Orwellian

Not quite right. They registered everything they could satisfy the Land Registry they had good title to. BW started voluntary registration years ago. When CRT were created they were obliged by the transfer legislation/agreements to register the Infrastructure Trust property within a certain timescale which was completed.

Here's a link to the amended Schedule 12 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/73/schedule/12 But despite it's claims it doesn't seem to take account of Schedule 2 of the British Waterways Act 1983.

But be careful as there were former 'remainder' waterways that have been reclassified to Cruising since 1968 so the original schedule is not wholly correct.

My understanding is that the only one of the executive team to retain their former BW bonus payments is Stuart Mills, Chief Investment Officer, who has consistently earned more than his boss as a result.

And so what. Nobody does the job of Prime Minister for the salary. It's the power and being part of history.

Only for as long as the funding agreement requires it. It is a contractual arrangement not a permanent change in the law.

My mistake. Thanks for correcting. But my main point stands.

CRT have no ability to control access to the towpaths. Many are public footpaths and the funding agreement with Government requires that they provide free and unfettered access for walking and cycling to all their towpaths.

Thanks Allan that's interesting. Lot's of Government pressure on CRT to accept their 'offer'.

Does this mean that ONS are still classifying CRT as a public non financial corporation? I had assumed the delay in announcing the post 2027 grant was because they were waiting until the status had been resolved by reducing the degree of government control and leaving CRT as a charity outside the public sector.

I detect the hand of Nigel Johnson the then Legal Director, in this piece of legislation and, to be fair it is what a prudent lawyer should have done to protect his employers position. Although Parry said they weren't contemplating any such action these legal provisions might prove useful. Better a smaller viable waterway network than no network at all?

The original Transport Act 1968 provided for the relevant minister to reclassify a waterway between Commercial, Cruising & the remainder. The British Waterways Transfer Order 2012 which transferred the waterways and statutory functions to CRT added provisions which gave CRT the right to request the minister make such reclassifications and a duty on the minister when making their decision to take into account the financial position of CRT. It looks like both parties were anticipating the very situation we are now seeing.

British Waterways under the leadership of Hales & Evans actively campaigned to be free of the 'contraints' of being in the public sector. They lobbied hard the then coalition government and were ultimately successful. So CRT were not 'handed' the situation in the passive sense they rather snatched the government's hand off. They also signed up to ending the very government financial support they are now saying they need for the waterways to have a viable future.

To be fair Allan CRT were able to invest in property without the previous BW restriction that it had to be 'waterway related' and to invest in non property assets. Whether this resulted in an improved performance is arguable. The value of the property portfolio has doubled since 2012 though.

Charitable giving was CRT's only new income stream. All the others were inherited from BW. And isn't the case that it has always run at a loss?

I hope you have referred the matter to the Information Commissioner.

The fact that they believed there was commercial potential in freight traffic and equated it with exploiting the property assets, even in 1990, is enough to discredit the whole report.

Doubling the amount just announced for CRT wouldn't put much of a dent in this surplus.

Thanks for clarifying that Allan.

So it's what you believe to be the case not a proven fact.

Are you sure that expenditure figure is correct? The latest Annual Report & Accounts show it as £13.4. Not hugely different but it's best to be correct.

Except that Local Authorities barely have enough money to carry out their existing statutory duties. Why should they take on somebody else's problems?

Which canals are these?

When and where was this announcement made?