwellers, for example, to give some indication of whether the present board in any way reflects those groups that have approached us on many issues.

Richard Everitt (PLA): I think it must firstly be said that the guidance which the Government published two or three years ago on modernising trust boards – and remember we are one of 100 – was very clear that boards should not be representative, that board members should be selected on the basis of a good range of skills that an organisation needs to operate effectively. On our board for example, we have, obviously, business. We have people will good experience of government, engineering, maritime safety, security, and a range of environment and leisure use.

Indeed, the composition of the Board has evolved to ensure that the right range of skills is there, and in doing that, we have very much followed – and indeed, in many senses, the PLA was the template for the guidance that Government issued four or five years ago on the modernising of the governance of trust boards.

Within that group, there are obviously people who live in London, and who have a good awareness of the issues in London, but they are selected primarily for their skills. They are selected following public advertisement, and then selection through the Nolan rules, which of course involves an independent assessor being part of the interviewing panel. Therefore, it is deliberately not representative, but it has the right range of skills to manage the many issues that London has. When it is advertised, anybody can apply.

Murad Qureshi (AM): Would you at least acknowledge that may be one of the problems? Whilst you have mentioned earlier that you have consultation groups and what have you, because you do not have those views represented at the board level, you do not necessarily take it as seriously. For example, from the correspondence I have seen, it would make a lot of sense to have river dwellers somehow represented. I have had a lot of correspondence from the ancient mooring organisations. They are making some very interesting points, and they their existence dates back further than the legislation you are quoting.

Richard Everitt (PLA): The moorings do.

Murad Qureshi (AM): It seems to me to make a lot of sense to have that kind of representation of those groups on the board, rather than in these sub-regional consultation groups that you have set up, obviously.

Richard Everitt (Chief Executive, PLA): No, I am afraid I do disagree with you. I think boards are best when they have the right skills on them to judge the many issues that boards have to judge, and particularly an organisation like this, which has a considerable number of stakeholders, each of whom believe their interest is the absolutely critical one.

What I do think is important is the way in which we consult and who we consult with, how we listen to what they have to say, and how we respond to what they have to say. That is part of my job, part of my team’s job, part of the board’s job. I am aware of some of these issues. Some of them have gone on for a very long time. They are, fundamentally, about whether ancient moorings exist or whether they do not exist and will need to be resolved one way or the other, but the board are made aware of key issues coming through in the business, and the executive team, which I lead, accounts to the board for the way in which it is conducting some of these very difficult issues which have a long period.

That is how any organisation of the type that we are should work. Key to it is good consultation, getting down to talk some of these issues through with people, and ultimately, if we cannot find resolution, finding a way in which the issues between us can be resolved. We have very few

12 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005 complaints, very few complaints within the PLA in the course of the year, but the ones that we do get are pretty knotty problems that we have to deal with.

David Cartlidge (PLA): Can I just add, just to reinforce what Richard Everitt said, the guidance on trust-port management specifically directs ‘that the need to obtain a board that is collectively and individually fit for the purpose of running the port is of overriding importance.’ Turning to individual members and their riparian pursuits, in addition to their professional skills, we have one member who is a narrow boater and a member of The Inland Waterways Association; we have one member who is an active sailing enthusiast and member of the RYA; and we have one member who has spent a lifetime involved in rowing, both on the tideway and on the non-tidal Thames. I think that, actually, is a fair spread of interests on the board for understanding the issues involved.

Darren Johnson (AM): You have both said, basically, that the skills and the expertise are the overriding factors. That is obviously crucial. However, the Government’s own publication in 2000 said, ‘In common with many bodies, trust ports are predominantly governed by boards comprising people drawn from traditional backgrounds, mostly white, male, middle-aged, in a narrow social range, drawn from a conventional background.’ Do you agree with the Government’s view that without the injection of a wider cross-section of the community the trust purports to serve, this can lead to stagnation and introspection?

David Cartlidge (PLA): In general, but I would contend that those comments do not apply to the PLA.

Darren Johnson (AM): In what way do they not apply? What have you done to address this?

David Cartlidge (PLA): I think you need an understanding of the trust ports business to put those remarks into context, which is there were – and indeed still are trust ports – where the board is comprised of two members of the local authority of ‘x-ington’. Two members shall be members of the green bowling association. The composition of many trust ports was described as such, and it was that type of composition that those remarks are aimed at.

