Objects of the Articles

WHEN announcing that Canal & River Trust (CaRT) wouldn't after all be trying to beggar waterways-based charities like the Bruce Trust, Richard Parry said 'We've taken the time to listen to our customers'.... writes Paul Burke.

This of course highlights the odd nature of CaRT and puts us thoroughly in our place. The National Trust is the nearest comparison to CaRT in terms of scope and responsibilities; but they have members, not customers, and £97 a year gets me and my family free run of the park and a say in how it's run.

Customer

On the other hand, my £800 or so plus whatever cut they take from the mooring fees only qualifies me as a 'customer', like when I buy a book in Oxfam or one of the grand'uns buys a pencil sharpener at Penrhyn Castle. CaRT membership is strictly for our betters, and we who merely consume their product must be content with the benefits of their wisdom. There are so many millions of people using the waterways that democracy would be impractical, nay mere anarchy. The purpose of CaRT is far higher than mere messing about in boats and....

But what does CaRT say it is for? Without wading through the 19 or so Acts of Parliament and Byelaws that it lists (consultation with a solicitor advised), this is from the CaRT Articles adopted 27th March 2012. This was copied somewhat inaccurately by the Charity Commission in their registration, to which CaRT also links: Canal & River Trust charity registration details as at 20 April 2012 . The Commission appears to think that there are two paragraphs 2.1.2 and that the foremost classification of CaRT is in THE PREVENTION OR RELIEF OF POVERTY (all CAPITALS just like that). Which is a very laudable aim, but one perhaps not best addressed by keeping lock gates watertight.

The Objects:

2.1 to preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit:
2.1.1 for navigation;
2.1.2 for walking on towpaths; and

2.1.3 for recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare;

2.1.1 appears to prioritise navigation over other canal activities. So far so good, though its public statements about visitor numbers don't seem to take much notice of this. What's 33,000 to so many millions? In any case, the Schedule (capitalised) at the end of the Articles, which as they emphasise in Article 1 defines their interpretation, says 'navigation' includes navigation by any ship or boat used for the carriage of freight and by any ship or boat used also for human habitation;

Not included

So canoes, rowing boats, day hire boats, and your pristine polished narrow boat (which you use for occasional habitation, but never for the carriage of freight), do not come under this article, nor is CaRT intended to preserve, protect, operate and manage any waterway used by such vessels. Now I'm pretty sure they didn't MEAN to say this, perhaps that 'also' just crept in somehow, and it all really illustrates why you should get a good solicitor as advised. But it does give them CaRTe blanche to cease to preserve, protect etc. any waterway not used by freight. It does not define 'freight' in the Schedule.

Also note that mooring or water points, pump-out facilities, showers, washing machines, toilets and rubbish disposal or any other boaters' facilities are not mentioned. Expect these activities to be moved to the commercial sector as they think they can get away with it, sorry, as the customer demand profile develops. Especially mooring: it seem to be setting the going rate at £25 a night (or was it per day, or per 24 hours?) a nice little franchised earner in the honeypot areas.

Exclude running and cycling

2.1.2 is an oddity. It specifies walking (not necessarily by humans), excluding thereby running, cycling, clambering over fishing gear, sitting glumly by that fishing gear, birdwatching, picking blackberries or crab apples, overfeeding the ducks, or sitting on memorial benches eating cheese sandwiches and drinking lukewarm tea from a cheap inefficient Thermos flask. Perhaps it's there to remind Sustrans, fishing clubs and would-be Olympians that they only come in 2.1.3. Though I'm sure CaRT consulted a solicitor of some sort, if only to be sure of what it mean by 'towpath'.

My dictionary says that it is 'a path used by horses towing barges'. No doubt its meaning in these latter days, when horse-drawn barges are rarely seen on, say, the Huddersfield Narrow, is covered by some of those Byelaws and Acts of Parliament, but it is not elucidated by the capitalised Schedule at the end of the Articles. Perhaps I need to get my solicitor to read the Companies Act 2006 as well, as that is where they say undefined terms are to be found.

