CaRT's first year performance

[cotswoldsman]

I think the tide is going to turn. I would be quite happy to bet on change for the better. I think our new CEO is going to make things a lot different. God knows what Victor and co will have to write about then...... maybe branch out to fairy stories.

As I said I will stick my neck on the block I think Richard Parry is the best thing that has happened for a few years.

[Guest]

..... maybe branch out to fairy stories.

I thought they already had.....

[alan_fincher]

God knows what Victor and co will have to write about then...... maybe branch out to fairy stories.

That's hardly diversifying!......

[Ange]

As I said I will stick my neck on the block I think Richard Parry is the best thing that has happened for a few years.

I agree. Catherine Rogers from CRT spent a day on our boat recently as part of the "spend a day with a boater" initiative and her description of his energy, dynamism and positivity gave us great hope. She was very clever and clued up as well - recently head hunted from the private sector we believe.

 

Edited to change unfortunate wording

Edited September 9, 2013 by Ange

[NigelMoore]

I hope you are right but it's a huge (probably impossible) task to change the culture of an organisation just from the CEO if all the existing senior management remain in place. Perhaps we are expecting too much.

 

Agreed. As others have said [and this is not to disparage the comments of the optimists], even a new CEO with the right ideas will face some tasks which will be incredibly difficult. It is one thing to go out and about pro-actively putting a finger on the pulse of waterways users in a fresh new approach – another thing altogether treading the delicate path of manoeuvring around the policies of entrenched inherited staff in high places. Worse still when the one man above you still remains from the old school.

 

Then too, no one person, however well meaning and talented, can hope to embrace the expertise contained in all the fields required; inevitably he will have to rely to a large degree on the advice of departments dealing with areas outside of his expertise, without having a touchstone whereby to test the worth of that advice.

 

I have been doing my level best to engage Mr Parry in talks as to how to avoid continuing litigation through the courts over a number of issues that ought never to have been entertained, and have been met with a wall of silence throughout the 3 months of that endeavour. It is not hard to imagine whose advice in that regard is being heeded; meanwhile the expenditure of yet more tens of thousands of pounds on pointless lawsuits have already been authorised since he took office.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Agreed. As others have said [and this is not to disparage the comments of the optimists], even a new CEO with the right ideas will face some tasks which will be incredibly difficult. It is one thing to go out and about pro-actively putting a finger on the pulse of waterways users in a fresh new approach – another thing altogether treading the delicate path of manoeuvring around the policies of entrenched inherited staff in high places. Worse still when the one man above you still remains from the old school.

 

Then too, no one person, however well meaning and talented, can hope to embrace the expertise contained in all the fields required; inevitably he will have to rely to a large degree on the advice of departments dealing with areas outside of his expertise, without having a touchstone whereby to test the worth of that advice.

 

I have been doing my level best to engage Mr Parry in talks as to how to avoid continuing litigation through the courts over a number of issues that ought never to have been entertained, and have been met with a wall of silence throughout the 3 months of that endeavour. It is not hard to imagine whose advice in that regard is being heeded; meanwhile the expenditure of yet more tens of thousands of pounds on pointless lawsuits have already been authorised since he took office.

Nigel it might seem like 3 months to you but he has only been in the job for 2 months and 10 days. I think he will listen and make his own decisions and yes we all take advise at times. I think things will change just give him time

[Tuscan]

Nigel it might seem like 3 months to you but he has only been in the job for 2 months and 10 days. I think he will listen and make his own decisions and yes we all take advise at times. I think things will change just give him time

 

It all depends who he listens to I guess ...........

[cotswoldsman]

It all depends who he listens to I guess ...........