As has been explained, the posts for non-executive members of the PLA are advertised. They are widely advertised. The advertisements make clear that the applicants being sought are from the widest backgrounds and skill ranges, and the whole process is conducted in front of an independent assessor. I do not know how more open one can be as regards the selection process, and at the end of the day, people are appointed by a Secretary of State who is democratically accountable.

Darren Johnson (AM): Well, there is the stakeholder issue, and you can have stakeholders with expertise and with skills.

David Cartlidge (PLA): There is, and there is nothing to stop them from applying.

Darren Johnson (AM): If a new board member were to be appointed, what value would a political representative be, for example, or a stakeholder representing those with smaller interests, albeit ones with skills and expertise to offer?

David Cartlidge (PLA): One of our lady members has a political background.

Richard Everitt (PLA): The key point here is that this board is an independent board, given all the issues that PLA has to deal with, that people do not come to the board table with a representative role. Of course, people have backgrounds, skills, and experience, and that is part of the reason that we have the mix of skills and experience that we have, but boards which have nominated representatives to deal with particular issues, I do not think – and clearly the Government did not 13 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005 think when it wrote this – work as effectively as boards with a range of skills and experience, so long as that board and the activities of the board are properly conducted – which I believe they are with us – to take account of how we listen, how we consult, and how we handle some of the difficult issues that we are engaged in.

Rear Admiral Bruce Richardson (PLA): It is really to do, again, coming back to my area of responsibility: safety. The Port Marine Safety Code, published, makes the board of a port the duty holder. Collectively and individually, board members are accountable for the discharging of those statutory duties. If there is a serious incident out there, it is the board, as I say, corporately and individually, who carry that responsibility. It is therefore appropriate that the people on that board – and I am not saying they are or they are not – are fit to do that. It is not just a case of representing a view. They have actually got to accept responsibility for the decisions and the management of their public port.

Darren Johnson (AM): Just one more point on accountability. You mentioned the accountability to the Secretary of State, but that is a fairly long and indirect route. The Government also believes that it should be clearly accountable for its actions, both to stakeholders and the wider community it serves. How does the PLA actually do this, and how do you know it is effective in terms of that accountability?

Richard Everitt (PLA): A whole range of ways, but let us just run through some of them: our Annual Report, our Annual Review, the information that we put on the website, and how we deal with that. Principally for me, and I think it goes to the point that was made earlier, the consultation groups that we have set up and operate; our major customers, obviously who pay a good chunk of the income; the upper, lower, and estuarial consultation groups; the strategic consultation group, which is the overarching one.

What is critical to me is that those groups work well, that people actually bring to those meetings issues that they really want to discuss with us, that we put issues to them and listen to their representations, but they use them and use them effectively to get issues over to us and hold us to account on how we are proceeding with those issues. That is one of the areas that I would certainly be looking at in months ahead.

Darren Johnson (AM): What measures are in place to ensure that those mechanisms are actually effective? On this side of the table, if we are not effective, the electorate have the chance of voting us out and getting rid of us. What about on your side of the table?

Richard Everitt (PLA): With us, one of the important mechanisms is that we undertook a customer survey last year, which we mention in our submission to you. Within that, we asked a whole range of interests a series of questions about the PLA. I think in broad summary what it said was that people were generally happy with the way we were working, particularly if they were in regular contact with us.

What we needed to do was more with the leisure users and the upper-river groups, and we are formulating ways in which we can get closer to these groups. Obviously, they are more disparate. The RYA and the ARA, the rowers, are represented on our consultative groups, but how do you get however many rowing clubs there are working through two representatives – 27 rowing clubs working through two representatives?

My vision is that we spend more time at the club level with our people in the upper river listening to them and trying to deal with some of the issues that they have, and we better plan the integration of rowing activity with sailing activity, with canoeing activity. There is more to do. There is always more to do, but I think we can do more in that area.

14 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): I just wanted to come in there, because your argument is that the skills for this board and for your statutory duty are that you go for particular skills. It would seem, however, from what I have heard today, that there is a skill missing, and that is the skill of not hearing what you have heard today, really, in terms of the criticisms that have been levelled at you. There is a space on the board, as I understand. What I would have/should have expected was for you to say that actually that was somewhere you perhaps were going, that that was something you recognised: there was a gap.

Consultative groups, advisory groups, and listening is all very well, but if you have no one at the top driving that or on the board saying, ‘What are we doing about X? What are we doing about X?’, as we know those things do not get driven to the forefront. Given there is that criticism today, given you do have a place on the board, do you not think there is some validity in looking for a skill which actually meets the criticisms that you have been hearing, or not?

