Chaos reigns

THE Canal & River the Trust is seeing a significant fall in the number of boats on the inland waterways, (5,000 less boats on the waterways) writes Mick Fitzgibbons.

Add to this a significant number of boaters who are changing from having a home mooring to elect to go constant cruising. Both of these will reduce further the more significant funding streams.

Non issues

When some financial targets are based upon licensing and moorings, (CaRT's 58 million loss) it seems that the losses made by CaRT are because the Trust has unsurprisingly taken its eye off the fund raising ball, only to spend all of its time on scoring home goals on non issues.

When it comes to the Canal & River Trust nothing should ever come as a surprise. Well the draconian changes made to the 'Terms and Conditions' of boat licensing and the sweeping changes made to 'Visitor Moorings' have now taken place. Add into the mix the latest release of the 'Guidelines' for boaters without a home mooring. All of which are intended to deal with what is on the face of it a small problem.

Compliant boaters

With a reduction to 31,000 licenced boats and their numbers continuing to fall, it should be remembered that the huge majority of remaining boaters are compliant boaters cruising within the meaning of the 1995 Waterway Act.

It has to be acknowledged that a tiny fraction of boaters have chosen to ignore the generous nature of the 1995 Waterways Act and openly flaunt the rules. This is a simple case of enforcement which the 1995 act adequately defines. It is certainly not rocket science, to understand, scope and manage the issue effectively.

On the nod

With the notable exception of the National Association of Boat Owners. (NABO). Most of the changes went through on the nod, if not enthusiastically encouraged and supported by all the other boating associations. But then it's well know that some of those associations have 'gone over to the dark side' so to speak, giving up their once great rallying point of independence, championing causes of the waterways and the representation of their members' aspirations. All given away by whom, who has benefited and more questionably, for what purpose exactly?

Fair, proportionate and necessary?

You may be like me, querying and questioning the need for all the changes. First of all, the terms and conditions must have been put together by a non boater, because the language used has been couched in such a way as to make what had been for many years a well known and perfectly well understood process now metamorphosed, not into a butterfly, but into a confusing nightmare.

But you might also question if the changes are actually fair, proportionate and at all necessary. There is even some doubt about the 'validity in law' of the changes. I feel as a compliant boater that signing the terms and conditions actually places me under duress. After all, the alternative is obviously a totally disproportionate option and in a reasonable world such an outcome would be unthinkable.

Problem, what problem?

Secondly in five years I have yet to encounter a problem of finding a visitor mooring. I could never be in a position to raise a complaint as such anyway. (NABO against mooring proposals) Simply because as a compliant boater, I would have no reason whatsoever to know how long other boats had been on a mooring prior to our arrival. This overstaying which is reported as a widespread problem has been seen for what it is—a load of old tosh. With little real evidence (as admitted by the Trust) beyond hearsay to back up the claims. However, this did not stop the Trust from changing time limits on moorings throughout the whole of the waterways.

Now we see time and again on social media real evidence in the form of pictures taken at the mythical 'honeypot' visitor mooring sites, which show them to be almost empty at what would be the traditional busy times of the year. All to show evidence and truth now being conveniently ignored by the trust.

Get a grip

Let's get a grip on the reality of the situation faced by the Trust. The vast majority of boaters are law abiding and just want to get on with enjoying the Cut. Their view of the rules was such that they were generally adhered to. Not strictly to the letter, but also where necessary the boater applied a bit of common sense. If moored waiting to go on a river and it was rising in flood they would overstay for a few days while conditions improved. If it was blowing a gale, they would overstay for a day or so while conditions improved before moving on. If it was torrential rain, they might overstay for a day. We can't legislate for the vagaries of the English weather. So the rules of common sense were applied.

It was a relaxed way of cruising, which did so much for the pleasure and enjoyment. The system worked without any real problems for decades. Now we see the start of sweeping changes to visitor moorings, and the imposition of a penalty or a fine whichever way you choose to look at it. Changes which have needlessly been put into place to address a virtually non-existent problem. Such a problem that the Trust is patently unable to manage.

Vexatious use of the law

There is already a great deal of speculation that this is a 'vexatious' manipulation of the law to engineer a situation which is outside of the 1995 Act. It could also call into question if the Trust was trying to engineer that situation to its own ends; essentially setting up a scapegoat or whipping boy. One where there is an inequality of arms. One where it can revert to its regular companions (the non-contributing) 'M'learned' friends of the Trust, with the promise of further rounds of expensive litigation.

It should be remembered that recently the Trust has not faired too well in going to law. One has to wonder why there was even a need for a gagging clause (why the lack of publication of the judgment) in one recent case. (Community Law Partnership on Mayers). Maybe it was because the publicity of the judgment would undermine what the Trust was trying to do.

Anti social boaters

Theirin lies the nub of the problem. There are people who don't just overstay for a day or two because of weather or flooding problems. They want to do their own thing. They are a tiny almost insignificant number of individuals. They are anti-social boaters with their own agenda. They are not sticking to the spirit of the Act.

I also don't think that they will stick to the new rules either. So rather than addressing the problem—the Trust introduces even more confusion. The non-compliant boaters are extremely easy to find and identify. They are not moving. They are in the same location day in day out, week in week out, month in month out and unsurprisingly year in year out.