Not wanting to seem like the number one member of his fan club what I meant was he listens to what is going on as apposed to listening to one single person. He asks questions that maybe some people would rather not answer. Look I just think he has a completely different way of doing things he is his own man. As I said I am happy to put my head on the block and give him my vote of confidence

[NigelMoore]

Nigel it might seem like 3 months to you but he has only been in the job for 2 months and 10 days. I think he will listen and make his own decisions and yes we all take advise at times. I think things will change just give him time

 

I am giving him time, and I believe that I have acknowledged the source of his difficulties. I realise that he has not been in office that long, but like you, I wrote well before he took over, in the realisation that he would be overwhelmed with a broad front of tasks once he did, so in fact [to be pedantic], it is well over three months since I first suggested resolving certain matters beforehand.

 

Unfortunately events roll on implacably, and if not at least temporarily halted by someone in a position to, then people and their departments carry on with their existing projects to the detriment both of the organisation’s purse and its reputation.

 

The practical consequence of not stepping in promptly once in a position to do so, has been another irrecoverable £30,000 minimum being spent on their favourite QC, in a fruitless and dishonourable continuation of efforts to remove me from the waterways [at no profit to the organisation], while at the same time passing up the opportunity to instigate in-house investigations into worse behaviour by BW [of nationwide effect] prior to the matter falling under inevitable outside scrutiny.

 

It doesn’t matter, in other words, how long I sit back twiddling my thumbs giving him time, in confidence that he will eventually accomplish what he needs to; the ticking clock inexorably extracts its own price.

 

I would be feeling more sanguine about his ability and/or desire to resolve the 'old guard' issues if I wasn't faced with a continuing wall of silence. It costs little to send off a yes, no or maybe to offers of discussion; I would never have said as much as I have here, had I received even a hint of some readiness to engage. I hear in the silence an echo of Hales' last message to me - "I consider these matters sub-judice and best left to the lawyers."

[cotswoldsman]

 

I am giving him time, and I believe that I have acknowledged the source of his difficulties. I realise that he has not been in office that long, but like you, I wrote well before he took over, in the realisation that he would be overwhelmed with a broad front of tasks once he did, so in fact [to be pedantic], it is well over three months since I first suggested resolving certain matters beforehand.

 

Unfortunately events roll on implacably, and if not at least temporarily halted by someone in a position to, then people and their departments carry on with their existing projects to the detriment both of the organisation’s purse and its reputation.

 

The practical consequence of not stepping in promptly once in a position to do so, has been another irrecoverable £30,000 minimum being spent on their favourite QC, in a fruitless and dishonourable continuation of efforts to remove me from the waterways [at no profit to the organisation], while at the same time passing up the opportunity to instigate in-house investigations into worse behaviour by BW [of nationwide effect] prior to the matter falling under inevitable outside scrutiny.

 

It doesn’t matter, in other words, how long I sit back twiddling my thumbs giving him time, in confidence that he will eventually accomplish what he needs to; the ticking clock inexorably extracts its own price.

 

I would be feeling more sanguine about his ability and/or desire to resolve the 'old guard' issues if I wasn't faced with a continuing wall of silence. It costs little to send off a yes, no or maybe to offers of discussion; I would never have said as much as I have here, had I received even a hint of some readiness to engage. I hear in the silence an echo of Hales' last message to me - "I consider these matters sub-judice and best left to the lawyers."

Wait and see maybe he has taken note of what you have said you never know things might well change with how things are done with the legal side you are not the only person campaigning or should I say talking about looking at how enforcement is carried out. As I keep saying give him time.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

I am giving him time, and I believe that I have acknowledged the source of his difficulties. I realise that he has not been in office that long, but like you, I wrote well before he took over, in the realisation that he would be overwhelmed with a broad front of tasks once he did, so in fact [to be pedantic], it is well over three months since I first suggested resolving certain matters beforehand.

 

Unfortunately events roll on implacably, and if not at least temporarily halted by someone in a position to, then people and their departments carry on with their existing projects to the detriment both of the organisation’s purse and its reputation.

 

The practical consequence of not stepping in promptly once in a position to do so, has been another irrecoverable £30,000 minimum being spent on their favourite QC, in a fruitless and dishonourable continuation of efforts to remove me from the waterways [at no profit to the organisation], while at the same time passing up the opportunity to instigate in-house investigations into worse behaviour by BW [of nationwide effect] prior to the matter falling under inevitable outside scrutiny.