Richard Everitt (Chief Executive, PLA): Within the board objectives, the response to the customer survey is one of the issues that they are holding us to account on, particularly in relation to what is happening in the upper river. The board has a part to play in that, too, which is recognised directly, but in terms of the day-to-day work, as the executive, we have things to do there, too.

David Cartlidge (PLA): Could I just add that we are aware of these criticisms and various criticisms, as we have already said. I guarantee that one criticism you do not have is that people do not get a response from the PLA. No one has complained that they do not hear from us.

Elizabeth Howlett (AM): One I picked up is that sometimes these responses are a bit inconsistent.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): All right. I am still going to move on. I would just make one point that in terms of accountability, your Annual Report and Accounts ex officio are not sent to me. They are sent to constituency members, as I understand, who border the Thames.

David Cartlidge (PLA): The reports last year were sent to all members of the Transport Committee; I am sorry.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): Right, well, I was reliably informed that they were not.

Roger Evans (Deputy Chair): My colleagues here are saying they do not get it, and they border the Thames, and I have to say I border the Thames, and I do not get it either.

David Cartlidge (PLA): I am sorry. The Annual Report and Accounts and the Annual Review for last year were sent to all riparian Members of both the and the Members of Parliament and to all members of this committee.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): All right, well, maybe it is that we have all just missed it on our desks. Finance management and audit arrangements.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): Can you tell us what your major sources of income are, where you expect that to be going in future years, and where your major investments are going to be made?

Richard Everitt (PLA): Certainly. Our major sources of income are pilotage, which is about just under a third; conservancy, the bulk of which is paid by the commercial ships using the port; river rents, which is about one-tenth of our income; and we then, I think, have about £2 million from 15 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005 subsidiary services. Those are all sorts of things: hydrographic use of our simulator down in Gravesend and many and various things that the organisation does – that is £2.3 million. Moorings, which is a small sum. We have income from landfill.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): I was going to ask you about that, if I might. In 2003, it was £789,000, and 2004, £3 million.

Richard Everitt (Chief Executive, PLA): Yes.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): How come the jump?

Richard Everitt (PLA): Simply a product of the activity that the operator – Cory (Brothers Shipping Agency), I think in this case – are engaged in on that site. They may, at certain times, decide to use the site that we have. At other times, they decide to use other sites, for which they obviously do not pay us. At the moment they pay a royalty based upon, I assume, tonnage that goes onto the site, and they increased that tonnage quite significantly.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): This is about a fourfold increase.

Richard Everitt (Chief Executive, PLA): Yes.

David Cartlidge (PLA): Yes, and the reduction in the previous year, 2003, was due to technical problems at a site elsewhere, and therefore our land, as Richard (Everitt) said, was not used to the normal extent in 2003. Therefore, we lost the income. The actual revenue per cubic metre, there is no change. It is a fluctuational thing, and it is also, if I could just add, of very limited duration, this income stream. There is a finite time that it runs out. The landfill site will be full. We do not have any others, and therefore we know now the date when that income stream dries up. Therefore, we look upon it as essentially a capital reserve, rather than revenue which can fund our ongoing commitments, because it is not assured into the future. Therefore, it would be dangerous to make those assumptions on it.

Richard Everitt (PLA): In terms of projects, three or four just to highlight, we have channel deepening along the north Kent coast – which will considerably improve access to the port – which we will be engaged in over the next 18 months. We have a development of our key operational centre in Denton at Gravesend, which we will be doing over the course of the next year. Our radar systems, our communication systems have recently been upgraded, but they seem to need upgrading every five years or so.

Bruce (Richardson) has already talked about the technological transponder work that we are doing in the upper river, the systems for that. We will certainly have significant expenditure – and I am talking of £2-3 million – on new boats in the course of the next year or so. Possibly over a three- to five-year period, it could be up to £5 million. Those are the areas in which our principal capital expenditure goes. If necessary, we have indicated that we will participate in the purchasing of wharves, if that is required.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): Okay. Going back to this report, on page 15, right at the bottom, you have two items here which puzzle me a little. Administration-Payroll has gone up from £1,754,000 to £3,313,000, and then Administration-Other has gone up by a similar amount from £1,812,000 to £3,275,000.

Richard Everitt (PLA): I think one of the items here is a pension contribution – a one-off pension contribution that we made when we consolidated two pension funds. That was about £1.4 million. I think that probably is in the payroll line. The other, I cannot off the top of my head… 16 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005

David Cartlidge (PLA): I think we will have to write to you on that item.

