Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

[NigelMoore]

Further amendments to be proposed in this afternoon's debate -

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmpribus/Pb180227iGiv.pdf

None of it goes far enough, and they have not been thought through as thoroughly as I could have wished, but it may give time for more opportunities to work on this before it goes to the Lords.

[erivers]

Still proposes a NAVIGATION advisory committee to "advise the Commissioners on the exercise of their functions in respect of NAVIGATION under the NAVIGATION Acts.

But then goes on to constitute that NAVIGATION Advisory Committee as being made up, in addition to those representing NAVIGATION interests, of others representing:

"other recreational users of the waterways and their banks"

"riparian owners in the Middle Level, and"

"other local interests in the Middle Level"

As these three categories are already well-represented on the Middle Level Board or through other advisory committees, there can be no justification for their inclusion in a NAVIGATION Advisory Committee and they could potentially negate any NAVIGATION advice given by the NAVIGATION Advisory Committee.  Indeed, some of their interests may be directly opposed to navigation and/or navigation facilities.  It is only the NAVIGATORS who will be made to pay charges and accede to other regulations under the Bill, not anglers and other recreational users and most certainly not riparian owners in the Middle Level or other local interests.

 

[rasputin]

amendment 14, the term "registered disabled". i'm not sure weather this actually exists, you can be registered blind or deaf. my wife has been unable to walk for over 20 years and is not registered disabled .

[NigelMoore]

3 minutes ago, rasputin said:

amendment 14, the term "registered disabled". i'm not sure weather this actually exists, you can be registered blind or deaf. my wife has been unable to walk for over 20 years and is not registered disabled .

Not sure myself - but is there not some means of justifying use of disabled parking spots in car parks, using an issued  badge?

[rasputin]

There is, called the blue badge scheme, but if they are using this to obtain "no charge", then the term disabled would encompass a very large number of people.

[NigelMoore]

I cannot say how serious that particular addition is meant to be; maybe, along with some other additional proposed amendments, it is meant mainly as a means of prolonging debate so that the third reading and subsequent forwarding to the Lords is put off, giving time for more work on the Bill.

Certainly, the MLC will be developing ulcers, and perhaps wishing they had been more willing to properly engage with petitioners during the year they had available for that. Rather too much arrogant certainty that they could push the Bill through as they wished, perhaps.

[erivers]

No more than a dozen of our beloved MPs appeared in the Commons chamber for the lively one-and-a-half-hours' debate on the amendments,

Strange then that when it came to the single division on an amendment which would have allowed concessions for the disabled, 5 voted for and 177 voted against.

Get those petitions ready for the House of Lords!

[NigelMoore]

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-28/debates/6A1B79F5-8C68-4BD8-90DC-7BF11955CBB4/MiddleLevelBill

[NigelMoore]

Just a final last minute reminder - if anybody wants to stick their oar in to the Middle Levels proposals as it goes to the Lords, tomorrow 5pm is the deadline [petitions can be emailed in with a £20 bank transfer payment].

Full details, with simple template to fill in, are here: 

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/publications-records/House-of-Lords-Publications/Private-Bills/petitioning-guidance-2017-19-private-bills.pdf

The petition can be emailed to: hlprivatebills@parliament.uk and payment of £20 can be made on-line to "The House of Lords" Sort Code 30-99-50  Account 00345391. It is advisable to cc Mark Cooper at cooperm@parliament.uk

Reasons why you might want to do this could include the desire to have a commitment to the provision of mooring facilities and other services, and the ability to take your boat into boatyards/marinas for work, or to lay up for awhile, without having to be registered while off the navigations. You might also wish that the 's.8' powers could not be applied in any event of an overstay, instead of simply paying an overstay charge. The powers desired by the MLC go far beyond those 'enjoyed' by CaRT. For another example, The Commissioners would be able to refuse registration of anybody who had once been the subject of enforcement.

To see the contents of the Bill, now that it has filtered through the Commons, are here - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/middlelevel/lbill_2017-2019MLabc_en_1.htm

The petition does not need to be elaborate and argued; it can be a simple listing of any clauses you object to, and possibly recommendations for omission or amendment. More detailed evidence will be appropriate nearer the time for any fixing of an opposed Bill committee.

