|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 30, 2017 16:54:49 GMT
I have met with some of the other petitioners yesterday, because we have each received letters from the Commissioners inviting us to meetings, to see whether differences can be resolved. This is as it should be, and I hope to arrange something for myself shortly.
However to repeat here what I have said to the others - the reason why registration requirements in the similar 1971 BW Act were as restricted as they were - not to include waters outside the main navigable channel [however that is understood] and to have a cap on pricing - is because both BW and Government were very aware of, and sensitive to, the general feeling of the public being so protective of their ancient rights that if concessions and limitations on the extent of intrusion upon those rights were not in place, the Bill was likely to be defeated.
This is the area where everybody with an interest in the matter can still affect things should they wish to; write to MP's [not just your own] and express yourselves firmly. The public were solemnly promised free use of pleasure boats along these waterways, the construction of which were and are focussed on draining the land for the financial benefit of the landowners, who form the majority of the Commissioners. Free pleasure boating is an all but cost-free by-product of a system primarily designed and maintained for the indirect commercial benefit of the Commissioners.
Given the imminent election naturally enough, you will need to wait and see who gets in before writing to them.
If, of course, insufficient numbers of boaters and general public are interested in the further removal of areas of liberty, then the opportunity to engage with the Parliamentary process will be lost, and the MLC will be able to do as they please. It takes effort to look into the details to realise just what future pitfalls lie in wait e.g. for marina owners and the like, who doubtless shrug their shoulders over the Bill as something not affecting them - but it will, unless the Bill is at least modified.
Other little nasties lie therein also - for example, whereas CaRT cannot [legally] revoke your licence/certificate for breach of byelaws, under the proposed Bill the MLC WILL be able to do just that, and where CaRT cannot [legally] bar you from their waterways so long as you apply for a licence meeting the 1995 conditions, the MLC WILL be able to ban you for life if they have once exercised their proposed powers of removal. They are asking for further byelaw making powers to boot, so without opposition to the whole or part of the powers they seek, they will end up with rights of draconian interference with boat owners that CaRT could only drool with envy over. I do have to wonder how many boaters have realised that such traps for the unwary lie in waiting.
|
|
|
|
Post by erivers on May 30, 2017 18:18:55 GMT
Other little nasties lie therein also - for example, whereas CaRT cannot [legally] revoke your licence/certificate for breach of byelaws, under the proposed Bill the MLC WILL be able to do just that, and where CaRT cannot [legally] bar you from their waterways so long as you apply for a licence meeting the 1995 conditions, the MLC WILL be able to ban you for life if they have once exercised their proposed powers of removal. They are asking for further byelaw making powers to boot, so without opposition to the whole or part of the powers they seek, they will end up with rights of draconian interference with boat owners that CaRT could only drool with envy over. I do have to wonder how many boaters have realised that such traps for the unwary lie in waiting. Nigel and I may disagree on whether or not the general principle of the Bill should be opposed. I believe that given certain safeguards there will on balance be benefits for the majority of users of the Middle Level waterways if registration is introduced. However, there is no disagreement between us over the pernicious and rather spiteful nature of the clause to which he refers. In effect it seeks powers to permanently deprive boaters, who otherwise fully meet the requirements of registration including payment of fees, of their Public Right of Navigation of these waters just because of a past offence which has already been dealt with by due process. It must be for courts and courts alone to impose punishments for infringements of byelaws and then ONLY those penalties statutorily prescribed for such offences. Unfortunately, as a supporter of the general principle of the Bill I failed to notice this nasty clause before discussions with the Middle Level Commissioners. The Cam Conservators tried to slip a similar clause into their Conditions for Registration a few years ago but removed the provision when I challenged them: Proposal: Applications for registration of a vessel may, after due consideration, be declined by a full board meeting of the Conservators if the applicant has previously been convicted by a court for a breach of the Bye-Laws.