Richard Everitt (Chief Executive, PLA): I think we will have to write you on that.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): All right, fine. Please do. Now, let us move on to the next item I want to ask you about, which is touching on riverworks licences for piers. We have had a report from (TfL) that has told us that the increases that you are requiring – let me just read you this, because I will read it from the TfL evidence. It says, ‘Now, at the five-year licensee review, the PLA is attempting to impose extremely large licence-fee increases, far in excess of any other increases in business costs.’ It goes on to say, ‘The initial reassessments proposed range from +130% to +475%. For example, the PLA have proposed that the annual licence fee for is increased from £13,350 to £30,880.’

When Transport for London queried that, you more-or-less said to them, ‘Go back to Cluttons (property consultancy) and carry on negotiating.’ Can you explain this large increase?

Richard Everitt (PLA): I asked our surveyor what is the basis of this, and they said that – their quote yesterday – they were at a loss to understand the very high increases. They said it could be to do with a complicated issue over how you assess one of the piers. What I have agreed is that I will meet both the (LRS) people and also the other pier operators who have concerns over this issue. I think it has now been put in the diary for next week.

The system here, I think, in one sense is clear. We are required to get best values for the assets that are entrusted to us, and the way that is normally done is by a comparison method. You compare the rents that are being paid for existing piers with the reviews that are being undertaken. Reviews are normally undertaken every five years. That methodology was confirmed in an arbitration decision back in 1999, and the surveyors for both groups – both the pier operators and ourselves – have been engaged in discussions over the appropriate level for the current review – many of those reviews having been settled by the way.

The methodology here is very clear, if we cannot agree. The methodology is that an arbitrator is appointed, if not agreed, by the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), and he determines what the appropriate level of rent should be. Obviously, I want to make every effort to try to agree the level of fee. That is clearly the appropriate thing to do, but there is a statutory method of resolution, which is through arbitration, on value, and in terms of the terms – if people are dissatisfied with the terms of the licences, that is by reference to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will settle the terms, if necessary.

Therefore, the approach that I am taking to this is that I will be meeting with the representatives of LRS and other pier owners to see if there is a basis upon which we can move forward on this issue. We will use every endeavour to do that. If people are not satisfied, there is a statutory arbitration route which is open to them to resolve it.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): Yes, I am glad you mentioned that. There is a point here, which again, has been made to us, and I will read it. ‘In negotiation or arbitration over licences, the PLA has full access to every riverworks licence to use as evidence, whereas licensees and their advisors are rarely given that luxury.’ There are claims that this is not a level playing field.

Richard Everitt ( PLA): I am surprised at that comment, I have to say, because normally, if – and my only experience is in relation to rents, I hasten to add – normally, if you are making a case for a particular level, you have to produce all the evidence that is relevant to the case that you are making, and that is disclosed in the arbitration process. I would have thought that that is the way

17 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005 we would operate here. If people want to raise that issue in the meeting that we are going to have, certainly, we will talk about it, but I do not think that is a valid point.

Roger Evans (Deputy Chair): Do you feel that the whole system of riverworks licence fees is actually sustainable in the long term?

Richard Everitt (Chief Executive, PLA): I do not see why it should not be. These are valuable rights – obviously some more valuable than others. The money here is going, ultimately, into the public purse. They are a contribution to the costs of the work that the PLA does, and I think in terms of proper economics – if I can put it that way – if people are enjoying the benefits of a particular right, there should be a commensurate consideration for it.

Roger Evans (Deputy Chair): Yes, but it makes it difficult, does it not, for businesses who want to use the river, if they do not know from year-to-year what is going to happen to quite a significant cost. They could find that the price of the piece of river they would want to do business on is quite literally escalating beyond their means. Really, they have no way of predicting that. Does it not discourage people from using the river for business, which is precisely the opposite of what we and you should be aiming to do?

Richard Everitt (PLA): No, I would put it this way. Our river rents can go up and can go down. There is no ‘upward only’ provision.

Roger Evans (Deputy Chair): When did they last go down?

Richard Everitt (PLA): David (Cartlidge) – I do not know, but there is nothing ‘upwards only’ written in, if I can put it that way.

Roger Evans (Deputy Chair): That is a bit like when the Mayor tells us the board of TfL can vote against him.

David Cartlidge (Secretary, PLA): We will write to you on that, Chairman.

Richard Everitt (PLA): We will cover that point. The other issue is, what is so very different to what goes on in the river than goes on in any other rents that people are paying? The market is the market. We are required to secure best value, and as I say, if we cannot agree it, then it is determined by somebody else.

