Extra scrutiny for CART

LAST Thursday, narrowboatworld stated that government had laid before Parliament the draft order to transfer the functions of British Waterways to the Canal & River Trust (CART), writes Allan Richards.

It also suggested on Friday that links would be provided to the transfer order and another order regarding the abolition of Inland Waterways Advisory Committee (IWAC).

Five committees

It was proved correct. However, it would appear that the transfer order will be scrutinised by up to five committees rather that the two suggested.

The making of the Transfer Order is subject to an enhanced 'super-affirmative' process in the Westminster Parliament that must last a minimum of 40 days. However, it is almost certain the British Waterways/CART Order will be made subject to an enhanced scrutiny period of at least 60 days.

The committees

Not only will the Transfer Order be subject to a debate on the floor of each House, the five committees are:

• Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee (House of Lords)
• Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments Committee
• Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Efra committee) Select Committee (House of Commons)
• Delegated Legislation Committee (House of Lords)
• Delegated Legislation Committee (House of Commons)

Of the five committees it is the Efra Select Committee that will almost certainly wish to hold public sessions and take evidence from witnesses.

As the British Waterways Order is the first significant order under the Public Bodies Act, it is understood that Parliament will want to demonstrate both to Government and to the public generally, its intent to fully scrutinise public body reform proposals made by ministers under the 2011 Act and not to be treated as a rubber stamp.

Openness

British Waterways last came under the Efra microscope in 2006/7 and was heavily criticised. For example, Efra reported 'We were extremely surprised to discover that privatisation was one of the options being considered by British Waterways' ongoing strategic options review, and are disappointed we were not informed about this during our evidence sessions with British Waterways. In our view, privatisation is not a serious option: the waterways network is a public asset providing wide benefits to society and some Government funding will always be necessary. It should be ruled out by the Government'.

British Waterways, it seems, had considered privatisation as a future strategic option despite a direct instruction from the then, waterways minister that they should not do so!

Mooring auction

Also 'We are disappointed that British Waterways (BW) did not inform us in evidence about the introduction of its trial tendering system for mooring allocation [mooring auctions], and note the concerns of the boating community that the new system may further increase the cost of boating. We are concerned that the permanent introduction of such a system could make boating too exclusive'.

It would seem that British Waterways' lack of openness is not new and is not restricted to the public.

[The BW/CART transfer order can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2012/9780111521045

The IWAC abolition order can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2012/9780111521038/contents]