 

It doesn’t matter, in other words, how long I sit back twiddling my thumbs giving him time, in confidence that he will eventually accomplish what he needs to; the ticking clock inexorably extracts its own price.

 

I would be feeling more sanguine about his ability and/or desire to resolve the 'old guard' issues if I wasn't faced with a continuing wall of silence. It costs little to send off a yes, no or maybe to offers of discussion; I would never have said as much as I have here, had I received even a hint of some readiness to engage. I hear in the silence an echo of Hales' last message to me - "I consider these matters sub-judice and best left to the lawyers."

A quick win for Richard Parry would be to get rid of Nigel Johnson immediately.

 

CaRT has already said that, in effect, Johnson is surplus to requirements and will not be replaced when he retires in a couple of years.

 

Getting rid of Johnson early would send a clear message that he intends to bring about change.

 

 

[Tiny]

As someone who has walked,cycled,fished and boated BW/CaRT's waterways for over 50 years (and volunteered on them for over ten years), I found it quite amusing that I should be told to sell my boat, thus depriving CaRT of much needed income.

 

Is it ok if I carry on with the other three activities?

 

Actually, there is very little that can be said that is positive in the accounts apart from boaters do pay their way (but we knew that anyway) and CaRT made more money out of the Olympics than planned.

 

I suggest anyone wanting a positive spin should read what Tony Hales says in the annual report.

 

 

But will we hear what he says in his report given it is in a secret meeting that we are not suppose to know about. At this point one wonders how anyone cannot fear the worst about Cart given they are so secretive.

[NigelMoore]

A quick win for Richard Parry would be to get rid of Nigel Johnson immediately.

. . . Getting rid of Johnson early would send a clear message that he intends to bring about change.

 

Absolutely true. What I would repeat, is that I am giving Mr Parry time, but events and his legal department are not. I and others have suggested that for the new CEO to have the freedom to bring about a change in ethos, the old guard must be got rid of. Leaving the issue of Hales aside for the moment, for so long as Nigel Johnson continues [in a position which CART has already acknowledged it has no need of], then his influence and advice will colour Mr Parry’s decisions.

 

It was as well for Mr Johnson that no further action was taken over the threatened libel suit against the KANDA website for calling him ‘discredited’ – because against such a charge, truth is a perfect defence.

 

I’ve previously posted the exchange where Mr Johnson demonstrated that [on his evidence] he had not earned the £28,000 bonus for drafting new byelaws, but there was plenty of discrediting in the sealed judgment:

 

Johnson’s initial [and only] response at the commencement of the above s.8 proceedings was specifically criticised by HHJ Hildyard –

 

“BWB's claims of untrammelled right, including Mr Johnson's initial insistence (as recorded in an e-mail from him to the Claimant dated 6^th August 2007) that "all rights of navigation on BW managed waterways, whether public or private, arising under any local enactment (which includes the 1793 Act to which you refer) were abolished by section 105 of the Transport Act 1968" was not only wrong (as BWB now accept): it put the dispute on a confrontational and legalistic track.”

 

For the Head of the entire BW’s [& now CART’s] legal department to be characterised as ‘confrontational and legalistic’ is bad enough; to be wrong as to the law on top of that, is rather devastating for a man in his position. [Correction: not devastating; his skin is thick enough and no-one is prepared to act on the judge’s observation].

 

In respect of the breach of a court undertaking, my complaint over which had been ignored by Johnson and his team –

 

“Even if the breach is in one sense minor and the damage is slight, the breach of any Court undertaking is a serious matter. To my mind somewhat surprisingly, neither Mr Johnson nor any other witness for BWB dealt with the matter at all in his Witness Statements. When the matter came before me, I considered that no adequate explanation had been offered, and I required further evidence on the matter to be filed.”

