Waterways Acts

[cobaltcodd]

Obviously there is a lot of litigation and legal wrangling going on at the moment between boaters and C&RT.

 

There have been Waterways Acts in '71, '75, '83 and '95 (and probably others). Whats to stop a new Waterways Act coming into place in the next year or two? Obviously the Govt. is busy, and the concerns of boaters is a very long way down the list, but could C&RT get a sympathetic MP to push this sort of thing?

 

I'm a bit worried that if it happens we will be so stitched up with exactly what we can or can't do that we'll really wish for the good old days before C&RT got so pissed off with this endless expensive battle of definitions of "channels", "bone fide", "places" etc.

 

[Graham Davis]

I would argue that there isn't a lot of litigation going on at the moment, just a couple of cases that seem to take up an inordinate amount of webtime on this forum.

 

Could there be another Waterways Act? Yes there could, but I doubt that Parliamentary time will be found whilst Brexit is still in the offing, but you never know. As for what it might include, I would guess that the loopholes exploited by certain members (joyously) on here would be filled and certain things clarified, but it still wouldn't stop people trying to work out how they were exempt.

[magnetman]

75,83,95.... About every ten years yet its been 21 years...

 

Probably is about time for another one to take account of current "usage patterns" which have changed a bit since 1995.

(coincidentally 1995 was my first year living on a canal boat)

Edited September 17, 2016 by magnetman

[Mike Todd]

75,83,95.... About every ten years yet its been 21 years...

 

Probably is about time for another one to take account of current "usage patterns" which have changed a bit since 1995.

(coincidentally 1995 was my first year living on a canal boat)

When CaRT was formed there was no appetite for finding parliamentary time to do other than the minimum. Brexit will mop up all such time and more so the chances are even less. Waterways Acts have proved to be complex pieces of legislation and take a lot of consultation.

 

Whilst the present position is not ideal, opening Pandora's Box could lead to something even worse unless a lot of time is spent scrutinising it and amending it as it goes through the process. History means that there are so many 'special cases' (just ask Nigel M!) all of which have to be given ample air time to get right. In the past, many of the Acts have not repealed all that went before, I suspect because that would make the process an order of magnitude larger with so many rights and obligations on individuals remaining from the original enabling acts when the canals were first constructed.

 

Unless someone can come up with a Eureka moment that sweeps away all that exists and replaces it with something inherently simple but which leaves no-one disadvantaged, I guess that change is not worth holding one's breath for! After all, the pressure to seek new legislation often comes from those who want to gain a right at someone else's expense. This particularly arises from the most contentious issue regarding CC and related matters.

[gaggle]

I would argue that there isn't a lot of litigation going on at the moment, just a couple of cases that seem to take up an inordinate amount of webtime on this forum.

 

Could there be another Waterways Act? Yes there could, but I doubt that Parliamentary time will be found whilst Brexit is still in the offing, but you never know. As for what it might include, I would guess that the loopholes exploited by certain members (joyously) on here would be filled and certain things clarified, but it still wouldn't stop people trying to work out how they were exempt.

As you so often point out to others , you don't have to read them and other forums are available , the threads to which you refer have done more to help and educate boaters about the rights they have than I have seen anywhere else , your description of people exerciseing their rights as taking advantage of loopholes is truly pathetic ,

[Graham Davis]

As you so often point out to others , you don't have to read them and other forums are available , the threads to which you refer have done more to help and educate boaters about the rights they have than I have seen anywhere else , your description of people exerciseing their rights as taking advantage of loopholes is truly pathetic ,

 

What a surprise!!

Not!!

[Arthur Marshall]

As you so often point out to others , you don't have to read them and other forums are available , the threads to which you refer have done more to help and educate boaters about the rights they have than I have seen anywhere else , your description of people exerciseing their rights as taking advantage of loopholes is truly pathetic ,

There's a difference between fighting when your legal rights are encroached on and taking advantage of loopholes. The latter is morally debatable (sometimes valid, sometimes not) but is a consequence of bad lawmaking or changes in circumstances so that the laws no longer fit the current situation. It's the difference between "everything is permitted except what is forbidden" and "everything is forbidden except what is permitted". In the UK, we work on the first principle (at least mostly, so far).

The current court cases seem to me to be when punitive action has been deliberately taken without legal justification (though I'm not an expert here), and that's very different from just avoiding the letter of the law.

Me, I'm a great believer in loopholes and staying under the radar as far as possible. The law, as the man said, is a rich man's tool.

