Allan(nb Albert)

Houseboats can move but when they do so they are subject to law as it applies to pleasure craft. That was why I was asking. Houseboat certificates have been around since 1971 and give some security of tenure to the holder. Like PBCs they are transferable. Not sure about numbers but suspect well under 100. An advantage to CRT is that they can set conditions in addition to those set by law.

Are you saying that CRT should increase the number of houseboat certificates it issues?

In this respect little has changed in the last 30 years. The 1990 Bill asked for draconian powers to regulate mooring and compel all boats to have a home mooring. However, British Waterways were unable to convince MP's that existing powers were being used but were ineffective. Indeed, it took much questioning from a select committee to determine what the problem was that needed legislation to solve.

This problem has been known about for well over a decade as has the many leaks on the Mon & Brec - https://narrowboatworld.com/4076-twin-threat-to-mon-a-brec My understanding is that CRT could still extract water just as it had in the past whilst the appeal was underway. However, now the appeal has failed it is no longer able to do so. Probably academic but does anybody know if consideration was given the the Welsh Canals becoming the responsibility of Welsh government in 2012?

Well, at least it goes to prove that IanD does not bother to actually read and understand what it posted on this forum ...

I think you are confusing a (yet to be produced) NBTA suggested response to the Commission with a two year old document of suggested response to CRT's last consultation.

Thanks.

CRT did not exist in 1992 ... ... are you saying that the British Waterways 1995 Act only happened because the 1990 Bill pre dated the TWA legislation?

On learning that CRT had not submitted its planned TWAO last year my immediate thought was - "Why would a Secretary of State sign off a TWAO that might suggest he supported making people homeless etc." I note at least one MP taking up the issue of CRT making boaters homeless recently.

As was stated some time back, the 1995 Act was about more than just S17 - Conditions as to certificates and licences. For example, S16 deals with "General terms of houseboat certificates". It is quite noticeable that S16 specifically allows BW/CRT to set its own conditions in addition to the general conditions within the Act. S17 does not do this.

I believe CRT understand that they can not submit a private Bill. I took it to mean as an alternative to a public or hybrid Bill (although I am not sure if either would be appropriate or achievable).

This seems to include CRT who attempted to go down the TWAO route last year with no attempt at prior consultation or even informing the public. This is now being addressed via the Commission. CRT trustees were well aware that a TWAO would avoid parliamentary scrutiny - "It was noted that the scope of a potential Order under the Act to make necessary changes, without the need for primary legislation and avoiding a full Parliamentary process."

Absolutely agree.

To expand on that, CRT intended to submit a Transport & Works Order (TWAO) in 2024 without consultation. Following discussion with Defra that never happened. The TOR for the Commission suggests that a TWAO might be the outcome following a consultation. Alternatively, the TOR asks the Commission to suggest what might be done under existing legislation.

The Mon & Brec water supply and leak problems have been known about for over a decade- https://narrowboatworld.com/4076-twin-threat-to-mon-a-brec

Pairwise choices were analysed to give probability figures assuming that everyone had responded to each of the three choices.

If IanD had bothered to read the report on the link I posted, it says it was based on a pair-wise choice not multiple-choice (see para 2.4). ... but let us not let my "fact" get in the way of his "opinion". Indeed, his opinion is irrelevent to what I posted which was - I have already posted the link so that it can be read in context. ...and here is a snip of the relevent part -

Your very selective memory recalls incorrectly. I have already posted a comparison of the Parry/Sharman decision report vs the published report with links. Here again, is the decision report showing that only 40% of boaters supported surcharging CC'ers vs maintaining the status quo ( even less for fat boats). Decision Report Trust/695

It is a matter of fact that CRT's board were told by the chief executive and chief operating officer officer that the majority of boaters rejected each of the three options put to them prefering in every case to maintain the "status quo". It is a matter of fact that the independent consultants report on the consultation (as published on CRT's website) was produced by CRT of its own volition. The two DJS Research directors named on the front of the report did not contribute to it or approve it. It is a matter of fact that that the Parry/Sharman consultation outcome differs from the falsified report.

Mr Dodd: With respect to the period, we were trying to respond to the test for “bona fide navigation” to give some measure of protection to a boater in those circumstances, so that he or she would be clear in their mind as to the point at which he would begin not to be regarded by British Waterways as using the boat bona fide for navigation.”

Your post offered absolutely no evidence to support what you were saying ... If you would like to expand perhaps you might get a two word reply next time.

Nonsense.

I really do think you should read the above in context with - BW Act 1995 S17(4)(c)(ii) and BW Act 1995 S17(5) BW Act 1995 S17(4)(c)(ii) says that bona fide navigation is a fact. This is perhaps best understood if we pretend the Dodd got his way and the test for bona fide navigation was 14 days. So, it is a matter of fact that if a boat remains in one place for more than 14 days it is not being used bona fide for navigation and CRT can issue a notice that requires the boat to remedy the matter within a certain period of time (not less than 28 days). Simply, moving the boat within the specified time period remedies the matter as it is again being used bona fide for navigation. If the boat does not move within the specified timeframe its licence is automatically terminated. The purpose of BW Act 1995 S17(3)(c)(ii) is to give the board discretion where a past history of not using the boat bona fide for navigation exists. What it was not intended to do was give CRT the authority to invent its own test based on range and refuse to licence on that basis.

Yes. We tend to forget that the 1995 Act was about other things as well - Boat safety Houseboats Environmental and recreational duties. - to name but a few The 1990 Bill that BW introduced took until 1995 to become an Act and, at one point needed a Lazarus motion to keep it going. I would agree that Dodd would have been under pressure to deliver something bearing in mind that parliament would not agree mooring control legislation or the need for all craft to have a home mooring or repeal of enabling legislation.

It would require a change in the law. ... but I would suggest it what CRT have tried to implement anyway by asking boaters to "request an overstay". Being charitable to Dodd, it might have been what he was trying to convey to the select committee back in 1993.