Jump to content

Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill


NigelMoore

Featured Posts

We have just received tentative confirmation of the three day hearing mid January; the promoters have indicated the possibility of their wishing to call on a senior IWA person as a witness supporting their drive for getting boaters to contribute towards the farmers' land drainage, through the impositions of pleasure boat registration with all the attendant controls, even over waterways outside of their jurisdiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The Members appointed to the Select Committee are now confirmed as: Julian Knight (chair), Giles Watling, Tulip Siddiq and Alex Sobel.

The promoters have now confirmed that their witnesses will be:

 Iain Smith, former Chief Executive and Clerk to the Middle Level Commissioners

David Thomas, Chief Executive, Chief Engineer and Clerk to the Middle Level Commissioners

Chris Howes, Chair of the Peterborough Branch of the Inland Waterways Association.

The three days of proceedings will apparently be watchable via a web-cast, for those interested to follow them live [or record for later digesting].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

The Members appointed to the Select Committee are now confirmed as: Julian Knight (chair), Giles Watling, Tulip Siddiq and Alex Sobel.

The promoters have now confirmed that their witnesses will be:

 Iain Smith, former Chief Executive and Clerk to the Middle Level Commissioners

David Thomas, Chief Executive, Chief Engineer and Clerk to the Middle Level Commissioners

Chris Howes, Chair of the Peterborough Branch of the Inland Waterways Association.

The three days of proceedings will apparently be watchable via a web-cast, for those interested to follow them live [or record for later digesting].

I'm sure you know, but this page gives the latest formal information on the progress of the Bill. https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/middlelevel.html. It says the Committee dates are not yet fixed.

I think that page will in due course include a transcript of the hearing.  For example the Second reading debate on 29 March 2017  is here https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-03-29/debates/A904899F-6F12-4CCE-9032-0DEBC38A3179/MiddleLevelBill

And I think the video will be available here http://parliamentlive.tv/Committees

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

I'm sure you know, but this page gives the latest formal information on the progress of the Bill. https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/middlelevel.html. It says the Committee dates are not yet fixed.

I am afraid that the website is sadly behind the times. The clerk has been notified of this, and aims to do something about it, but for now - the Select Committee hearing will run from Monday 15 January to Wednesday 17 January. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

I am afraid that the website is sadly behind the times. The clerk has been notified of this, and aims to do something about it, but for now - the Select Committee hearing will run from Monday 15 January to Wednesday 17 January. 

So much for modern technology ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if a transcript of the hearings was published. What you have linked to is Hansard, which is altogether different. Minutes from transcripts will be made, but whether those would be made available to the public is something else again. The fact that the web cast could be recorded if one knew how, is certainly encouraging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Grebe said:

Is petitioner Chris Howes the same man that was involved in the Broads Act petitions at HofP back in 2007/8

 

I know very little of Mr Howes, other than he is the fairly recent Chair of the Peterborough Branch of the Inland Waterways Association. He is NOT a petitioner, he is appearing to give evidence FOR the Bill. As with many others, though, I suspect he is beginning to realise just how many nasties are embedded in what superficially looked to be a benign bit of regularisation of navigational control. It would be characteristic for the IWA to seek a seat on the panel [of the MLC] as it were, for all the good that would do boaters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

. . . that page will in due course include a transcript of the hearing.

I have only just printed out the priority admission letter I was sent yesterday - it confirms that you are right: they do intend to publish transcripts of proceedings on the site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those that won't visit :

 

THOUGH there is opposition from boaters to the introduction of boat licences for the Middle Level waterways, they are to be introduced.

At present boaters using the Middle Level as a route between the canal system and the River Great Ouse do so without charge, but boat licences are to be introduced, and such boaters will be charged for access.

Ely RiversideUsed to access River Great Ouse

The Middle Level is used currently used by CaRT licenced boaters to access the River Great Ouse via the Nene, and of course River Great Ouse boaters to access the canal system. The photograph shows the moorings at Ely.

Of course the greatest objection is from the National Bargee Travellers Association, whose members moor on the Middle Level so avoiding both CaRT boat licence, Boat Safety Scheme commitment and insurance, but the introduction of licencing will put a stop to this.

Can empty toilets into navigation

Even toilet emptying into the waterway is permitted under the old rules, that means Bargee members have no need to move their boats to access such facilities.  Under the new licence conditions this too will be stopped.

The new Middle Level Bill is designed to bring the waterway into line with the rules of those of both Canal & River Trust and the Environmental Agency and is now set to proceed through Parliament.

More facilities

An aim of the Bill is to raise funds to provide facilities on the Middle Level, of which there are very few. As to whether or not this will come to pass only the future will reveal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Well from the other place licences are being introduced http://www.narrowboatworld.com/10489-middle-level-licences-to-be-introduced

Bit quick off the mark are they not?

And wrong - the Bill has only just passed the first Parliamentary hurdle; even if the Bill survives passage in its present form, no licences will be demanded, only registration certificates, and boaters with other licences/registration certificates, from other authorities, will enjoy the benefit of reciprocal acknowledgements of those when seeking to transit only.

The sneering comments later in the article take no account of just how drastically the original Bill has been changed over the past 3 days of Committee hearings, and why. I have only just got back, so will post further comment later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Bit quick off the mark are they not?

And wrong - the Bill has only just passed the first Parliamentary hurdle; even if the Bill survives passage in its present form, no licences will be demanded, only registration certificates, and boaters with other licences/registration certificates, from other authorities, will enjoy the benefit of reciprocal acknowledgements of those when seeking to transit only.

The sneering comments later in the article take no account of just how drastically the original Bill has been changed over the past 3 days of Committee hearings, and why. I have only just got back, so will post further comment later.