My Response to Cam Conservators’ Proposed Revisions to Registration Requirements as from 1st April 2014
a) Whilst this may be desirable as a deterrant to potential serial offenders, there is no provision under the Cam Conservancy Act 1922 or the existing Byelaws under which the Conservators can refuse to register a vessel where the application meets the requirements for registration in every other respect and for which the correct fee is paid.
b) This is, in effect, an entirely new Byelaw which can only be lawfully introduced by correctly following the procedure in Section 27 of the 1922 Act and with the approval of the Secretary of State.
c) Notwithstanding the likelihood that it would never actually be used, it seeks, in effect, provision to impose a further penalty over and above that lawfully available to the court at the time of such conviction, at any time, on a person previously convicted of an offence under the byelaws.
d) It also makes no sense whatever that the Conservators, in seeking to maximise their income, should refuse a fully compliant registration application accompanied by an appropriate fee from any person wishing to exercise their public right of navigation of the river Cam for ANY other reason than non-compliance with the existing authorised byelaws.
e) There is no similar sanction available to the Environment Agency, which under its Inland Waterways Order 2010 is permitted to refuse or revoke vessel registration only for non-compliance with the specific provisions contained in Schedule 2 of the Order (which do not include previous convictions). Even in the case of Schedule 2 breaches the Order allows for appeal against refusal to grant registration by written or oral representation or an application to a magistrate for the refusal to be declared unreasonable and revoked.
f) I suggest therefore that the proposal under Item 5 is ill-conceived, is outside of the powers of the Conservators and, if introduced, would be open to legal challenge which could involve the Conservators in considerable trouble and expense. It cannot, therefore, be seen as a ‘reasonable requirement’ for registration.
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jun 18, 2017 10:34:44 GMT
c) Notwithstanding the likelihood that it would never actually be used, it seeks, in effect, provision to impose a further penalty over and above that lawfully available to the court at the time of such conviction, at any time, on a person previously convicted of an offence under the byelaws. This 'unlikelihood' of an authority using powers is sadly, even if it was the authority arguing that, no bar to their using it in future when it suits. It has to be remembered that when BW were urging certain clauses in the 1990 Bill, they actively argued that s.8 was a draconian power disproportionate as a tool for use as mooring enforcement, which they would consider inappropriate to the purpose; of dubious legality if used for that purpose, and which it was 'unlikely' that they would use even if they could. Compare that stance with that of the years since - when s.8 became the sole tool used for enforcement of anything at all, whether of legitimate byelaws or unilaterally imposed conditions outwith Parliamentary empowerment. Several individuals and organisations will be formally meeting with the Commissioners tomorrow, to discuss the Bill, with the Commissioners naturally hoping that with some amendments no doubt, petitions against the Bill will be withdrawn. That is according to required procedure. I am due to meet with them separately next month, on the discrete issues raised by my petition. |
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 8, 2017 14:00:38 GMT
Yesterday I was the last of the several groups and individuals who petitioned against the Bill to have a discussion over the specific points of disagreement. They have all been cordial meetings from what I have been told, though there has been no suggestion that anything will actually be actioned; the MLC appear to be content to have the debates heard by Select Committee rather than seek to have petitioners withdraw by way of concessions and/or modifications. I would like to think that they will give that possibility some consideration however.
Having fulfilled their obligation to meet with all petitioners, there is a move to reinstate the ML Bill on the Commons Order Paper for Monday 10th July, with an expressed hope that it will go to committee in October. That seems optimistic, but they may be privy to information not possessed by outsiders.
|
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Jul 11, 2017 10:40:39 GMT
The motion to revive the Middle Level Bill in this session of Parliament was put to the Commons this morning. There was an objection so it will now be put to the House again on 18th July.
The Bill cannot proceed further, i.e. to the Opposed Bill Committee stage, until the revival motion is approved by both Houses of Parliament.
|
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Jul 18, 2017 10:41:26 GMT
The motion to revive the Bill was put to the House of Commons again this morning. As before, it received an objection from the floor and will not be put before the House again until Tuesday 5th September.
|
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Sept 5, 2017 13:36:56 GMT
The motion for revival of the Middle Level Bill was put to the House of Commons again this afternoon. As before, it received an objection from the floor and will not be put before the House again until Tuesday 12th September.