David Cartlidge (PLA): Could I just add that there is another sort of component in all of this. Again, one of the factors or one of the guiding tenets that we have to follow is that of balance, and that includes balance in terms of our income. In just the same way that there is an arbitration process for a river-rent payer in any part of the river, there is also a process of appeal by a commercial ship owner or operator against the dues and charges that we charge them. We do not have a capability to merely charge whatever we want to for a commercial ship that comes into the port or for the cargo it carries, because those rates are appealable against – in this case, to the Secretary of State.

If we say, ‘Right, we are going to give people a good deal on river rents, and we will put our charges up to ship owners who ship in cargo,’ those ship owners and shippers of that cargo can appeal against those rates on the basis of, ‘Hang on a minute, these costs that you are passing on to us do not reflect what it costs to you to run the river for us to run our cargo on. These costs are a subsidy to somewhere else on the river.’

18 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005

There is a balance to be struck in all this, and people do have to pay for what they take out. I just put that to you, that it is not one-way traffic, and there are other issues. The key word is balance, and that is what we have to try to do.

Roger Evans (Deputy Chair): They are dealing with a monopoly, are they not, in your case, whereas if you are renting something on land for your business, if the rent goes up, you can always, at cost, move. There is not a different river they can to.

David Cartlidge (PLA): There is a downside to that monopoly, as well, because we are not allowed to say to someone, ‘We do not want your pier on our river.’ If I were a commercial landlord renting a building, somebody came along and wanted to rent it off me, I can actually refuse to let it to him. I can say, ‘No, I do not like your face. I do not like the colour of your money. I do not like your accounts. I do not think you have sufficient financial probity. I am not going to let you have it.’ We do not have that opportunity.

Elizabeth Howlett (AM): No, but you can price them out of the pier.

David Cartlidge (Secretary, PLA): No, we cannot. No, we cannot, because the arbitration process keeps us honest.

Elizabeth Howlett (AM): If they get that far.

David Cartlidge (PLA): They do not have to get that far. The point is, it exists. We know it exists. We are subject to it. We do not know when we are going to be subject to it. Any person any day can take us to arbitration. We do not know who it is going to be. We are not going to set rents that we are then going to lose in arbitration.

Elizabeth Howlett (AM): I have a particular point, Chair, and it is really about Putney. I apologise now for being late, but maybe if I had been able to jump on a boat at Putney Pier and get down to , I would consistently be on time here, as opposed to having to wait for transport and Underground and buses. Now, a lot of people have asked me since I have been an Assembly Member, ‘We would like to get this boat from Putney down’ – particularly the ones that go to – desperate to get down on the river, consistently do not mind paying for it.

When I have approached people who may have had licences in the past, they say they cannot afford it. First, there is the capital cost of a boat, etc., but they cannot afford the rent for the pier. It is too high.

Richard Everitt (PLA): I think I would say to you this: my understanding – and I am quickly looking at my briefing papers – I think we recently settled with the operator of Putney Pier the rent for that pier. I think the real issue – and I share your view here – the real issue is how can a package be put together that will make it economic for somebody to operate a regular scheduled service…

Elizabeth Howlett (AM): Like a river bus.

Richard Everitt (Chief Executive, PLA): …to Putney Pier. I think it is largely to do with the capital cost of the boat, the carryings, and the fare. I think the rent for the pier would be a small element of the total cost of that operation, given that many other things go on on that pier as well. We have settled a rent without a scheduled service. A scheduled service would be incremental to the activity on the pier.

19 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005

It really is about getting people focused on the only comfortable way to commute on London is by river, and of course, the challenge of that is that it is very peaky. People will come upriver in the morning from Docklands. The boats going back down will be empty; they will be full at night, and they will be empty coming back up.

Elizabeth Howlett (AM): You would encourage the river to be used for this sort of river bus transport?

Richard Everitt (Chief Executive, PLA): Absolutely, but the operator put to me the other day: why can he not get his operation on the TfL website, without having to go to a subsidiary site? If I tap into the Journey Planner, ‘How do I get from Canary Wharf to Westminster?’, it should come up, ‘Get on the River Bus. Here is the timetable, here is the fare.’ Apparently – and I have not tried it, so I should try it – according to the operator, you have to go into a subsidiary website to find the boats. Now, the boats are as integral to London’s transport as the Tube and should be handled similarly.