[eye high skipper]

The government want everybody up to their eyeballs in mortgage debt to their banking masters. Then people have to work more years and pay more taxes. So anything, like boating, that might look like a alternative cheaper form of shelter has to be made to look less appealing and cost more. So anything is possible re a new Act.

[ChimneyChain]

Careful gaggle otherwise he will report you to Daniel !!

 

Darren

[Guest]

Oh dear - this is going swimmingly.....

[Chewbacka]

I think that CR&T's main concern for the future is that the City waterways will become a mass of 'affordable housing' and CR&T will then come under pressure to improve facilities (water, rubbish, pump-out etc) in effect becoming a social housing landlord. This is further encouraged by newspaper features telling all how affordable it is. So in time CRT will push for clear legislation to allow them to prevent this.

[Graham Davis]

Oh dear - this is going swimmingly.....

 

It seems that one is not allowed to voice an opinion, or answer a question posed in a thread, especially when it disagrees with the views of certain members.

I thought this was a DISCUSSION forum, but it appears that some do not understand the meaning of that word.

[DHutch]

As you so often point out to others , you don't have to read them and other forums are available ...

What a surprise!! Not!!

Careful gaggle otherwise he will report you to Daniel !!

Oh dear - this is going swimmingly.....

Please try and keep this thread on topic.

 

 

Daniel

[Catnip King]

If a new act was passed the canals would be for holidays only and no liveaboards imo.

[Chewbacka]

If a new act was passed the canals would be for holidays only and no liveaboards imo.

I disagree, I actually think CRT is happy to have continuous cruisers and a limited number of liveaboards on paid for moorings as they do need to show the waterways are used and valued to continue getting funding, but they do not want to be a social housing landlord.

[Arthur Marshall]

It would be sensible for CRT to encourage CCers and liveaboards to report directly to them about maintenance etc required - they are generally the ones with the knowledge and awareness of the system to be able to warn of problems arising.

[Ian Mac]

It all depend on what happens to the EA waters.If the government suddenly decides to continue with their plan of handing over the EA navigations to the Trust, this will present an opportunity for a new act, into which they can place extra clauses for the whole of the "New Trust" with its new waterways. So it could well happen in the next three years.

Anyway Brexit isn't taking up any time in parliament yet because they have to work out what Brexit means Brexit actually means, and only once they have done and announced it can they start to debate it.

--

cheers Ian Mac

[Phil.]

If a new act was passed the canals would be for holidays only and no liveaboards imo.

That's fine as since retirement it feels like we have been on a 365 days a year holiday anyway.

[magnetman]

The government want everybody up to their eyeballs in mortgage debt to their banking masters. Then people have to work more years and pay more taxes. So anything, like boating, that might look like a alternative cheaper form of shelter has to be made to look less appealing and cost more. So anything is possible re a new Act.

Towpath mooring fees collected by private contractors - payable by anyone remaining more than 24hrs in one area?

It all depend on what happens to the EA waters.If the government suddenly decides to continue with their plan of handing over the EA navigations to the Trust, this will present an opportunity for a new act, into which they can place extra clauses for the whole of the "New Trust" with its new waterways. So it could well happen in the next three years.

Anyway Brexit isn't taking up any time in parliament yet because they have to work out what Brexit means Brexit actually means, and only once they have done and announced it can they start to debate it.

--

cheers Ian Mac

Good point about the EA situation

Edited September 17, 2016 by magnetman

[Horace42]

I guess a change in the law will be required if/when the EA waterways business is transferred to CRT. - as has already be mooted by Ian Mac #17.

Brexit work or not, I can't see any reason for the Government to get involved at the moment.

Any issues at present with CRT are operational in nature and unless vast numbers of the population are affected by 'bad' decisions (if stemming from 'bad' law), there are not enough votes in it, so nothing will happen.

[Tuscan]

It all depend on what happens to the EA waters.If the government suddenly decides to continue with their plan of handing over the EA navigations to the Trust, this will present an opportunity for a new act, into which they can place extra clauses for the whole of the "New Trust" with its new waterways. So it could well happen in the next three years

--

cheers Ian Mac

I u detest and that no act of Parliament is required for the EA to outsource responsibility for navigation to CRT

[NigelMoore]

There have been Waterways Acts in '71, '75, '83 and '95 (and probably others). Whats to stop a new Waterways Act coming into place in the next year or two?

 

There are very many Acts affecting the canals and rivers within CaRT’s jurisdiction.

 

There are over 500 original Enabling Acts; some of the Railways Acts; the British Transport Commission Acts, then the Transport Acts of 1962 and 1968.

 

It was the 1962 Act that hived off most of the canals and some rivers to the British Waterways Board.