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 5, 2017 14:49:04 GMT
Doesn't get put off for long, does it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 15:17:06 GMT
Cheers for the update.
|
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Sept 12, 2017 16:28:09 GMT
Once again .........
The motion to approve revival of the Middle Level Bill was put to the House of Commons again this morning. As before, it received an objection from the floor and will not be put before the House again until Tuesday 12th October..
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 13, 2017 10:25:40 GMT
Have received an emailed letter yesterday explaining why they think my objections have no merit. I assume everyone else has received something similar.
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 15, 2017 10:58:15 GMT
I need to go through this response carefully when I have the time, but at first glance it seems to side-step matters. Others may have relevant observations -
Petitioner’s Comment
Definition of ‘waterways’ seeks to extend the Commissioner’s powers to all adjacent waters including private waters outside the Commissioner’s jurisdiction (Clause 1).
Commissioner’s Response
It is not necessary for a body to be the riparian owner of a waterway for which it is navigation authority, nor is it unusual for this to be the case.
The definition of ‘waterway’ included in the Bill has been drafted in this way for three reasons:
(1) In the Middle Level, all of the later-constructed marinas and other watercourses connected with the Commissioners’ own waterways are part of the same artificially managed system. There are no gates or similar structures to block off water levels, and so management activities carried out in one part of the system directly affect all connected waters. Those connected waters therefore directly benefit from the Commissioners’ activities and it is appropriate for them to be regulated in the same way as the Commissioners’ own waterways.
(2) It is important to ensure that the provisions of the Bill which relate to issues such as insurance and boat safety extend to marinas and adjacent waters. It is important to note that the Commissioners have not received any objections to this wording from marina owners.
Following discussions with Petitioners, the Commissioners have considered the exemptions granted by the Broads Authority to vessels moored on waters adjacent to the Broads. However, these relate only to unpowered vessels, and the Broads Authority do not exempt small powered vessels in adjacent waters. The situation with adjacent waters in the Broads is therefore different from that in the Middle Level system.
(3) The current definition of ‘waterway’ is also necessary to ensure the powers included in the Bill would apply to other waterways which are not yet navigable but which might become so in the future, for example, if the Commissioners deepen the channel at Fenton Lode. If the powers included in the Bill did not extend to these waterways then further legislation would be needed to ensure the Commissioners could properly regulate the use of new waterways. This would be costly and time-consuming.
Petitioner’s Comment
Power to remove vessels includes wording ‘without lawful authority’ which is inapplicable to refer to boats on public navigable waters. Wording in [article] 16 of the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2012 would be preferable (Clause 8(3)).
Commissioner’s Response
The situation differs from that in the Thames, which is a natural river with much less modification than the Middle Level waterways. Further, article 16 of the EA’s Order deals with the removal of unregistered vessels, whereas clause 8(3) of the Bill is intended to deal with vessels that have been left or moored in the waterways without lawful authority, so it is not an issue of whether the vessel has authority to navigate but to be left or moored.
Because the relevant landowner in the Middle Level will be able to prove trespass and the public authority will be able to prove whether or not the vessel is in breach of the relevant terms and conditions, the Commissioners therefore consider that the wording of clause 8(3) is appropriate for its circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Oct 11, 2017 9:19:07 GMT
The motion to revive the Bill was put to the House of Commons again yesterday morning. As before, it received an objection from the floor and will now be put before the House again on 17th October.
Motion made, That the promoters of the Middle Level Bill, which originated in this House in the previous Session on 24 January 2017, may have leave to proceed with the Bill in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).—(The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Object.
Bill to be considered on Tuesday 17 October at Four o’clock.
|
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Oct 17, 2017 22:24:30 GMT
The Middle Level Bill has today been revived for further consideration in the present session of Parliament (subject to a similar motion being approved by the House of Lords):
Middle Level Bill: Revival Motion (Standing Order 188B relating to Private Business)
Ordered, That the promoters of the Middle Level Bill, which originated in this House in the previous Session on 24 January 2017, may have leave to proceed with the Bill in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).—(First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 17, 2017 23:06:20 GMT
More work ahead then. In some ways I hope they hurry up, so that we get it sorted and I can hit the road again; I am getting itchy feet.
|
|