Angie Bray (AM): I suppose mine is by way of a local interest. A problem has been brought to my attention by somebody who lives quite a lot of his time on a boat in Chelsea Harbour. His problem is, actually, with the people who manage the boatyard in Chelsea Harbour, licensed by you.

It is a problem for him, and it appears that they are refusing to correct the situation, whereby they have attached another boat to his, so that people are walking over his boat to get to their boat. It has been going on for some time. He has tried all sorts of ways of complaining about this, because I understand it should not be happening. Now, the point that I am really getting to is that they, in return, are basically trying to withhold his licence to Moor there. In some sort of desperation, I know he has been in touch with you, because in the end, you are providing the licence to this particular company. Apparently, you have said to him, ‘Well, I am sorry. We do not take an interest in how our licensees actually perform their duties. As far as they are paid up with us, that is all the interest we have in them.’ I am interested about how you enforce quality of performance by the people you licence.

David Cartlidge (PLA): Thanks, and I have written to you twice on the matter. It is a very hard case, as far as the individual concerned is concerned, and much has been put in the public domain that is not strictly accurate. That aside, getting to your general point, in our licences we set certain conditions on the licensees.

Those conditions have to be negotiated. They have to be agreed. If a licensee does not like them, he or she has the right of appeal against them. Therefore, again, the process keeps us reasonable, and again it is a question of balance. The extent to which we should govern the way a licensee subsequently runs his business is a debatable point, but again, if I can draw the parallel to a building, to what extent does the freeholder of a building hold the head tenant responsible for the way that tenant then subsequently lets out leases? Therefore, it is a question of degree.

What we have said in this particular case – and it is true in all cases – is that if somebody has a grievance against the licence and the application of it and against the person with whom they have that agreement, then their recourse of action is with that person or with that organisation. In this particular case, I just do not understand why the gentleman concerned does not take that route, but he seems to take every other route, apart from that one. I can only assume that he has received legal advice to the contrary that he does not have a case.

Angie Bray (AM): Sorry, can I just quickly come back on that, because I do think that this idea that a tenant in a building is the same is quite preposterous, because of course, if you do not like

20 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005 the way your block of flats is being managed or whatever, you could actually go down the road to find a block of flats managed by somebody else.

In this case, however, there is no way out. It is you, and the people you have chosen to licence are the only way if he wants to live on his boat. He has to, in the end, put up with everything that you do or do not do. I just wonder why you do not think it appropriate to police your licensees to the point that you are making sure that they live up to everything that they should do.

David Cartlidge (PLA): We police our licensees to make sure they live up to the conditions of their licence.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): We are not going to resolve this here today…

Richard Everitt (PLA): This is a very difficult case, but we will continue to work on it.

John Biggs (AM): I have been copied – for which I am very grateful, but with some reservations, because I do not understand all of it – a very detailed submission about the nature of licences and problems with them. Without getting bogged down in all the detail, the argument would be that the structure and nature of licences issued by the PLA does not really assist the operation of a market in the operation of commercial activities on the river.

For example, the fact that many licences are personal in nature, that there are questions of perpetuities, which do not allow renewal, and that the process of review is rather limited. Now, I am sure you could give a very good, technical, and legalistic response to that, but is it not the case that the historic foundation for licences on the river is rather anachronistic and does not really allow the flow of the market? Is there not scope for change in that?

Richard Everitt (PLA): I think there are some very complicated issues around, and this system is obviously particular to London, but I would imagine in other waterways around the country is not dissimilar. I may be wrong in that. I have not investigated them. I think it has very considerable advantages for the incumbent, because the incumbent is there, pretty well, as I understand it, as long as the incumbent wishes to be there – very different from a time-limited lease. It has built around it statutory provisions for dealing with disputes over terms and rent or licence fees.

In terms of others wanting to bring piers onto the river, if I can perhaps characterise what you were saying, that is not just a PLA issue. It is a planning issue. The local authority, with jurisdiction to the middle of the river, would have to grant the necessary consents, as we would be asked to grant the licences. If there were no impact on navigation – I think I am right here; David (Cartlidge) will correct me if I am wrong – we would grant the pier.

John Biggs (AM): If there were a possibility to assign a licence, that would obviously, in some situations, help to create a more fluid market and help optimise the use of the limited supply of piers.

Richard Everitt (PLA): I think the reality is if people have sold on their businesses, they have come to us, and we have made the appropriate provision, because if we have to licence the thing anyway, it is simply a licence to the new organisation, as distinct from the old. Is that correct?

