The government response to the last consultation was to decide that the new body would be subject to the FoI Act only so far as administering the waterways was concerned. To update the saga further: - The Canal & River Trust was formed as a limited company registered with Companies House in October last year. It is owned jointly by BW and the Secretary of State. It has not applied to the Charities Commission for charity status. The Terms of Agreement of the company allow it to sell off all or any part of the waterways, or to offer all or any part of the waterways as security for loans. The same personnel from BW, inclusive notably of the present executive level managers, will form the officers and employees of the company. The Chairman and Legal Director of BW are already Directors of the company, together with an assortment of “Transition Trustees” appointed by government. The government is currently reviewing the “British Waterways Transfer Order”, and has set up a couple of Select Committees to investigate the matter thoroughly [which had not been done at all under the Public Bodies Bill preliminaries]. The Order is expected to transfer BW into the private company as soon as possible. Anyone affected should take careful note of the recent judgment in my case, which contains a litany of pertinent High Court criticism of BW’s present behaviour patterns – bad as they are now, release from direct public scrutiny will not improve matters. [This judge would relate to “Judge Judy’s” repeated warning – “I am an ecumenical abuser”; he accused me of being “stubborn and relentless” in his kinder moments]. Examples of his comments re: BW are: - “I will return to Mr Farrow's evidence below; but I pause to note in the meantime that his evidence in this regard cannot be correct . . .” “Some aspects of their evidence did, however give me some concern as to the approach of BWB to this matter.” “As to the second point, the haste with which BWB thereafter pursued the matter is notable, the more so given the lack of any urgency from the point of view of its maintenance obligations. My interest has also been increased by the inaccuracy in the evidence given by Mr Farrow as to the context in which the section 8 notices were served, which I have already noted.” “As Leading Counsel for BWB accepted in his closing, this evidence is plainly incorrect: . . . The decision to use section 8 . . . is unsettlingly precipitate, especially given BWB's own admission that it is a draconian power which it would usually be very hesitant to use . . .” “Mr Farrow acknowledged the error but offered no explanation for it. I note that he had made a similar error in his first Witness Statement in the Geronimo action: . . .  None of BWB's witnesses offered any explanation either; and nor did Counsel for BWB. The error or inaccuracy is not one of mere detail: Mr Farrow's sworn testimony (I do not recall his witness statement having been corrected before he was sworn) was that it was because none of the boats had moved for a period of 4 months that "it was decided" (the actors are unnamed) that "it was necessary to commence enforcement action against them".” “. . . the fact that BWB has put before the Court an obviously incorrect explanation of the circumstances in which it decided to serve the section 8 notices, and then not offered any further explanation why it was necessary to resort to such a draconian power, has caused me seriously to question what BWB really thought they were doing and what was really their motive.” “In the end, I do not think the matters to which I have referred sufficiently support the inference of collaboration or co-ordination; but they do, to my mind at least, suggest a less than transparent and measured approach . . .” “In the absence of a proper explanation, the overall picture is not, to my mind, one of measured and proportionate response on the part of BWB. My misgivings are further increased by three other factual details. These are, first, the fact that (it is said inadvertently) one of BWB's Enforcement Officers . . . went aboard one of the vessels ('Saifti') to serve a section 8 reminder notice even after BWB had given the Court an undertaking that no such notices would be so served. The second is that BWB continued to assert that the licence application for 'Gilgie' had been made on the false pretence of it being used for 'continuous cruising' whereas in truth the application made was made on the basis of the vessel having a home mooring elsewhere, and was accurate (as I understand BWB now to accept). Thirdly, a somewhat less than moderate and proportionate approach seems to be illustrated by an internal e-mail dated 13th May 2008 from Deborah Figuerido . . . in which the following appears: ‘I think (subject to resources) that we start enforcement action against this boat . . . If I had the resources now I would section 8 it and snatch it' ” “In my judgment, BWB's conduct fell short of its own appropriate and requisite standards, and what I consider to be the gaps in its evidence have caused me concern . . .” “. . . BWB did exercise its powers inappropriately . . .” “The hasty way that BWB proceeded from the start exacerbated the friction which was inevitable in the wake of what he regarded as the unlawful eviction of vessels under his care or control from the off-line moorings . . .” “BWB's claims of untrammelled right, including Mr Johnson's initial insistence . . . 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 that encouraged the Claimant's propensity stubbornly, indeed relentlessly, to defend what he plainly regards as ancient freedoms.” “. . . the fact remains that the prescribed and invariable procedure was not followed . . .” “. . . the fact of BWB's failure to abide by its settled practice, and its failure to correct its process, even after it was well aware that the Claimant was a "live-aboard", remains.” “. . . I consider that BWB has been precipitate in its approach . . .” “They have asserted a right, but they have been less forthcoming as to why its exercise is pressing or necessary for the purposes of discharging their designated functions. There is little to weigh in their favour in the scales of proportionality.” “. . . I do consider that this incident, the failure within BWB to see to it that all relevant personnel were properly informed of the Court undertaking and the importance of it being observed to the letter, the failure to offer me a proper explanation before I called for it, and the failure at the time to deal with the Claimant's not unreasonable requests for an explanation, all further suggest inappropriate haste and carelessness. BWB are given draconian powers: and it is of particular importance that they should be, and be seen to be, deliberate, transparent, fair and careful in discharging their functions.” “. . . their conduct has tended not to soothe, but to exacerbate and complicate, a difficult situation.” . . . . . . . . . Since then we have had another full day in court over the Human Rights issues, and the judge has confirmed his provisional view, in making a firm finding that my Article 8 rights were indeed violated. I am still awaiting the approved written judgment and the Order, so cannot comment further. The simplest pertinent summary of the matter is that BW are shown to be capable of violating Human Rights; capable of ignoring and even denying the public’s legitimate expectation that they should behave according to their representations; capable of acting according to hidden motives having nothing to do with their statutory obligations; capable of swearing to incorrect testimony in court, and indifferent to any need for explaining themselves. It is to these same people that government is preparing the handover of BW’s powers, within the structure of a private company; formed of the identical personnel and identical power structure – and this, even before [if ever] the company applies for charitable status. BW’s executive are already looking forward to being out from under the [nominal] thumb of government and given free rein. As detailed in my previous posts, this won’t just affect boaters; it will affect anyone who wants to enjoy the waterways in any form. If you have concerns, send them to: Sarah Coe, Committee Specialist (Environment) coes@parliament.uk EFRA Select Committee re: British Waterways Transfer Order

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