Jump to content

Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill


NigelMoore

Featured Posts

If a license is not required to keep a boat in a marina connected to the navigation, then most boats, which spend most time in a marina, need only buy a short-term visitor license, and the system degenerates into a pay-per-passage arrangement, which isn't practical on enforcement or equity grounds. Why do you think that other navigations have the same rules . . .

But they don’t have such rules. CaRT have a pay-per-passage arrangement with short-term licences, as recognised in statute, and which has presented no obvious impracticality in the more than 40 years since licences became mandatory; with the same situation having existed on BW’s river navigations - even on CaRT’s interpretation of ‘main navigable channel’ - for the past 46 years.

As to the EA 'rule' on the Thames - that awaits an overdue judgment from the Appeal Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A license system only works of all contribute. If a license is not required to keep a boat in a marina connected to the navigation, then most boats, which spend most time in a marina, need only buy a short-term visitor license, and the system degenerates into a pay-per-passage arrangement, which isn't practical on enforcement or equity grounds. Why do you think that other navigations have the same rules, and the EA have just introduced them on the Thames?

 

 

MP.

As far as I know there are no recently constructed marinas which do not require a licence. There are a small number of long established ones where they were connected to the system without this requirement being agreed as p[art of the initial deal (there are probably scant conditions for CaRT to impose one retrospectively)

 

As posted earlier, the ML Bill is currently held up with a motion to oppose. Perhaps someone in favour of the increased control should point out to the Commissioners that they could save all the time, trouble and expense of promoting this Bill, and take a leaf out of CaRT's book - simply impose the desired obligations on boaters by demanding they agree to a unilaterally drafted contract?

What do you know about the motion to oppose? Is it just a consequence of petitions having been made? Are there specific parliamentarians who have put their name to the motion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know there are no recently constructed marinas which do not require a licence. There are a small number of long established ones where they were connected to the ......

Who said anything about newly constructed marinas? We are talking about the MLC controling existing marinas that do not belong to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you know about the motion to oppose? Is it just a consequence of petitions having been made? Are there specific parliamentarians who have put their name to the motion?

 

I know nothing more than what I posted, that being all that the website says. It cannot be a result of the petitions, because those make no difference to progression of the Bill, other than to provide debating material to the Select Committee appointed to oversee the Bill. I suspect some local MP responded to constituent concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/bills/private/private-stages/

 

"Second reading (This is often approved formally unless a Member wishes to have a debate on the Bill. In the Commons the motion may be repeatedly blocked, which can delay progress indefinitely. The principles of the bill are debated on third reading.) "

 

and from http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/bills/private/private-stages/second/

 

"Any MP or Lord may oppose a Private Bill at second reading. If a Private Bill is opposed at second reading, time must be found on the floor of the House to debate it. Debates on Private Bills at second reading tend to be wide-ranging, often including discussion on the general subject of the Bill as well as its specific merits."

 

So if there are concerns about a Private Bill, a blocking motion gives more time for the issues to be discussed - in parliament and may be also outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said anything about newly constructed marinas? We are talking about the MLC controling existing marinas that do not belong to them.

I probably responded to the wrong quote but i was to the canal system which I took to mean that under CaRT control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know nothing more than what I posted, that being all that the website says. It cannot be a result of the petitions, because those make no difference to progression of the Bill, other than to provide debating material to the Select Committee appointed to oversee the Bill. I suspect some local MP responded to constituent concerns.

Not necessarily so. A petitioner against a private bill can choose to appear before the parliamentary committee to raise their concerns in person. The promoter of the Bill can object, and if agreement can't be reached the Court of Referees will decided if the petitioner can give evidence.

 

Having in the past acted as an expert witness on behalf of the Promoter of a Private Bill, it was my experience that Promoters allowed any petitioner to appear, and the two sides could argue the issues in front of the committee. Although I was part of the promoter's team, I was impressed by the way that the committee members bent over backwards to ensure that the private individuals with few resources and no understanding or experience of the parliamentary system were given every opportunity to present their arguments in the face of a well-resourced team of professional experts, and were given sometimes considerable leeway when their approach deviated from the procedural rules.

 

It is perhaps worth adding that this latitude was most in evidence in the House of Lords Committee, chaired by an elderly hereditary peer of impeccable Tory credentials and with the other members being a mix of hereditary and life peers from the Tory, Labour and cross-benches, whereas the House of Commons committee members, i.e. serving MPs from both main parties, had a poorer attendance record, and were keener to keep the proceeding moving, and less willing to hear the same point articulated again and again by different petitioners. It was an eye-opening insight into the benefits for our parliamentary system of having an unelected house, not answerable to the political leaders of the day.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily so. A petitioner against a private bill can choose to appear before the parliamentary committee to raise their concerns in person. The promoter of the Bill can object, and if agreement can't be reached the Court of Referees will decided if the petitioner can give evidence.