Nice to see a non journalistic view on things. (never let the truth get in the way of a good story)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A significant extra clause that was proposed and accepted, was the requirement for the MLC to establish a body to be known as the Navigation Advisory Committee, to advise the Commissioners on the exercise of their functions in respect of navigation. This body will have to include those representing  recreational motor-boating interests in the waterways”; “the interests of individuals who use vessels on the waterways as their sole residence”, “other recreational users”, etc.

This group MUST, except in emergencies, be consulted by the MLC over any: proposals for new services; proposals to impose or vary charges, and proposals to make navigation byelaws.

Mr Cameron [QC for the Commissioners], in presenting his case at the last –

“I turn to the new clauses themselves. I will start with the proposed amendment and the new clause that is on “Paper B” Apart, which is on the Commissioners’ duties. If you were to accept that amendment, it would provide very real protection to boat dwellers, because it would apply to each and every function that was being exercised. Every time that the Commissioners decided to do something—setting charging rates, making byelaws, taking enforcement action or closing waters for recreation—they would have to consider the interests of boat dwellers, on each and every occasion that they exercised those functions. Given that amendment, I would suggest, and I submit, that many of the NBTA’s concerns, and those of others, are overcome. That is actually a better way of overcoming their concerns, because it is not just amending particular clauses; it is what I would call an overriding clause. It is an overriding duty, which applies when exercising all the functions.”

This new clause, that he is talking about, is headed “Commissioner’s duties in relation to boat-dwellers”, and requires:

(1) In the exercise of their functions under and by virtue of this Act the Commissioners must have regard to –  ( a ) the interests of individuals who use vessels as their sole residence (including individuals who do not own or have access to a permanent mooring); and ( b ) the desirability of safeguarding and facilitating public rights of navigation.

(2) In each calendar year the Commissioners must publish a report setting out what they have done in the previous calendar year to satisfy the duty under subsection(1).”

These are significant modifications to the Bill, moving well away from the over-sight free autocracy of the original. They are entirely due to the representations made by Panda, Chris, Derek and Charlotte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Tuscan, but as I said, the extra clauses re: the NAC and Commissioners duties, were nothing to do with me. My petition was aimed only at extension of jurisdiction beyond the MLC boundaries into private land ["adjacent waters"], and at use of undefined "without lawful authority" as justification for boat evictions. In evidence, I also raised the point that - following the Ravenscroft judgment of Asplin J - the HRA was rendered useless as a brake on disproportionate use of such power, and that no control over such misuse existed in the primary legislation; proportionate use was at the mercy of the inclinations of those in charge of bodies with such powers.

I will detail later, but the Counsel for the Committee came up with an extra clause to meet that latter point, while the Commissioners responded to each original point with additions to the clauses objected to.

Why they could not have worked this out with us beforehand is beyond me; they had to be taken to the wire in front of the Select Committee, before making these concessions. Probably they expected that the various petitioners would just fold their tents and slink away intimidated by the process. It goes to show that boaters CAN make a significant difference to the legislation affecting them, if they are only alert to the process in the first place, and are willing to put time and effort into making that difference. We saw it in the BW Bill of 1990, and we have seen it now with the MLC.

I think it worth noting also, that one does not have to be au fait with legalese or technicalities - two of the most powerful presentations were from the petitioners who gave their purely personal viewpoints of life living on the Middle Levels, and that human touch, in revealing the real nature of those who would be affected most by the Bill, was appreciated by the Committee as valuable background to their deliberations.

In the Chairman's words to Charlotte: "The picture you were painting was very evocative and very telling, actually." It prompted quite a few probing questions from the Committee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I watched some of it using the televised link. The non professionals were powerful in the simplicity and directness of their views and questions. The witness from the IWA came across as badly briefed when questioned on things like why not put a minimum level of services into the bill if this is largely what the funding was required for - a good point. From a few boaters that are based in March that I have personally spoken to this is the key issue for them before any charges are introduced. . Then If I recall correctly he stated that were many boats on the middle levels that were unsafe and very scruffy due to their being no requirement for a BSS certificate but on being questioned could only recall one dangerous incident and this was on the Thames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

Yes I watched some of it using the televised link. The non professionals were powerful in the simplicity and directness of their views and questions. The witness from the IWA came across as badly briefed when questioned on things like why not put a minimum level of services into the bill if this is largely what the funding was required for - a good point. From a few boaters that are based in March that I have personally spoken to this is the key issue for them before any charges are introduced.

I don't quite get that, as March is the only place on the MLN which DOES have decent services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

I don't quite get that, as March is the only place on the MLN which DOES have decent services.

It’s the only place with services including pump out I thought and these are owned by the town I believe not the middle level commissioners. Happy to be corrected as it’s been a long time since I personally cruised there, just visited a friends boat based at Foxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You find the boaters with legal moorings in the Fens, main complaint is the lack of action taking againist the free loading squatting Bargee Travellers moored for months on the town vislter moorings. One very scruffy due 70ft only moved on when a ASBO was served on him. As is common with all Bargee Travellers the name had been painted over. A number of these boats have either sunk or burnt out in the Fens the last few years. If the outside is not cared for, what do you think the state of the inside is like. With Fenland Council now treating boats as second homes and charging council tax on marina berths, Marina Berth holders are not happy with these freeloaders paying zero. Some bargee travellers have had to move on after being banned from a number of shops.    

70ft Green narrowboat March riverside.jpg

BT by the town bridge.jpg

Two more on West End.jpg

bt  on the otherside the bridge.jpg

Edited by nbfiresprite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just seen on the Fenland Council Facebook page they are looking to control overstaying on the moorings, Tried to go to their web site to look at the details but it was down http://www.fenland.gov.uk/article/12946/Council-seeks-views-on-moorings-management maybe suffering from overload?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.