 

BW instantly began promoting one private Act after another, abolishing navigation rights to successive sections of waterway so that waterways could be filled in and flogged off. They simply did not want the financial responsibility of maintaining them. Only the Limehouse Cut was promoted on a positive note.

 

Hence we had the British Waterways Acts of 1963; 1965; 1966.

 

The Transport Act of 1968 was the public Act that sought to stem that constant chipping away at the nation’s heritage, and divided the waterways into those that could be left to decline into dereliction &/or be flogged off, and those which they laid a duty on BW to maintain as suitable for either commercial or cruising purposes. [That duty can no longer be enforced due to the terms of the 2012 Transfer Order].

 

The BW Act 1971 followed, then others in 1974; 1975; 1983 and 1995, with intermediate secondary legislation in the form of Statutory Instruments and Byelaws.

 

The Transfer Order of 2012 was the final legislation passed relating to the old BW waterways; it successfully moved the quango into private ownership, responsible as trustee for such of the waterway infrastructure as was designated protected [although the Secretary of State could – and has done – sign away any part of that infrastructure if CaRT want to, and he is pleased to do so].

 

Other essential elements of the Order relieved government from having to subsidise the company to the extent they had been, and placed a firm time limit on the much reduced obligatory subsidies agreed. In order to boost the income generating ability of the new company so that they could break free from financial dependency, they granted charity status. Relieving the company from financial burdens was also a prime target, so maintenance obligations were lifted, and they need only do what they feel they can afford.

 

The power to promote primary legislation was specifically removed from them, although they are still free to promote secondary legislation such as byelaws. Indeed, no new Act is necessary; byelaws could address any of the immediate concerns CaRT supposes itself to suffer under, and nice juicy draft ones have been sitting on the shelf of the legal department for years now.

 

[magnetman]

I u detest...

Isn't that against forum rules? Personal comments etc

 

Edit to add second sentence

Edited September 17, 2016 by magnetman

[NigelMoore]

In the past, many of the Acts have not repealed all that went before, I suspect because that would make the process an order of magnitude larger with so many rights and obligations on individuals remaining from the original enabling acts when the canals were first constructed.

 

There would have been no great “order of magnitude larger” difficulty [in terms of draftsmanship anyway]; BW had that all worked out, with clause 27 of the 1990 Bill – abolish all private rights at a stroke.

 

It is frightening to see just how close that clause came to surviving passage through Parliament; it is only thanks to the efforts of boaters such as Tam & Di Murrell of this Forum, and Simon Greer and others, that sufficient organised opposition led to it being dropped before the final hurdle was faced.

 

In all truth – why should private rights be abolished? It would not make for better management of the system; it would only provide a potential for a private company to make more money than presently possible, from exploiting the interests of others involuntarily [whereas the major siren song of the old BW upper echelon promoted the illusion that volunteering for the new 'charity' was the lucrative and exciting way forward].

 

Then, too, the legislation already provides for efficient management of the system and enforcement of the requirements; it is simply that the legislated remedies do not suit the palate of the current enforcement and legal departments. They have a taste for stronger medicine than existing applicable legislation provides.

 

“Operationally” said the Chairman of the Commons Select Committee back in 1993 [speaking of then available legislation], “you are OK”. That remains as true today as it did back then.

 

[Paul C]

 

There would have been no great “order of magnitude larger” difficulty [in terms of draftsmanship anyway]; BW had that all worked out, with clause 27 of the 1990 Bill – abolish all private rights at a stroke.

 

It is frightening to see just how close that clause came to surviving passage through Parliament; it is only thanks to the efforts of boaters such as Tam & Di Murrell of this Forum, and Simon Greer and others, that sufficient organised opposition led to it being dropped before the final hurdle was faced.

 

In all truth – why should private rights be abolished? It would not make for better management of the system; it would only provide a potential for a private company to make more money than presently possible, from exploiting the interests of others involuntarily [whereas the major siren song of the old BW upper echelon promoted the illusion that volunteering for the new 'charity' was the lucrative and exciting way forward].

 

Then, too, the legislation already provides for efficient management of the system and enforcement of the requirements; it is simply that the legislated remedies do not suit the palate of the current enforcement and legal departments. They have a taste for stronger medicine than existing applicable legislation provides.

 

“Operationally” said the Chairman of the Commons Select Committee back in 1993 [speaking of then available legislation], “you are OK”. That remains as true today as it did back then.

 

 

The way the requirements for CCers is drawn up is somewhat open-ended, and judging by the complete dog's breakfast CRT are making of interpreting their movement sightings with compliance of this law, its far from efficient.