 

What isn’t mentioned in the judgment is that the judge refused to release Mr Johnson from his oath for the entirety of the trial. No-one in Mr Johnson’s position can be ignorant of the seriousness of what had been done; doing an ostrich act was entirely unacceptable – especially when a simple apology for a mistake could have settled the matter. My complaint had been that the extended silence left it open as to whether this was a mistake, or considered policy – which was as unsettling for all of us as it was for one of the boater tenants who fled the scene at considerable financial loss.

 

“Mr Johnson now accepts that no formal substantive response was ever provided to the Claimant. Mr Johnson offers an explanation that "due to the impending Geronimo trial the parties were all focussing on other issues post September 2008"; this seems to me to be, at best, lame. However, he does accept in his third witness statement that this "was clearly not acceptable”. I agree.”

 

The legal head of the whole organisation considered BW’s violation of a court undertaking not worth bothering to address; offering lame excuses [and even then, only because put on notice by a High Court judge] for an action that was admitted to be unacceptable - how creditable is that?

 

This is the man still leading the legal department, and advising the CEO and Board of Trustees. For so long as they take that advice, CART will continue the ‘confrontational and legalistic’ path that Johnson favours, irrespective of his ‘wrong’ interpretation of the relevant law.

 

What chance does the new Mr Parry have, for so long as Mr Johnson is his legal advisor?

[NigelMoore]

For those unfortunate enough to have need of keeping track, or are otherwise inclined to follow the wider picture ‘behind the scenes’, the Government Reports themselves can be of interest. The Lords’ Secondary Legislation Committee Report on the first year of the Public Bodies Act 2011 is informative:

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldsecleg/90/9003.htm#n25

 

The Statutory Tests for making Orders under the Bill are worth noting –

 

A public bodies order can only be made if the Minister considers that:

• The order serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions, having regard to -

a) efficiency,

b ) effectiveness,

c) economy, and

d) securing appropriate accountability to Ministers.

• The order does not remove any necessary protection.
• The order does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise.

That last is of particular interest; I can see nowhere that test is met with the removal of BW, although some interesting possibilities are contained in the Benyon interview.

 

The Lords, however, make special note of the first:

 

“Section 8 of the 2011 Act sets out the statutory tests the Minister must meet before making an order. The responsibility lies with the Minister to put a convincing case to Parliament (where possible with evidence) to show how the tests have been met; it is not sufficient for the Explanatory Document simply to assert that the tests have been met.” . . . “The most significant example of an Explanatory Document lacking a persuasive explanation arose from the two draft orders relating to the British Waterways Board. Having initially considered the case put forward in the Explanatory Document, we sought further written information from the Government but were still not persuaded that the Government had made the case for reform.”

 

Because they were dissatisfied, the Lords set in motion a 60 day procedure wherein they sought the Minister’s oral assurances, which boil down to a curious cusp –

 

“During that oral evidence session, it became clear that a key part of the case for reform was the significant increase in volunteering which would result from the organisation transferring to charitable status. Had this been explained effectively in the original Explanatory Document, the draft order could have been cleared under the 40 day procedure.”

 

So it was only the expressed belief of Mr Benyon [with Evans & Johnson in support] that volunteers would flood the new organisation to its considerably enhanced profitability, that carried the day! How the Lords derived that comfort from all the waffle of the interview astonishes me. Most alarming from the oral evidence was the obvious contradiction between what Benyon said and what Evans said.

 

Benyon predicted a decline in the condition of the canal infrastructure until around 2020 when the situation would improve. When asking Evans for confirmation of that, Evans replied: “The condition of the assets deteriorates a bit and then levels off but is stable.” That doesn’t sound like confirmation that conditions would improve starting from 2020; it sounds to me as though they expect the deteriorated state of neglected waterways infrastructure to remain constant in whatever degraded state it reaches after the next 7 years of neglect!

 

Another alarming ingredient was Benyon’s misapprehension as to the extent of BW’s powers, which he felt happy about being transferred to the new charity. He understood that s.8 could be applied even to a boat that “is an unsightly vessel that a local waterways manager wants to remove.”

 

Rather sets the tone for the whole ghastly exercise.