David Cartlidge (PLA): Again, there are lots of issues in that, because of course, if you have an assigned licence, arguably it is worth more, so consideration should be higher, which some people obviously would find difficult. The licences as they are currently – the licensing system; the fact the licences are personal; they are not assignable – has been looked at by greater legal minds than I, or

21 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005 greater legal minds than are sitting, I would suggest, around this table. They have been found to be appropriate, both for the licensees and the PLA.

To say that they are the same as they were in the year dot is untrue. They have evolved; they do evolve. If you compare a licence issued this year with one issue five years ago, you will find it different in many significant ways. That is because they do evolve, and they do change as regulation and legislation outside changes, not least European legislation. They are updated, and they are changed for that reason.

What Richard said is right. I am always a bit perplexed by people who come along and say they want a licence for a specific term, because I think, well, what they are turning down is a licence that, in effect, is in perpetuity, and they would rather have one for 60 years. I just do not understand the logic, and I have never found anybody who can explain that desire to me.

They are personal, but as I have already said, we do not have a choice. If the thing is there, and if we do not have a statutory reason to have it removed – and by statutory reason, I mean that there is a reason for navigational reasons or for conservancy, river regime – then we cannot not grant the licence, or we cannot not agree to allow the works to be subject to a retention.

John Biggs (AM): Can I ask one slight divergence from this then, which follows the line of questioning in the brief for the meeting, and I do not think it has been assigned to anyone else. It is very simple, although the answer may be very complicated. As I understand it, one of the reasons the PLA is left alone and well thought of is that you do cover your costs. You do not go to the Government for subsidy, and you cover your costs through licence fees and through other fees from the operation of vessels in the Thames.

Now, I put it to you that there is an issue around this, which is that some of what you provide is a public service, and for other public authorities, there might be a regime in which there was a possibility of subsidies and cross-subsidies, which relates to the earlier point I made about economic development powers, which you currently lack.

Now, I do not want to delay the meeting with a detailed answer on this, but I put it to you, there is an anomalous area there, where the freedom the PLA has prevents it from carrying out some of the activities which we might want, particularly in the upper reaches of the Thames, to encourage. Do you think there is a problem there?

Richard Everitt (PLA): I personally do not. I think we are very open to thoughts and ideas. I certainly feel very passionate about the upper reaches. I think there are some things we need to do up there, and we will do them. We do make a contribution. It is not all us taking. We do not charge conservancy on cargo – I think I am right in saying – that moves within the port, and the port extends to that extent, I think, to Medway. Other authorities probably would do.

We make a very modest charge for vessels that are operating up here every day of the week, and we are as committed to working with organisations to develop activity on this river as anyone. Certainly, in my time here, I intend that we really focus hard on that, because I think there is a real opportunity out here to do more. That is the system of the Mayor.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): A very good link to the last section, because it is about relationships with a range of stakeholders, which we touched on in the first section.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): The larger stakeholders seem to be quite happy in their relationships to the PLA. It is the smaller stakeholders who seem to have a problem. From what you have said – and I would like you to get this clear – are you prepared to preserve, protect, and promote the

22 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005 upper reaches of the Thames as a river, with flourishing communities of boat owners, users, dwellers and operators.

Richard Everitt (PLA): We are certainly prepared to play our part in that, yes. I think we do, but we can do more and we will do more.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): Is it right that – I do not know exactly how many, probably hundreds of Londoners – live under the authority of the PLA, basically, which is an unelected and, to some extent, unaccountable quango?

Richard Everitt (PLA): No, I do not accept that at all. We are the harbour authority for the river. I stress that. A number of people live on the river. That is correct. They have houseboats on the river – I think there are 250-270 of them. A lot of people derive part of their leisure activities – walking, sailing, rowing, whatever – and indeed commute on it for comfortable commuting. As I indicated, 35,000 people have their jobs on the river, connected to river, and then obviously there is a lot of indirect employment, as well, but I do not believe that their lives are determined by the activities of an unelected body in the way that you put it.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): Well, there it is. You do have an effect on their lives.

Richard Everitt (PLA): Well, we have a role to play…

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): You have a role to play.

Richard Everitt (PLA): …in the same way as lots of other organisations have roles to play – the Environment Agency, the , whatever. We are part of the web, as it were, of organisations that run various parts of activity in London.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): They do, however, seem to have difficulty dealing with the PLA.

Richard Everitt (PLA): It has to be careful that that is not overstated. We have some difficult issues, but so do most organisations have a few difficult issues. Our complaints numbers are very low. They are all recorded under our management system, which is independently audited. We have some very difficult issues to deal with with one or two people. I accept that all – with a small number of people. I accept that, but most organisations have those sorts of things to deal with.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): Your actions as the PLA are in accordance with the Mayor’s London Plan, as it relates to the Thames – would you say that?