2.1.3 is clearly there as a catch-all, covering all these activities and more, as and when extra heads are needed to inflate the user numbers.

Property

2.2 To protect and conserve for public benefit sites, objects and buildings of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest on, in the vicinity of, or otherwise associated with Inland Waterways;

Nobody could argue with that one, except of course those who would build new walls around Jericho, and I'm sure the historic buildings and site at Marsworth Junction will be more effectively protected and conserved by building a housing estate there. Or it needs to test its Section 3.13 powers now and again: to 'dispose of or deal with all or any of its property with or without payment and subject to such conditions as the Trustees think fit'. You don't know it works till you try. There are references to 'protected assets', but without reading the Trust Settlement, which is not linked to, I can't tell you what or where they are. Presumably not Marsworth Junction.

2.3 To further for the public benefit the conservation protection and improvement of the natural environment and landscape of Inland Waterways;

Again it looks good, though the 'public' who might benefit isn't defined in the Schedule and, there is just a little question mark over the enthusiastic population of that landscape with serried ranks (ranks are ALWAYS serried) of boats in marinas.

Restoration

2.4 To promote, facilitate, undertake and assist in, for public benefit, the restoration and improvement of Inland Waterways;

Love this, the Thames and Severn, the northern Lancaster, the west end of the Chesterfield, the Cromford, the Grantham, the Lichfield, the Carr Dyke (yes, that IS included in the definition given in the Schedule, despite being unnavigable for 1,600 years or more).... just wait till they've got a bit of money left over from preserving, protecting, operating etc. such property as they haven't disposed of.

2.5 To promote and facilitate for public benefit awareness, learning and education about inland waterways, their history, development, use, operation and cultural heritage by all appropriate means including the provision of museums;

Again of course subject to availability of spare cash, and not being disposed of. We must not allow future generations to forget the days when there was a sculpture at EVERY lock.

Development

2.6 To promote sustainable development in the vicinity of any inland waterway for the benefit of the public, in particular by:

2.6.1 the improvement of the conditions of life in socially and economically disadvantaged communities in such vicinity; and

2.6.2 the promotion of sustainable means of achieving economic growth and regeneration and the prudent use of natural resources; and

The Schedule defines 'sustainable development' as:

development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

This of course is where marinas, Marsworth, Jericho and so on come in. If the 'needs of the present' are defined as the requirement to raise quick cash, you can't fault it, as long as it leaves some bits of land somewhere else for others to pick at later. I don't know much about Oxford demographics, and it must be a delicate balance between skilled jobs in boatyards and minimum-wage cleaners in much-needed bijou apartments (travelling time not paid), but when there is a conflict, prudence is our guide. And it's very prudent for anyone with the power to dispose etc. as they see fit to make sure that the recipients are in a position to reciprocate (sorry, recognise one's unique skills) later if required. See the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13 ). Not of course that anyone in CaRT will be looking to go on to better jobs (sorry, greater challenges) with anyone connected with such developments.

And finally:

2.7 to further any purpose which is exclusively charitable under the law of England and Wales connected with inland waterways; provided that in each case where the Trust undertakes work in relation to property which it does not own or hold in trust, any private benefit to the owner of the property is merely incidental.

As I said, it advises consultation with a good solicitor. Maybe he or she will be able to explain why CaRT should be exclusively charitably working on someone else's property for no benefit. I suppose it allows them to work for Peel Holdings to keep the Bridgewater running so we can do the Cheshire Ring.

That's what it exists for; why it exists at all occupies just one of the 59 Articles, and navigation (for freight only) just one line of one sub- paragraph. The vast majority of the 33000 occasionally inhabited, non-freight-carrying ships or boats which (partly) fill up all those marinas simply aren't anything to do with it. We should be grateful that it allows us to use its property at all.