 

The message is clear enough – those who want the waterways to survive at all will have to follow the example set by the earliest IWA members, who organised droves of people to do the necessary remedial work at their own cost, even in the face of official opposition. The only way in which the new charity will benefit that process at all, is in the affirmed ‘mission statement’ that such volunteers will be relied on - and to which aspiration they might be held. Fingers crossed.

 

p.s One of the closing contributions at the Benyon interview came from Nigel Johnson:

 

“There are areas of contention in terms of detailed interpretation of the existing legislation, which are subject to litigation at the moment. That is ongoing, and will be seen through in its normal event, and we await the outcome. To date, in all the enforcement cases that have gone to court, it has been found that our procedures and processes are in compliance with the Human Rights Act.”

 

Of course, those procedures and processes have to be followed for the statement to be correct even insofar as it is. Johnson made this statement to the Committee within months of BW having been found [in the judgment quoted in the previous post] to be BOTH in violation of those procedures AND wrong in their understanding of the existing legislation – AND further, guilty of violating boaters’ Human Rights. By any standards, his statement was totally and disingenuously misleading, and any influence Johnson’s contribution may have had on the Committee should now be looked at askance.

 

Mr Parry has just responded to my emails, as of about 5 minutes ago, so I am glad I held off sending what I thought might be my last-gasp effort! We’ll see whether it progresses from there.

[Tiny]

Even providing any Minister actually knows anything about his subject from my experience with our local MP - now a minister he is so busy that he has no time to investigate himself and has to believe what he is told by underlings while also doing as he is told by them who appointed him.

Given this ministers are easily manipulated by their advisors - as long the advice falls in with government requirements. As government requirements currently are not to spend money in areas like the waterways this means given the information he is fed by Hales the minister is happy to let things continue as they are and accept the BS as being the truth.

Our local MP operates in a similar manner with advisors telling him the 'truth' while the public have to send their objections to his staff - the main one of which being related to the gentleman who most public persons complain about. Meanwhile on the government front, to keep his job the minister has to suppress his stated beliefs and only do that which does not rock the boat. Needless to say he will lose a lot of votes come election time but being in a safe seat he should squeeze in.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

For those unfortunate enough to have need of keeping track, or are otherwise inclined to follow the wider picture ‘behind the scenes’, the Government Reports themselves can be of interest. The Lords’ Secondary Legislation Committee Report on the first year of the Public Bodies Act 2011 is informative:

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldsecleg/90/9003.htm#n25

 

The Statutory Tests for making Orders under the Bill are worth noting –

 

A public bodies order can only be made if the Minister considers that:

• The order serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions, having regard to -

a) efficiency,

b ) effectiveness,

c) economy, and

d) securing appropriate accountability to Ministers.

• The order does not remove any necessary protection.
• The order does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise.

That last is of particular interest; I can see nowhere that test is met with the removal of BW, although some interesting possibilities are contained in the Benyon interview.

 

The Lords, however, make special note of the first:

 

“Section 8 of the 2011 Act sets out the statutory tests the Minister must meet before making an order. The responsibility lies with the Minister to put a convincing case to Parliament (where possible with evidence) to show how the tests have been met; it is not sufficient for the Explanatory Document simply to assert that the tests have been met.” . . . “The most significant example of an Explanatory Document lacking a persuasive explanation arose from the two draft orders relating to the British Waterways Board. Having initially considered the case put forward in the Explanatory Document, we sought further written information from the Government but were still not persuaded that the Government had made the case for reform.”

 

Because they were dissatisfied, the Lords set in motion a 60 day procedure wherein they sought the Minister’s oral assurances, which boil down to a curious cusp –

 

“During that oral evidence session, it became clear that a key part of the case for reform was the significant increase in volunteering which would result from the organisation transferring to charitable status. Had this been explained effectively in the original Explanatory Document, the draft order could have been cleared under the 40 day procedure.”

