It’s happening now. At the moment much discussion is going on about the corporate stance, both published and secret, of British Waterways and we are getting material flooding in. It will be heard here. The results of Freedom of Information Act requests will be also be aired here. Keep them coming.
Most of us will have heard by now that BW is going to become a “Third Sector” organisation, in other words a charity. At least, that is what the government and BW want. There are two important questions for boaters. First, what will it mean legally, and second, is it really a done deal?
Firstly, all the current legislation will still apply apart from some minor exceptions. The 1971, 1983 and 1995 British Waterways Acts and the 1962 and 1968 Transport Acts will apply as they do now.
Two boaters attended an informal meeting on 3 February for people who have expressed their interest in becoming involved in the pilot Kennet and Avon Canal Partnership Board. Previously, there had been some doubt whether liveaboard boaters who had applied to the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust to be on the new Board would be welcome. However, liveaboard boaters made it clear that they should be represented on the new Board. It remains to be seen whether their presence at the meeting will lead to formal membership.
Recently BW has proposed changes in rules and regulations that affect roving canal traders such as coal and diesel boats and travelling shops. The main change BW wants to make is to increase their licence fee.
The present situation is that most of these traders pay £30-£40 over and above a normal boat licence fee on the basis that their business is what BW call ‘low intensity’ – they only make a small amount of profit. The new fee will see their business licence replaced with a normal licence and a new permit, and lots of extra regulations. This will see the fee increase to £156 above the normal licence fee. Their ability to trade and make a living on the waterways will be affected.
A new web site has been set up with the aim of giving a voice to the small traders on the canals of the United Kingdom.
It’s at http://www.canaltraders.org.uk/
There are many traders on the canal selling a diverse range of products such as traditional canalware, ropes, fenders, cheese, groceries, jewellery, fudge , cratch covers, boat names and embroidery. The many trades afloat serve the boating community, bring diversity and enhance the public’s enjoyment of the waterways. We wish them the best of luck in challenging this licence fee increase.
By Simon Robbins
That Continuous Cruisers are the main culprits when it comes to overstaying on visitors moorings is a myth that BW continue to perpetuate in order to justify differential charges and other targeting of Continuous Cruisers.
Many Boaters in the boating forums rail about Continuous Cruisers in this way too. I was therefore very relieved when a glimmer of reality pierced through the prejudice and outright bigotry one too often reads in such forums when one contributor bothered asking the question, “what’s the evidence”?
The answer is, NONE! Beyond that, when challenged, the evidence BW have supplied to date, seems to prove that very point!
As I said in my posting in the Canalworld string “Freeloaders?”
http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=35526
NABO did a Freedom Of Information request on this a few years back. We wanted to test the assertion that CC’r’s are more guilty on overstaying than those with moorings. We asked BW about numbers of patrol notices issued and then asked them to look at the proportion of those notices that were issued against boats that had home moorings versus those that were Continuous Cruisers. The maths showed clearly that boats that had registered with BW as having home moorings we more likely per capita to attract overstay notices than CC’rs.
BW have never attempted to contradict our findings which were sent to them with an invite to reply if they dis-agreed or could show we had missed something. Another bit of NABO correspondence they never replied to!
Well catching up with old e-mails this morning, I came across a more recent set of evidence which seem to further confirm that BW’s rhetoric on Continuous Cruisers is just that, and does not stand up, even on with their own figures.
The Western end of the Kennet and Avon seems to be the focus for BW’s efforts at the moment and a boater’s Freedom of Information Request in Autumn 2010 again put paid to the false prospectus that BW are running.
BW says , ‘The number of boats on the Kennet and Avon Canal which have legal action pending – 152’.
When one comes to BW’s categorisation of the individual reasons we are told:
Licensing Enforcement – 119;
Mooring Enforcement – 15;
Overstay Enforcement – 7;
Continuous Cruising Enforcement – 8
Other – 3
If eight of the cases are classed as CC’rs does that mean the seven listed as Overstayers have home moorings? If so then again we see that boats with home moorings are as much of a problem a CC’rs.
