Board minutes

Dear Mr Richards,

Please accept my apology for the delay to your
information request for the additional reports presented at the board
meeting 2^nd January 2010. The delay was regretfully an administrative
error.

Please find the requested information attached.

Yours Sincerely

Chris Gray

Information Officer

Dear Mr Richards

This e-mail is in reply to yours of 8 June 2010 sent at 07:33. The
response of British Waterways (BW) is made by reference to the questions
as numbered in your message.

1. The obligations of BW in respect of publication of Board Minutes arise
under the Publication Scheme adopted by BW in accordance with s.19 Freedom
of Information Act 2000. BW has adopted the Model Publication Scheme
prepared and approved by the Information Commissioners Office. That
Publication Scheme states that "The classes of information [to be
published] will not generally include: ...Information in draft form."

Until the minutes of a Board meeting are approved at the subsequent Board
meeting, they are in draft form. Therefore there is no obligation placed
on BW to publish minutes before they are approved by the Board. At the
meeting of the Board in July 2009 the Board considered a proposal to
publish draft minutes notwithstanding there is no legal obligation to do
so. That proposal was approved by the Board subject to the requirement
that the draft minutes should have been seen by the Chairman and all Board
members be given an opportunity to comment prior to publication. This was
a change of practice and not adoption of any kind of formal obligation.
Hence the deliberate vagueness of the minute indicating that the aim was
to enable publication "within a few weeks of the meeting".

2. A request for "an explanation" is not a request for information
within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Nevertheless I
am able to inform you that following the change of practice it was found
that the time taken to produce the draft minutes and to circulate to all
Board members and take into account their comments prior to publication
was quite variable depending on the availability of Board members
following a Board meeting. For example, following the March 2010 Board
meeting the process took longer than usual because of absence abroad of
secretariat staff, the Board Chairman and Board members at different times
over the Easter holiday period. This is an inevitable consequence of an
entirely non-executive Board (as appointed by government) with limited
time to devote to BW business in the light of their other private and
business commitments.

3. A request for "an explanation" is not a request for information within
the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Nevertheless I can
inform you that the information published routinely is that covered by the
Publication Scheme. Because BW is required by statute (s.134 Transport Act
1968) "to act as if [it] were a company engaged in a commercial
enterprise" in respect of many aspects of its business, considerable parts
of Memoranda put to the Board in advance of decisions is exempt
information for Freedom of Information Act purposes. Other exemptions
often also apply under sections 22, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41 and 42 in addition
to that under section 43. These make such documents unsuitable for
routine publication under the Publication Scheme though they are still
disclosable (subject to appropriate redaction) in response to written
requests for information.

4. The reasons are the same as above.

5. The request for information in respect of the January 2010 Board
meeting has now been answered."

Regards

Nigel

Nigel Johnson

Corporate Services Director

British Waterways

01923 201370 (T)

07879 421492 (M)

Chris Gray would like to recall the message, "Freedom of Information request - Board minutes Jan 2nd".

Dear Mr Richards

This e-mail is in reply to yours of 8 June 2010 sent at 07:33. The
response of British Waterways (BW) is made by reference to the questions
as numbered in your message.

1. The obligations of BW in respect of publication of Board Minutes arise
under the Publication Scheme adopted by BW in accordance with s.19 Freedom
of Information Act 2000. BW has adopted the Model Publication Scheme
prepared and approved by the Information Commissioners Office. That
Publication Scheme states that "The classes of information [to be
published] will not generally include: ...Information in draft form."

Until the minutes of a Board meeting are approved at the subsequent Board
meeting, they are in draft form. Therefore there is no obligation placed
on BW to publish minutes before they are approved by the Board. At the
meeting of the Board in July 2009 the Board considered a proposal to
publish draft minutes notwithstanding there is no legal obligation to do
so. That proposal was approved by the Board subject to the requirement
that the draft minutes should have been seen by the Chairman and all Board
members be given an opportunity to comment prior to publication. This was
a change of practice and not adoption of any kind of formal obligation.
Hence the deliberate vagueness of the minute indicating that the aim was
to enable publication "within a few weeks of the meeting".

2. A request for "an explanation" is not a request for information
within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Nevertheless I
am able to inform you that following the change of practice it was found
that the time taken to produce the draft minutes and to circulate to all
Board members and take into account their comments prior to publication
was quite variable depending on the availability of Board members
following a Board meeting. For example, following the March 2010 Board
meeting the process took longer than usual because of absence abroad of
secretariat staff, the Board Chairman and Board members at different times
over the Easter holiday period. This is an inevitable consequence of an
entirely non-executive Board (as appointed by government) with limited
time to devote to BW business in the light of their other private and
business commitments.

3. A request for "an explanation" is not a request for information within
the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Nevertheless I can
inform you that the information published routinely is that covered by the
Publication Scheme. Because BW is required by statute (s.134 Transport Act
1968) "to act as if [it] were a company engaged in a commercial
enterprise" in respect of many aspects of its business, considerable parts
of Memoranda put to the Board in advance of decisions is exempt
information for Freedom of Information Act purposes. Other exemptions
often also apply under sections 22, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41 and 42 in addition
to that under section 43. These make such documents unsuitable for
routine publication under the Publication Scheme though they are still
disclosable (subject to appropriate redaction) in response to written
requests for information.

4. The reasons are the same as above.

5. The request for information in respect of the January 2010 Board
meeting has now been answered."

Yours Sincerely

Chris Gray

Information Officer