Richard Everitt (PLA): I would very much say that, and I think that is endorsed by the Mayor’s Office, itself. We work very closely with the Mayor’s Office, and we are as passionate about the vitality of this river as the Mayor, the GLA, and other parts of London governance are and play a very full and proactive role in that.

Roger Evans (Deputy Chair): You have done some customer awareness and attitude research last year. What were the key findings of that?

Richard Everitt (Chief Executive, PLA): As I said earlier – and in summary – the people who we deal with on a regular basis think we do a good job, be they our commercial customers – and I am generalising here – be they our commercial customers, the shippers, the docks, the terminal operators. Government institutions – be they local government, agencies, central Government itself – also believe we do a good job.

23 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005

Where people were less aware of us – and there is a large number of people who were not aware of us at all – but with the smaller groups, I think the general summary is that some of them think we do a good job; others think we could do better, and that is the area that we are focusing our response on.

Roger Evans (Deputy Chair): Are you planning to do this type of research next year, and on into the future?

Richard Everitt (PLA): Yes, we will measure how we are doing. This was a qualitative research. We will need to move into quantitative research, and then we will have something to benchmark the progress that we are making on the initiatives that we will be taking forward, principally in the upper river.

Of course, this is a very big group of people, as it was pointed out to me. Usually, a rower goes to the club, gets in his boat, rows, and goes. It is not that easy to engage, and we have some thorny issues in terms of navigation up there, the safety navigation in the upper river. The work that Bruce Richardson, Jim Trimmer and others have done we can develop. I do not want to characterise the small groups as everybody saying we are not doing a good job. I think that would be absolutely wrong, but I think we can do more there.

Murad Qureshi (AM): That is true. Yes, it is just simply whilst you have mentioned you do not have too many complaints, maybe the reality is that the mechanism for appeals is quite cumbersome. Could you explain what the procedure is to deal with complaints and appeals?

Richard Everitt (Chief Executive, PLA): Yes. Essentially, the complaints are dealt with first off with the part of the organisation that is directly involved. If it is a navigation issue, it will be Bruce Richardson and his Harbour Master team. If it does not get satisfactorily resolved, it moves through the executive, obviously to me. Ultimately, it will go to the Chairman and the Board. Each time, there are responses to the particular issue, but the Board is made aware, where there are serious issues of complaint that have not been resolved, and the Chairman then personally gets engaged in them, as indeed he was with the case that Ms Bray raised.

David Cartlidge (PLA): I think beyond that, there is then, again under the Guide to Good Governance for Trust Ports, then people can complain to the Department if they are not satisfied with our performance. Then, after that, there are the sort of statutory responses: we are subject to judicial review; we are subject to appeals under various parts of the Act which we have touched on in different ways. We would be failing if everybody got that far, but the point is that those checks and balances are there and act as a restraint on us, really, to perform.

Murad Qureshi (AM): Okay, you have explained the process. Is there any point at which you can go to a third party? I do not know: a local government ombudsman, housing ombudsman are the equivalents I can think of in other areas over the years.

David Cartlidge (PLA): There is not an ombudsman, as such, and it is a matter that has been discussed, should I say, in the past. It was discussed as part of the trust ports review which resulted in the Guide to Governance coming out. I think the view was then – and that is why the complaint to the Secretary of State was put in, because of the nature of trust ports being under the auspices of the Department for Transport, in whatever form it happens to be this week. That is where it resides, really, and that is where the, if you like, democratic responsibility comes in.

In one specific case, we were asked if we wanted to go to the dispute-resolution service, and our legal advice was that it would be not appropriate, because the problem is that if you enter into that sort of process, the thing is then binding, and what we could find ourselves bound in is something

24 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005 that is wrong legally. Therefore, the members would be placed in a difficult position to find themselves bound by a process that puts them in default of their statutory responsibilities. It is something that obviously can be reviewed from time to time and should be.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): Right. Brimming over. Thank you very much for coming in today. I think we have all learnt a lot more about the PLA, and no doubt we will see you again on some occasion.

Richard Everitt (Chief Executive, PLA): Can I thank the Committee and yourself for today. It was a very good opportunity for us to talk about the PLA and the many things it does. We will make sure you have a copy of our just-produced annual review. I think you have it already this time.

25 Transport Committee, 21st April 2005