For the sake of balance: should you wish the Bill to stay as it is without amendments, you can lodge a "petition against alteration" to the Bill. You would only be able to give evidence to the Committee if the promoters subsequently decided to agree any amendment with petitioners.

[NigelMoore]

 

 I hope they are talking to both the EA and CRT about extending the gold license to cover the ML.

That was specifically discussed before the Select Committee; the proposal was that an extra £20 or so for the Gold Licence would cover the Middle Level as well.

[NigelMoore]

Latest this morning -

"NABO has submitted a formal objection to the bill being promoted by the Middle Level Commissioners and due to be debated in the House if Lords shortly.

The hub of our objection as presented in our petition is summarised below

NABO supports the Bill in principle but that we feel that there should be a statutory provision for a minimum level of facilities and visitor moorings contained within the Bill. Otherwise, given the present lack of facilities and visitor moorings, the result of this Bill could simply be a money gathering exercise for the Middle Level Commissioners and boaters would gain nothing from the revenue collected."

[Mike Todd]

 

Latest this morning -

"NABO has submitted a formal objection to the bill being promoted by the Middle Level Commissioners and due to be debated in the House if Lords shortly.

The hub of our objection as presented in our petition is summarised below

NABO supports the Bill in principle but that we feel that there should be a statutory provision for a minimum level of facilities and visitor moorings contained within the Bill. Otherwise, given the present lack of facilities and visitor moorings, the result of this Bill could simply be a money gathering exercise for the Middle Level Commissioners and boaters would gain nothing from the revenue collected."

Can they point to a provision on other navigations of a similar nature that could be adapted?

[NigelMoore]

 

Can they point to a provision on other navigations of a similar nature that could be adapted?

I do not know what they may have come up with in that regard. Certainly it would be helpful to point to a precedent.

So far as the principle is concerned, the Thames Conservancy Act 1857 contained within its preamble –

“And whereas an Act was passed in the seventeenth year of the reign of King George the Third, intituled. ‘An Act for . . . laying a small toll in lieu thereof [i.e. of the previously purchased rights to toll] for the purpose of more effectually completing the said navigation and for other purposes:”

So there was an intent to improve and extend the navigation, and the “small toll” was justified by reason of that.

The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 was that which set up what has become the Broads Authority, and noted that “(1) It shall be the general duty of the Authority to manage the Broads for the purposes of —   (c) protecting the interests of navigation.” That providing a new duty of the new authority which justified the s.13 charges on vessels, as well as on other ‘participating authorities’.

Of course at present, the MLC are already charged with maintaining and protecting “the interests of navigation”, so something extra in the preamble of the Bill needs to impose an obligation not presently existing [enabling powers to provide extra services and facilities exist, and perhaps the wording of that could be used in turning a power into an obligation, justifying charges].

One suggestion that I have made, is that the historically imposed dredging demands were tailored to the needs of commercial vessels [which were, accordingly, obliged to pay]. The MLC could ask for abolition of those standards, and replacement with standards tailored to the needs of only pleasure boats [akin to the differing obligations of BW respecting commercial or cruising waterways], freeing them from an unnecessary burden while proposing an extension of service provision that pleasure boats DO need and would benefit from [a boat needing 3’ draught is not greatly benefitted, if at all, by maintenance of a far deeper channel].

The BW Act 1971 was very short on justification [as acknowledged in the Commons debates of the time], and kept to a general reference to their duty to provide services and facilities, though these were not specified in the Act, as I rather believe they ought to have been [the sketchy promise of providing sanitary stations along the rivers is the only one that sticks in my mind].

A difference between all those navigation authorities and the MLC, is that whereas the free navigation over the other waterways was a right under common law, and some degree of justification [other than intent to extend/improve the navigation] was attached to the desirability of a registration scheme which would cost to administer, the MLC statutes imposed a specific prohibition on charging pleasure boats. Hence, to my mind, they could ask for powers to register etc, with the attendant requirements of insurance and safety certificates, but a right to charge would simply have to be justified by the same provision of improvements to navigation as had justified charges for the commercial shipping on their waters.

