Barking up the wrong creek?

SINCE the Canal & River Trust's inception it has been strongly allied in various ways with one particular body—the Inland Waterways Association, writes Mick Fitzgibbons.

The result of which was the issuing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), that for want of a better description, could be described as an emasculating coup for the Trust.

But does it come at a price and who is going to be paying the price?

Memorandum of Understanding

The MoU could be characterised as a sort of 'you scratch my back and I will scratch your back' arrangement, which on reflection it essentially is. Ask yourself—is there a need for such a 'mutual back slapping (and scratching) understanding'? Such that now that once revered arms-length independence has been given over to what are perceived by some as 'on the nod' agreements, which if true, would be a tawdry reflection upon the heroic efforts of the post war restoration pioneers.

I have had conversations with people who, like me, feel uneasy with such agreements, feeling that the MoU is portraying more about cronyism than anything else. Summed up by one very astute friend as a return to the era of 'over beer and sandwiches at number 10.' I had heard the quote before, but I had to look it up, just to get the context.

Robert Carr

The quote comes from the late Robert Carr, the Conservative Employment Spokesman. Who said when challenging Labour's Barbara Castle: 'I was disappointed—indeed, shocked—that the Secretary of State did not give more attention in her speech to an obvious but fundamental matter; the conflict of rôles which her Ministry now has. It is the conflict between the new rôle of operating an incomes policy—a rôle which is liable to stimulate industrial strife and dispute—and her Department's old statutory duty of conciliation and arbitration. War-monger and peace-monger. Can one be credible as both or either in the long run? Who will be left to arbitrate in the end? Will it be the Prime Minister over beer and sandwiches in Downing Street?'

Essentially he is saying: 'An obvious but fundamental matter; the conflict of rôles. Can one be credible as both or either in the long run? Who will be left to arbitrate and represent in the end?'

Guidance for boaters

The next topic we discussed was the latest version of guidance for boaters without a home mooring. I perceived this as a softly, softly case of mission creep. Once more there are unheralded changes, made bit by bit and in each version changes are being made. I asked the Trust if the guidance was applicable to all boaters.

The unequivocal answer given is that the guidance is not applicable to boaters who are away from their mooring and cruising. While essentially they are just like continuous cruisers and unidentifiable as not being continuous cruisers, just cruising around the various bits of the inland waterways network. So why would there need to be such a significant and telling distinction between the two.

Outspoken about issues

My friend also paraphrased the possible outcome, by referring to Lutheran Pastor Niemöller. This time I knew exactly what the context was. Like Gandhi, Niemöller is a personal hero of mine and someone who has been an influence on my life. Not in a religious context, because I am not in any way religious; more in an inspirational context, maybe that's why I am outspoken about issues.

Niemöller is best known for his statement, about the political upsurge in pre-war Germany. 'First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me'.

Sweeping changes.

I am not saying that CaRT is about to incarcerate boaters. But I do sometimes wonder if that is a power it would like to have. It does however call into question the imposition of the seemingly strong-arm tactics now being employed. Tactics which have now been enshrined in the new terms and conditions. Though their legality is certainly questionable.

How would you like to enter your boat to find CaRT's enforcement staff searching around inside. If the police want to enter your home, they need 'just cause' and a search warrant. However, the Trust expects you to sign terms and conditions where you agree they can enter your boat, which could possibly be your home at any time day or night. The entry can be made on any pretext whether you are in attendance or not, obvious furthered by the IWA and CaRT's Memorandum of Understanding.

Who really benefits

Personally, I believe that such MoU's are nothing more than a charter that at least smudges the line between the poacher and gamekeeper. The distinctions become unclear, the independence becomes questionable. Ask yourself who really benefits and in what way do you benefit.

If you join such an association as the IWA, will your interests be best served?

Is your membership just providing a path for a select few to push their own agenda?

Do all boaters benefit or does it benefit a select few?