Equality Commision Investigates C&RT

[Teasel]

What do you consider to be the maximum distance that it reasonable for children to have to travel to school?

 

It's not for me to answer that - but the government Statutory walking distances eligibility provide free transport for all pupils of compulsory school age (5-16) if their nearest suitable school is:

• beyond 2 miles (if below the age of 8); or

• beyond 3 miles (if aged between 8 and 16)

 

So I guess we could use that as a guide.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445407/Home_to_School_Travel_and_Transport_Guidance.pdfp9

[KevMc]

What do you consider to be the maximum distance that it reasonable for children to have to travel to school?

 

Personally I can't see a problem with kids travelling for up to an hour to school.

[Jerra]

 

It's not for me to answer that - but the government Statutory walking distances eligibility provide free transport for all pupils of compulsory school age (5-16) if their nearest suitable school is:

• beyond 2 miles (if below the age of 8); or

• beyond 3 miles (if aged between 8 and 16)

 

So I guess we could use that as a guide.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445407/Home_to_School_Travel_and_Transport_Guidance.pdfp9

That would make problems up here. The local secondary school draws from 17 to 20 miles away. There was a case a few years ago when all the secondary schools were full where pupils very nearly had to travel 35 miles. That was solved by one school agreeing to take them in temporary buildings.

[Iain_S]

 

Yes - they would accept that there are people living on boats on the waterways whose rights may be adversely affected by their interpretation of the law, and their enforcement policy. They would accept that they have obligations in relation to these.

 

They would identify what those rights might be and how they may be affected, and then consider the purpose of the policy and interpretation.

They would need to make sure that any policy they intended to impose met the 'proportionality' test - that is to say they would see whether the (seemingly) conflicting obligations around leisure use and children's rights have been balanced proportionately.

 

This would include looking into any other means by which they could meet their objective of fairness to boaters which does not interfere with children's rights to education. That could mean more mooring rings, rubbish, sanitary, water points, dredging etc.. to make more areas of the waterways available for mooring. It would also mean accepting that they have no power to set distance requirements under the 95 Act, since this means that the distance requirements they set are 'unlawful' and therefore not a proportionate interference with children's rights within the meaning of the human rights act.

 

They need to balance rights and obligations when they set the guidance.

 

 

(snip)

 

One can assume, I think, that the purpose of such a policy would be compliance, by C&RT and licence holders, with section 17 of the Waterways Act 1995.

 

In constructing such a policy, one must consider the intent behind section 17, and what mischief it is designed to remedy. 17 (3) (c ) distinguishes between boats which have a mooring, and those which do not, and are "used bona fide for navigation etc", which do not require to have a mooring.

 

Section 17 (3) (c ) (ii) allowed BW (as was) to issue a licence to boats which had no use for a mooring, and did not have one. I would suggest that the purpose behind this was to cater for boats which moved around the system so much that they could not use a permanent mooring.

 

The stated policy is, therefore, that if a boat requires to remain in the same area for reasons of employment, education, etc, it should have a mooring. If the boater with children requiring an education chooses not to have a mooring, perhaps it is he/she who needs to consider their own policy?

 

The power to set distances under the 1995 Act arises from the requirement for the boater to "satisfy the Board". Distance is one element of navigation, and it seems only fair that the "Board" publish what will satisfy them that the vessel is being used for navigation, rather than only a place to live.

 

It is not only CRT who need to balance rights and obligations.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Iain_S

[Hawkmoth]

 

Whilst 'harsh' - a similar argument could be put forward for those you are so strongly defending.

 

If they are finding it difficult to 'get the kids to school' then take a mooring or move off the water, then they won't have the problem that "their children are tired and cold from having to travel further than is sustainable for them to school".

 

(Not sure what that means they wont have to do it anyway).

But, as has been said (by me and others) maybe they can't find a mooring near their work and/or school; maybe they can't afford a mooring in that place. They have taken to the water as, possibly, a last resort to either no home or B&B or expensive poor rented accommodation.