[Mike Todd]

Thanks.  I was interested because as far as I know there is no enforceable sransard of dacilitues on the canals. Going to be an uphill struggle to justify something much better than found in CRT land. 

[NigelMoore]

8 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Thanks.  I was interested because as far as I know there is no enforceable sransard of dacilitues on the canals. Going to be an uphill struggle to justify something much better than found in CRT land. 

But there is an enforceable standard of navigability on the BW canals and rivers, albeit nothing respecting an obligation respecting bankside facilities and services. Anybody can sue CaRT in the High Court for an Order forcing them to dredge a particular length to statutory depths, for example, if they have persistently failed to do so.

However the maintenance of the canals is not tied to justification for the boat licence; none is needed, because that statutory imposition via byelaws rests upon the change in status of the canals from use as of right to permissive use. That is why I cited the 1971 Act, where the same preconditions existed as do on the Middle Level.

[NigelMoore]

Seven petitions were lodged yesterday. Three organisations – NABO, EAWA & NBTA, plus four individuals. Have not had a chance to read them yet, but they are here for those interested –

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/middlelevel/National-Association-of-Boat-Owners-Petition.pdf

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/middlelevel/National-Bargee-Travellers-Association-Petition.pdf

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/middlelevel/East-Anglian-Waterways-Association-Limited-Petition.pdf

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/middlelevel/Christopher-R-Taylor-Petition.pdf

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/middlelevel/Darren-Lumb-Petition.pdf

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/middlelevel/Nigel-Moore-Petition.pdf

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/middlelevel/Derek-Paice-Petition.pdf

More than involved themselves at the Commons stage, but indicative of a general lassitude over the issues, even of those directly concerned.

 

[Mike Todd]

19 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

But there is an enforceable standard of navigability on the BW canals and rivers, albeit nothing respecting an obligation respecting bankside facilities and services. Anybody can sue CaRT in the High Court for an Order forcing them to dredge a particular length to statutory depths, for example, if they have persistently failed to do so.

However the maintenance of the canals is not tied to justification for the boat licence; none is needed, because that statutory imposition via byelaws rests upon the change in status of the canals from use as of right to permissive use. That is why I cited the 1971 Act, where the same preconditions existed as do on the Middle Level.

But as you said, the duty to maintain the navigation already exists, does it not?

[NigelMoore]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

But as you said, the duty to maintain the navigation already exists, does it not?

Yes it does - for both CaRT and the MLC, but:

Firstly – insofar as the MLC are claiming that it is ‘only right’ that pleasure boats pay for something they enjoy at the MLC’s expense – that obligation to maintain is to standards applicable to the commercial vessels for which they were and are entitled to exact toll. If [ignoring the argument that the deeper the channels the better the flood defence] they were obliged to maintain the channels only to pleasure boat standards, then they could save on their present expense level without demanding any contribution from the pleasure boats.

They could have incorporated into this Bill, therefore, an abolition of current obligations in favour of less onerous ones. Not that I particularly support that, because any opportunity for keeping navigations viable for commercial traffic should be encouraged, in my view – but it is a pertinent course of action that addresses some of their whinges.

Secondly – if they have an existing obligation to maintain to a certain standard, then there is no quid pro quo for the charges; they should be undertaking in the Bill, to take on responsibilities for improvement of the existing navigations for the benefit of pleasure boats, if they are to be able to justify the charges. I realise I keep repeating myself!

It is true that nothing specific as to justification was in the 1971 Act, which was wrong in my opinion – except for the fact that once registration was in place, no registered boat need ever pay again, the tolls authorised for passage through locks – so there was at least an off-set of charges, for those travelling the system if not for the more sedentary. No such charges are authorised on the Middle level, so that justification as in the 1971 Act fails in this case.

