On 25 July 2010 06:12, bloovee <[email protected]> wrote:

> Oh no it hasn't. (I hope this isn't a duplicate post, but I can't see my
> first attempt).
>
> Caroline Spelman's statement: "I have decided that Defra should have a
> stronger role in developing policy for inland waterways and have already
> signalled our preference for moving British Waterways to a civil society
> model. Today I am announcing that I also intend to abolish the Inland
> Waterways Advisory Council. Defra will lead on developing future policy in
> this area by consulting all interests directly, by making full use of the
> evidence which can be provided by the navigation authorities and by forming
> a closer relationship with stakeholders. This decision highlights the
> importance I attach to the effective management of inland waterways and my
> determination to place them on a more sustainable long-term footing."
>
>  The good point about IWAAC is that it makes all the waterways interests
sit down together to sort out a common line before they give the government
their advice, This is made publically available, and even if the advice is
not accepted at least ministers have to engage with it. The media and MPs
can see what is going on, and hold ministers to account.

Of course this argument applies to advisory "quangoes" in other areas of
policy.

Abolishing them does not increase accountability or deepen democracy. While
I am sure DEFRA officials will diligently receive advice, this process will
now go on behind closed doors - and ministers can pick and mix from the
advice they get - or for that matter reject the lot on the grounds that
there was no common line.

I doubt very much that its abolition is a strategic response to changing
BW's status.

It is simply part of the purge of quangoes that is currently going on,
partly motivated - in my view - in a deliberate attempt to reduce
transparancy and accountability so for example ministers can do what Murdoch
would like rather than have to deal with independent advice or decision
making from OFCOM. (But I'm getting way off topic here- so don't feel a need
to respond!)


Nigel S


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to