As I said I don't have the answer, I just feel/hope that there is a better answer out there that doesn't involve just taking their home and displacing them and their kids. If they simply refusing to move on shear bloody mindedness (no kids, no medical reason) then the picture changes and enforcement is probably the answer.

Bob

[Murflynn]

 

One can assume, I think, that the purpose of such a policy would be compliance, by C&RT and licence holders, with section 17 of the Waterways Act 1995.

 

In constructing such a policy, one must consider the intent behind section 17, and what mischief it is designed to remedy. 17 (3) (c ) distinguishes between boats which have a mooring, and those which do not, and are "used bona fide for navigation etc", which do not require to have a mooring.

 

Section 17 (3) (c ) (ii) allowed BW (as was) to issue a licence to boats which had no use for a mooring, and did not have one. I would suggest that the purpose behind this was to cater for boats which moved around the system so much that they could not use a permanent mooring.

 

The stated policy is, therefore, that if a boat requires to remain in the same area for reasons of employment, education, etc, it should have a mooring. If the boater with children requiring an education chooses not to have a mooring, perhaps it is he/she who needs to consider their own policy?

 

The power to set distances under the 1995 Act arises from the requirement for the boater to "satisfy the Board". Distance is one element of navigation, and it seems only fair that the "Board" publish what will satisfy them that the vessel is being used for navigation, rather than only a place to live.

 

It is not only CRT who need to balance rights and obligations.

sounds like a reasonable argument.

[ditchcrawler]

You seem to have missed out a meaning.

 

Currently, it would appear that CaRT take 'place' to mean a kilometre length of canal as this is what is used for sightings.

 

 

I think some people have been in trouble for staying on the BCM for any length of time

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

It's not for me to answer that - but the government Statutory walking distances eligibility provide free transport for all pupils of compulsory school age (5-16) if their nearest suitable school is:

• beyond 2 miles (if below the age of 8); or

• beyond 3 miles (if aged between 8 and 16)

 

So I guess we could use that as a guide.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445407/Home_to_School_Travel_and_Transport_Guidance.pdfp9

That does open up an interesting can of worm when looking at your link. To begin with someone living in a bricks and mortar home has no expectation that their children have the 'right' to walk to school, so why should a boat dweller be any different? If they are moored more than 3 miles from the school that the child attends then, according to your link, they would qualify for transportation provided by the Local Authority, so surely that is the solution. Obtain a school bus pass and, on the occasions that they are moored some distance from the school, catch the bus. Of course this does require parental input, like looking up the bus timetables and working out which buses their offspring need to catch, but this is task of may other parents, so where is the problem?

[Graham Davis]

 

It's not for me to answer that - but the government Statutory walking distances eligibility provide free transport for all pupils of compulsory school age (5-16) if their nearest suitable school is:

• beyond 2 miles (if below the age of 8); or

• beyond 3 miles (if aged between 8 and 16)

 

So I guess we could use that as a guide.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445407/Home_to_School_Travel_and_Transport_Guidance.pdfp9

 

Have you noticed that word in red?

And it was not the question you were asked.

Perhaps you would like to answer that?

[spadefoot]

 

Maybe we were 'brought-up differently' to those who seem to think that the rules should be amended to suit their 'wants'.

 

I am in agreement with you

Or maybe your "wants" fell neatly within the existing rules.

[spadefoot]

sounds like a reasonable argument.

I agree, that sounds like a very reasonable argument, as long as you ignore modern social problems, and the appalling housing (accommodation) situation in parts of the country.

Making a reasonable argument is very easy as long as you only consider factors which make the argument reasonable.

[Athy]

 

Making a reasonable argument is very easy as long as you only consider factors which make the argument reasonable.

This morning I listened to a re-run of one of the episodes of the still hilarious 'Yes Minister', and that sentence could have come straight from the lips of the urbane Sir Humphrey!

[Arthur Marshall]

I agree, that sounds like a very reasonable argument, as long as you ignore modern social problems, and the appalling housing (accommodation) situation in parts of the country.

