Contradicting the boss

IN CLAIMING that Canal & River Trust has the right to amend/interpret the 1995 British Waterways Act anyway that it sees fit (Can CaRT interpret the law as it wants?), its Head of Enforcement, Simon Salem, is directly contradicting his boss, Richard Parry, writes Allan Richards.

Following the fiasco where two directors gave wildly different figures concerning what needs to be spent to maintain its waterways in good order, we now have a very public difference of opinion regarding CaRT's legal powers.

Not unlimited

On the one hand we have a director saying that the Trust has unlimited powers to interpret or amend the law as it see fit. On the other hand, his boss chaired a meeting recently where CaRT's legal team admitted that that CaRT's powers were not unlimited.

Following, the resignation of Legal Director, Nigel Johnson, just one working day after it was revealed that he had made a sworn statement that the Trust needed to spend £130m a year in order to maintain its waterways (rather than the £80m it planned to spend last year), his legal department came under the direct control of Chief Executive, Richard Parry.

One of his early moves was to arrange a meeting with the National Association of Boat Owners (NABO) who had taken legal advice which suggested that CaRT did not have all the legal powers it claimed.

..... a meeting that Mr Johnson refused to have!

The power to fine

One of the outcomes of the meeting was that NABO finally gained agreement that older signs on the system which imposed fines for overstaying where illegal. As NABO's notes from the meeting record: ‘JL [Jackie Lewis—CaRT's most senior legal officer] confirmed that CaRT did not have the power to issue fines'.

Compare this statement with that of director, Simon Salem, who claims that the Trust has unlimited powers!

Undermining

The notes go on to say ‘NABO pointed out that British Waterways' Head of Boating Sally Ash, Simon Salem's direct report, had been informed about this many times over the years with a request that the wording of the signs should be changed, but to no avail'.

It would appear that, in providing a statement to Pam Pickett, Simon Salem has deliberately set out to undermine his boss and the talks he is having with NABO regarding CaRT's legal powers where he will, no doubt, get better advice than from his own people.

After all, if CaRT has the unlimited powers Mr Salem claims, the infamous section 17 of the British Waterways Act of 1995 would not be required would it? Neither would the rest of the Act.

And neither would the British Waterways Act of 1963, 1965, 1966, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1983, 1987 and 1988.

.... or the British Waterways Bye-laws of 1965, 1966, 1972, 1975 or 1976!