Even if in slightly self-contradictory fashion, one assumed the seven ‘Overstayers’ were all CC’rs too, does the fuss and drama BW are making over the evils of continuous cruisers seem proportionate to the fact that BW can only show, on their own numbers, most generously interpreted, fifteen serious breaches of the ‘rules’ worthy of legal action on the K+A?
(The next question, one that was not asked but one wonders; how many of these fifteen cases are solid enough for Court proceedings to have been issued?)
The BW numbers seem to me to show pretty clearly that most Continuous Cruisers based on the Kennet and Avon are doing what they should be and that BW’s rhetoric cannot be about enforcement issues. Rather it seems to be an excuse to introduce differential charges and other sanction against Continuous Cruisers based on a rhetoric of prejudice which even BW’s own facts and figures do not support.
BW are basing a whole campaign of activities on a false premise. No wonder BW are in a mess when idiocy like this is allowed to prevail, apparently with the endorsement of the BW Board and Directors.
This article first appeared on Simon’s blog Liveaboard Forum:
http://liveaboard-forum.blogspot.com/2011/01/continuous-cruising-myth.htm
Liveaboard Forum Home Page:
http://liveaboard-forum.blogspot.com/
Following formal complaints that the time was too short for responding to BW’s consultation on 2011 licence fees and changes to licence terms and conditions, BW has extended the deadline to 31 January. According to its own code of practice on consultations, BW should have allowed 12 weeks for responses, not 6 weeks.
This consultation is important because yet again, BW is proposing more unlawful changes to the licence terms and conditions.
The fourth meeting of the Local Mooring Strategy steering group took place on 10 December. It was notable for the comments of the APCO rep that “existing legislation, consistently applied, would solve the problem… if we get ‘place’ right, we’ve done our job”. APCO, the Association of Pleasure Craft Operators, is the hire boat companies’ trade body. Many hire boat firms rely on liveaboard boaters for much of their skilled and unskilled workforce, and would encounter problems if their staff had too far to travel to work.
According to Sally Ash, BW is in discussion with the Lea Valley Regional Park regarding a local mooring strategy for the Lee and Stort Navigations, prior to wider public consultation. BW has tabled proposals which the Lea Valley Regional Park is considering. Ms Ash also said that she is talking with boater representatives “about the concept of individuals who are well-informed boaters and members of parish councils” with a view to finding suitable people to chair local mooring strategy steering groups independent of BW which will then go back to BW with proposals. This “concept” would appear to exclude liveaboard boaters from chairing any local mooring strategy steering group – how many people who live on their boats are also elected members of a parish council?
BW appears to be going ahead with local mooring strategies in other areas which it defines as ‘hotspots’ before the pilot local mooring strategy on the Kennet and Avon Canal has even been drawn up and implemented. As far as we know, these areas are the Lee and Stort, Birmingham, the Macclesfield Canal and the Southern Grand Union.
As we have discovered from the consultations and the subsequent local mooring strategy steering group meetings on the Kennet and Avon, local mooring strategies are likely to be targeted at boats without moorings and especially at liveaboard boaters without moorings.
Photo: Bob Naylor KAcanalTIMES.co.uk
A boater recently made this Freedom of Information request to BW and got the answer below which suggests that most of the pending legal action against boaters is about licence evasion rather than overstaying, and that BW may be carrying out unlawful enforcement action against 8 boats without home moorings.
The local mooring strategy steering group met again on 8 November. We are able to provide notes of most of the discussion, taken by a volunteer, which are at the end of this article.
The most significant point that emerged at this meeting was the fact that there is a strong consensus among the different interest groups – liveaboard and other boaters, the hire boat industry, local authorities and parish councillors – around the table on the following points:
Photo: Bob Naylor KAcanalTIMES.co.uk