 

So it was only the expressed belief of Mr Benyon [with Evans & Johnson in support] that volunteers would flood the new organisation to its considerably enhanced profitability, that carried the day! How the Lords derived that comfort from all the waffle of the interview astonishes me. Most alarming from the oral evidence was the obvious contradiction between what Benyon said and what Evans said.

 

Benyon predicted a decline in the condition of the canal infrastructure until around 2020 when the situation would improve. When asking Evans for confirmation of that, Evans replied: “The condition of the assets deteriorates a bit and then levels off but is stable.” That doesn’t sound like confirmation that conditions would improve starting from 2020; it sounds to me as though they expect the deteriorated state of neglected waterways infrastructure to remain constant in whatever degraded state it reaches after the next 7 years of neglect!

 

Another alarming ingredient was Benyon’s misapprehension as to the extent of BW’s powers, which he felt happy about being transferred to the new charity. He understood that s.8 could be applied even to a boat that “is an unsightly vessel that a local waterways manager wants to remove.”

 

Rather sets the tone for the whole ghastly exercise.

 

The message is clear enough – those who want the waterways to survive at all will have to follow the example set by the earliest IWA members, who organised droves of people to do the necessary remedial work at their own cost, even in the face of official opposition. The only way in which the new charity will benefit that process at all, is in the affirmed ‘mission statement’ that such volunteers will be relied on - and to which aspiration they might be held. Fingers crossed.

 

p.s One of the closing contributions at the Benyon interview came from Nigel Johnson:

 

“There are areas of contention in terms of detailed interpretation of the existing legislation, which are subject to litigation at the moment. That is ongoing, and will be seen through in its normal event, and we await the outcome. To date, in all the enforcement cases that have gone to court, it has been found that our procedures and processes are in compliance with the Human Rights Act.”

 

Of course, those procedures and processes have to be followed for the statement to be correct even insofar as it is. Johnson made this statement to the Committee within months of BW having been found [in the judgment quoted in the previous post] to be BOTH in violation of those procedures AND wrong in their understanding of the existing legislation – AND further, guilty of violating boaters’ Human Rights. By any standards, his statement was totally and disingenuously misleading, and any influence Johnson’s contribution may have had on the Committee should now be looked at askance.

 

Mr Parry has just responded to my emails, as of about 5 minutes ago, so I am glad I held off sending what I thought might be my last-gasp effort! We’ll see whether it progresses from there.

 

 

Charities are not allowed to include the contribution of volunteers in their statement of financial affairs because of the difficulty of defining monetary value (volunteer lock keepers are a case in point).

 

I am therefore left wondering why their Lordships thought that an increase in volunteering was a key part of the case for reform.

 

I suppose that being the only reason given, they had to accept it!

Volunteer days have ended up as one of the key performance indicators (KPI's) which have to be met to ensure that Defra continue to fund at the maximum level agreed.

 

Unfortunately, volunteer days are less than 75% of the KPI target.

 

Hopefully, Defra will not notice this failure and the other KPI failures mentioned by John Dodwell in his 'boaters don't pay their way' outburst.

 

If they do, and they want to get nasty about it, it is possible for them under the funding agreement to reduce the £39m this year by up to £3m.

 

 

[NigelMoore]

One year on, and an indication of how far the previous and still present management has taken advantage of the liberties enjoyed as a non-governmental body, lies in the approach taken to Freedom of Information.

 

For all the joyous celebration of voluntary transparency so publicly trumpeted, CART have been working assiduously behind the scenes, to analyse and distort the wording of the Transition Order coupled with the amended Freedom of Information Act, to incrementally narrow the sort of information supplied, until reaching the present point where they have slammed the door shut on all information held respecting British Waterways [unless they see some value to themselves in doing so voluntarily].

 

This prospect had alarmed so many, during progression of the Pubic Bodies Bill, that DEFRA had to launch a further public consultation solely devoted to this topic. BW wanted total freedom from revealing their records; the public wanted at least the minimal accountability that exercise of the FOIA provisions enabled. The public “win” appeared to be a fair recognition that insofar as the new charity fulfilled the functions formerly carried out by BW, those would remain susceptible to the FOIA.