 

Having in the past acted as an expert witness on behalf of the Promoter of a Private Bill, it was my experience that Promoters allowed any petitioner to appear, and the two sides could argue the issues in front of the committee. Although I was part of the promoter's team, I was impressed by the way that the committee members bent over backwards to ensure that the private individuals with few resources and no understanding or experience of the parliamentary system were given every opportunity to present their arguments in the face of a well-resourced team of professional experts, and were given sometimes considerable leeway when their approach deviated from the procedural rules.

 

It is perhaps worth adding that this latitude was most in evidence in the House of Lords Committee, chaired by an elderly hereditary peer of impeccable Tory credentials and with the other members being a mix of hereditary and life peers from the Tory, Labour and cross-benches, whereas the House of Commons committee members, i.e. serving MPs from both main parties, had a poorer attendance record, and were keener to keep the proceeding moving, and less willing to hear the same point articulated again and again by different petitioners. It was an eye-opening insight into the benefits for our parliamentary system of having an unelected house, not answerable to the political leaders of the day.

 

You are correct – my apologies if what I wrote suggested otherwise; I took it as read that the debates before the SC would take place - wherein petitioners with approved standing can participate – as an integral part of progression of the Bill. We have, most of us here, become familiarised with what you describe from all the Select Committee transcripts published debating the 1990 BW Bill.

 

In fact, in debating that Bill, the Commons SC were at very unusual pains 'to get it right' [far more so in that instance than the Lords] and themselves recognised how unusual such conscientiousness was!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Middle Level Bill is on today's Commons Order Paper at 11.30 am. for its Second Reading ........

 

but ......

 

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Middle Level Bill

: Second Reading

No debate, and may not be proceeded with as it is opposed

(Standing Order No. 20)

Mr Christopher Chope

On Second Reading of the Middle Level Bill, to move, That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.

Edited by erivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will keep coming up on the agenda every Wednesday now until a debate is scheduled.

 

Not next week though as next week is a special week for some reason. Can't remember what the Clerk said was going on next week mind.

 

Apparently it just comes up for a reading, but it isn't read because of the blocking motion and they just move on to other Bills.

Edited by Steamerpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

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 difference 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 larger part 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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

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.

Ah, the good old days when people cared about losing the rights so hard won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-1-21 at 09:50, Athy said:

. . .  many of us have riparian rights.

Somewhat to my surprise, the MLC seen to be taking a view that these do not exist, though [hopefully] they may be limiting the argument to the wholly artificial sections. They have cited the Appeal case of MLC v Marner [2006] as confirmation of their stance.

Having since obtained a copy of that Appeal Judgment, I do not see that it helps them a great deal, as the main burden of that hearing was whether extension of time to appeal should be given [it was decided not]. Nonetheless, the High Court Judgment consequently stands, though it could well be that the usefulness of that [to the MLC] has since been overtaken by the Appeal decision in my own case, which came some 7 years subsequent to Marner. I would very much like to see that judgment and the pleadings in the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Somewhat to my surprise, the MLC seen to be taking a view that these do not exist,

That is to my surprise too - I have not looked at our deeds for some time, but the house was certainly sold to us with riparian rights included - these embrace the right to fish (no thanks) and the right to draw water from the river (useful), as well as mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Athy said:

That is to my surprise too - I have not looked at our deeds for some time, but the house was certainly sold to us with riparian rights included - these embrace the right to fish (no thanks) and the right to draw water from the river (useful), as well as mooring.

I don't think you need to be terribly concerned, if on the banks of a natural river - but then again, an element of the Bill seeks powers of control over all private moorings and extension of regulatory powers to any private, linked bit of water; an aspect that was fudged a little during my own discussions. The MLC showed mild surprise that I found such an extension of powers to regulate boats beyond their boundaries to be objectionable. My response was: where is the quid pro quo, that is a legal requirement when seeking constraints over public and private rights? What beneficial change will such owners profit by when/if the Bill becomes law? There has to be some costly improvement to justify demand for contributions by tolls, and there was no answer to that. It does not matter how much it costs them to maintain the water levels between certain parameters, only because of boating; that is how it is at present, in circumstances wherein the law allows for toll-free pleasure boating - no improvement on that is possible, so no quid pro quo can be demonstrated.

They also appear somewhat oblivious to the requirement for strict construction of their private statutes, claiming that a prohibition on steam-powered boats can be extended, such that ALL powered boats on their system are committing a criminal offence simply being there, so that the sought 'permission' via registration is a charitable confirmation of what an archaic statute can be extrapolated to. They are doing you a favour, in other words, by seeking to charge you to use their waterways instead of hauling you all off to the Magistrates Court!

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidently their recent vacation of their august Victorian building in central March and move to an anonymous modern suburban box is indicative of an overall decline in standards.

That said, I do realise that they are principally a water management, not a navigation, authority, but I can see no advantage in their antagonising boaters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I received a response to my own objections from the Middle Level Commissioners a couple of days ago. 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.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

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

They've obviously never been to some of these marinas then!

17 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

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.

Surely this is down to the marina owners

Edited by rusty69
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.