To clarify what was ‘offered’ in justification for the 1970 Bill, Mr John Wells MP stated in his address to the Commons –

“It is reasonable to point out that there must be increased patrolling, increased sanitary facilities, increased water facilities – fresh water facilities I mean – and increased lock facilities. I mean not that there will be more locks but that the locks should be open for longer hours. These are extra services for which people will be asked to pay, and it seems to us – to me anyway – that this is not unreasonable.” . . . “I think I have already dealt with the tangible benefits, which, I freely admit, are not very great, but neither are the charges very great . . .”  [my bold]

That last point is also relevant; the MLC propose charges which are not subject to control, as were the 1971 charges.

[NigelMoore]

Latest news today -

“The bill still has a formal stage to go through in the Lords and that is scheduled for next week.

Thereafter, we are looking at setting up a Select Committee to consider the petitions.

This Committee is likely (but as yet not certainly) to happen in late June.”

[Scholar Gypsy]

As part of their preparations in advance of the current Bill receiving Royal Assent, the Commissioners have decided that they need to smarten up their assets, in order to provide extra amenities for visiting boaters. They have changed the contractual terms of all their staff to reflect this.

Here is a photo taken last weekend of Paul smartening up the banks of the River Great Ouse, following the recent dredging at Salters Lode. Such devotion to duty. I gather his next task is to paint the tyres white, so they can be more easily seen. 

Edited April 1, 2018 by Scholar Gypsy

[rusty69]

That's a funny looking fishing rod

[Scholar Gypsy]

15 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

That's a funny looking fishing rod

High pressure water hose. You can see the pump up against the wall.

[erivers]

1 hour ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

High pressure water hose. You can see the pump up against the wall.

Seriously though, Roger Sexton of East Anglian Waterways Association has been advocating the use of a high pressure hose as a simple and cost effective way of dealing with the continuous  build up of silt at Salters Lode and the Old Bedford Sluice. The EA tend to do nothing until the silt has accumulated enough to prevent navigation and then only by employing expensive contractors. The late Charlie Fox of Fox's Marina always said that the problem could be cured by one man and one pump and showed it to be true. 

The EA has now agreed to consider proposals for siting of a pump at outside the Old Bedford Sluice to be operated by volunteers. It is hoped that this will make entry to the Old Bedford much easier for the planned flotilla of boats making the trip to Welches Dam in August.

[Scholar Gypsy]

1 hour ago, erivers said:

Seriously though, Roger Sexton of East Anglian Waterways Association has been advocating the use of a high pressure hose as a simple and cost effective way of dealing with the continuous  build up of silt at Salters Lode and the Old Bedford Sluice. The EA tend to do nothing until the silt has accumulated enough to prevent navigation and then only by employing expensive contractors. The late Charlie Fox of Fox's Marina always said that the problem could be cured by one man and one pump and showed it to be true. 

The EA has now agreed to consider proposals for siting of a pump at outside the Old Bedford Sluice to be operated by volunteers. It is hoped that this will make entry to the Old Bedford much easier for the planned flotilla of boats making the trip to Welches Dam in August.

That's good to hear. There are some pipes on the (little eye) sluice gates at Denver, and I was wondering if they were used to blast silt out around the gates when they are raised and lowered.  

Ooh, I'd not heard about the August trip to WD.  Are there still any places on it, and who do I contact. I am a member of the EAWA but don't recall reading about this future trip in the last newsletter. 

[NigelMoore]

Received yesterday -

 

This is to confirm the Opposed Bill Committee will sit week commencing Monday 25 June. The schedule is flexible, but is expected to last Monday to Thursday that week. You can expect sittings to run from approximately 10am to 5pm with an hour’s break for lunch. The timing for the first day is yet to be fixed – I’ll advise you of that as soon as I can. Proceedings are expected to take place in Committee Room 4, in the corridor where the Commons Committee sat.

 

Committee membership

The members of the Committee are:

 

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (chair)(Crossbench)

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)

Lord Brabazon of Tara (Conservative)

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)

Lord Trees (Crossbench)

 

Lord Thomas served as Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales from 2013 to 2017 and Lord Brabazon, as former Chairman of Committees, has served on many private bill committees. Counsel to the Chairman of Committees, the Clerk to the Committee and other House officials will also be present.