British Waterways are unquestionably seeking to utilise the Public Bodies Bill as a channel for grasping at greater powers as they become a private sector body. That the new body will be the identical organisation with modified governance and funding arrangements is clear from the speech of their CEO, Robin Evans, at the 2010 Annual Meeting. He plaintively acknowledges the general enthusiasm of many for the abolition of BW – “Some of you make great play of NWC [New Waterways Charity] being ‘a completely new organisation’, one that ‘is not BW dressed up in new clothes’, ‘not BW as we know it today’. I understand why you want to make the distinction and I agree NWC has to be different in many respects but I don’t think you understand how demoralising it is to the 1,700 people who are employed by BW today and will almost entirely make up the staff of NWC”  . . . “They will be the same people on April 2012 as they were in March 2012 – don’t expect them to think BW and its employees are something different from NWC and its employees.” BW is an organisation typical of the brutish type of authority that prefers the use of force to that of persuasion when dealing with its “subjects”. The constant cry of such authorities is “I need more powers!” – and that has characterised their dealing with Parliament since 1962. The Select Committee reports on BW’s private Bills [those that became the BW Acts of 1971, 1975, 1983 and 1995] make sobering reading. Had Parliament not spoken out so strongly in condemnation of the draconian and inappropriate levels of powers that BW constantly sought, the waterways would have become subject to an intolerable dictatorship. Even so, BW regularly exercises such powers on a bluff basis, asserting their rights to violate the public rights in the confidence that anyone foolhardy enough to challenge them could be easily seen off in local county courts. It was only an unbroken continuation of this approach that led the present Board of British Waterways, as recently as January 27th this year, to discuss “The possibility of introducing greater enforcement powers for BW as part of the new legislation . . . Mr Johnson agreed to report back on the subject to the May Board meeting.” BW have stalled on FoI requests for the May minutes, which has understandably given rise to much consternation in the boating fraternity – especially in light of the HL Select Committee Report damning the subsequent amendment to the Public Bodies Bill relating to BW and the Environment Agency. I am not altogether sure that the boating websites are correct to see the amendment as granting new powers in so direct a form as they are thinking. What the Select Committee objected to was any exception being made to the general clause in the Bill that outlawed the transference of powers that, however appropriately exercised by a body with powers of public governance, would be highly inappropriate for a new, private sector body. Understood in those terms, BW would be correct in asserting that [in the amendment as presently under discussion] they only want to retain powers already possessed by them. The danger is, of course, that this Amendment 99A is but a step in what BW see as the right direction! If I am correct in this, then there IS some hope for improvement after all – the objectionable behaviour of BW in pursuing so many boaters and waterside businesses [even where they are in fact empowered to take the particular course of action] would be definitively curtailed. They have shown themselves to have total disregard for human rights and consultative process; having the same people shorn of any excuse to violate those would indeed be a step forward, and I for one am grateful to the Select Committee for flagging up to government just how FURTHER INAPPROPRIATE it would be to have such powers exercised by a body without the same degree of even nominal oversight that the present organisation 'suffers' under [as BW see it]. If the Public Bodies Bill is to be of any benefit to users of the waterways and to those living and working alongside [the powers affect riparian owners & occupiers also, not just boaters, walkers, cyclists anglers etc.], then it is essential that the amendment is voted against come July 12th. If it is passed, then not only will the chance for reform have been lost, but BW will see their way clear to indeed obtaining greater powers. Some of those powers are already 'waiting in the wings' in the form of their new proposed Byelaws, that incorporate powers identical to those BW have been refused before. BW are just waiting for Amendment 99A to be passed before pushing these through for approval, in time for transference to their new structure.

Entire Thread

Topic	Date Posted	Posted By
Public Bodies Bill	05/07/11 12:17:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Public Bodies Bill	20/07/11 10:54:00	Jon Hardy
Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	21/07/11 11:49:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	21/07/11 18:15:00	George Knox
Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	21/07/11 19:32:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	22/07/11 12:30:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	30/07/11 14:13:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	12/08/11 11:58:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	16/08/11 21:02:00	Nigel Moore
Public Bodies Bill	17/08/11 20:28:00	George Knox
Re:Public Bodies Bill	26/08/11 13:42:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	02/09/11 22:10:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	12/09/11 20:14:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	21/03/12 14:43:00	Nigel Moore
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	21/03/12 17:42:00	Sarah Felstead
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Public Bodies Bill	22/03/12 21:01:00	Nigel Moore

Forum Home