 

I received an initial response to a complaint this morning from the Information Commissioner which I have yet to digest fully; but in essence he has accepted CART’s position that because ‘British Waterways’ was taken off the FOIA list once abolished, nothing to do with BW is any longer subject to disclosure.

 

Further, insofar as the way they run the whole employment side of things, with appointment of managers etc being controlled by the ‘Articles of Association’ rather than by the BW statutory procedures, they claim that all such management decisions and payment schedules can no longer be considered as functions inherited by BW, so are likewise exempt.

 

Whether the rather tortuous legal arguments hold up or not is perhaps beside the point – CART has, over the last year, worked up this way to circumvent the clear intention to make them a transparently accountable body. That indicates the particular mind-set of those currently still employed in the business of keeping things under wraps.

 

Many questions directed at CART under the auspices of the FOIA have to do with the conduct of those CART employees in top management who continue to drive the organisation, while now free from the degree of accountability they once laboured under. It seems now that they have become protected by this veil of secrecy, despite the documentation requested having to do, not with CART per se but with the ‘former’ BW.

 

Leaving aside the nonsensical costs argument often promoted– the real question to be answered respecting this topic is WHY? What is the perceived need? All we can say at this remove from the bad old BW, is that, as expected by the Cassandras, much accountability has been lost, with more to come; this evidences: not greater public control and involvement, but very much less.

[Mick and Maggie]

I can't help but wonder if all the 'smoke and mirrors' that is being practiced would come up for scrutiny under the Charity Commissions 'risk framework' procedure. I imagine that the charity commission will be an interesting spectator to the events currently unfolding. I could imagine them wanting to investigate whether any abuse of the bye-laws has been done either with or without the full knowledge of the Trustees.

[NigelMoore]

I can't help but wonder if all the 'smoke and mirrors' that is being practiced would come up for scrutiny under the Charity Commissions 'risk framework' procedure. I imagine that the charity commission will be an interesting spectator to the events currently unfolding. I could imagine them wanting to investigate whether any abuse of the bye-laws has been done either with or without the full knowledge of the Trustees.

 

I fear that the Charities Commission will hardly care less. I wrote to them with my reservations about the new body early on; was told that there had been, as at that time, no application to them, so they would inform me when submissions were appropriate – and that was the last I heard from them.

 

Charities are, in any event, not subject to the FOIA, not exercising statutory functions; the Commission would surely then, have no interest in CART's claims to exemption.

 

Since my last observations on the ever more restrictive interpretation of the FOIA by CART, there has been a yet further development – mere management of the navigation is decreed [by CART] to be outside the terms of the Act.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/boat_data_held_by_locks#outgoing-300358

 

A Ms Ann McNeil asked what information was recorded by lock-keepers on the CART rivers; the answer? -

 

“As it stands currently I believe that your request is likely to fall outside of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act as the information you have requested relates to the general administration and organisational management and the general conduct of the business of the Canal & River Trust rather than its statutory functions.”

 

One might well ask how the statutory function of regulating traffic through locks falls outside of the FOIA?! Ms McNeil’s response to CART’s Sarina Young – “What do you mean by this? Please could you list in laymans terms the issues that are General admin and organisational manaagment which would fall outside the scope and list in laymans terms the statutory functions which fall within the scope.”

 

We can be assured that the eventual response will be every bit as slippery and unresponsive as usual.

 

While the Commission wouldn't be interested in the other point anyway, I’m not sure that there has been any abuse of the byelaws by CART – they don’t bother with them; providing as they do, only for fines, and containing no useful provisions as CART see it, for controlling mooring practices anyway, I know of not a single action being taken on them. The byelaws on moorings control that we have been discussing are in draft only, having been withdrawn from the 1990 Bill and never having made it into any form of primary or secondary legislation.

 

But, whatever is going on, is going on with the approval and support of the trustees, led and informed, doubtless, by the “excellent legal advice” of Nigel Johnson.