Making a reasonable argument is very easy as long as you only consider factors which make the argument reasonable.

Excellent second paragraph. It sums up the whole problem really. It ought to be looked at in a wider context than just the canal laws, but unfortunately it won't be, because politicians don't do that.

And the idea that school buses will be provided to take boat kids to school under the current financial constraints on councils is plain daft. It doesn't matter a jot what the statutory obligations are, either for health, education, social care or whatever - if the money isn't there, it aint going to happen.

Luckily, there's was plenty for a garden bridge in London, HS2, Trident, fracking... not a lot for education, housing etc. It's all a matter of priorities.

[Sir Nibble]

Excellent second paragraph. It sums up the whole problem really. It ought to be looked at in a wider context than just the canal laws, but unfortunately it won't be, because politicians don't do that.

And the idea that school buses will be provided to take boat kids to school under the current financial constraints on councils is plain daft. It doesn't matter a jot what the statutory obligations are, either for health, education, social care or whatever - if the money isn't there, it aint going to happen.

Luckily, there's was plenty for a garden bridge in London, HS2, Trident, fracking... not a lot for education, housing etc. It's all a matter of priorities.

Spot on. As services and authorities become unable to fulfil their statutory responsibilities they should alert the taxpayer /voter. Instead they tend to make things worse by diverting resources into a pretence.

[costalot]

Well I did what I should have done in the first place and went back to the first post.

 

Narrowboat World got it wrong. EHRC is not "Investigating" CRT. The NBTA media release states EHRC are "reviewing" whether Canal & River Trust (CRT) is fully meeting its Equality Act obligations.

 

Having gone to the EHRC website and used the site search function I can't find any reference on it to CRT let alone a "review" of CRT.

 

I suspect the EHRC has responded to a complaint from the NBTA by requesting CRT provide a response to the NBTA allegations.

 

CRT will likely respond describing all the policies, procedures and actions taken to provide reasonable assistance to people with disabilities who want to access the inland waterways. They will also describe the actions they are taking to assist non compliant boat license holders to achieve compliance.

 

EHRC will then paraphrase that into a reply to the NBTA. End of story.

[PaulG]

Well I did what I should have done in the first place and went back to the first post.

 

Narrowboat World got it wrong. EHRC is not "Investigating" CRT. The NBTA media release states EHRC are "reviewing" whether Canal & River Trust (CRT) is fully meeting its Equality Act obligations.

 

Having gone to the EHRC website and used the site search function I can't find any reference on it to CRT let alone a "review" of CRT.

 

I suspect the EHRC has responded to a complaint from the NBTA by requesting CRT provide a response to the NBTA allegations.

 

CRT will likely respond describing all the policies, procedures and actions taken to provide reasonable assistance to people with disabilities who want to access the inland waterways. They will also describe the actions they are taking to assist non compliant boat license holders to achieve compliance.

 

EHRC will then paraphrase that into a reply to the NBTA. End of story.

Surely not....

[MtB]

 

EHRC will then paraphrase that into a reply to the NBTA. End of story.

 

 

Bugger. I was looking forward to another 26 pages of entrenched 'debate' on the subject!

[Murflynn]

Well I did what I should have done in the first place and went back to the first post.

 

Narrowboat World got it wrong. EHRC is not "Investigating" CRT. The NBTA media release states EHRC are "reviewing" whether Canal & River Trust (CRT) is fully meeting its Equality Act obligations.

 

Having gone to the EHRC website and used the site search function I can't find any reference on it to CRT let alone a "review" of CRT.

 

I suspect the EHRC has responded to a complaint from the NBTA by requesting CRT provide a response to the NBTA allegations.

 

CRT will likely respond describing all the policies, procedures and actions taken to provide reasonable assistance to people with disabilities who want to access the inland waterways. They will also describe the actions they are taking to assist non compliant boat license holders to achieve compliance.

 

EHRC will then paraphrase that into a reply to the NBTA. End of story.

SPOILSPORT !!