LAST week the front page of the Devizes issue of the Wiltshire Gazette & Herald featured an article on the Canal and River Trust’s draconian mooring policies that are resulting in boaters, many with young families, others disabled or elderly, being evicted from their boats and rendered homeless. I would like to put some flesh on the bones of the above assertion.

In the 1990s debates were heard in parliament regarding British Waterways. Its role as a freight-carrying mode of transport has long ceased and the canals were being rejuvenated and used by boaters, fishermen and ramblers and were a joy to environmentalists and ecologists. A private Bill was put before parliament which resulted in the British Waterways Act 1995 that laid down rights and duties suitable to protect the canal system in its new role as a leisure and pleasure facility. Water protection, pollution, boat safety certificates (MOT), licences and moorings were debated and regulated.

British Waterways lobbied parliament to legislate against living on their boats in one area. Parliament rejected this as they were concerned that boaters could continue to work, children to go to school and boaters should retain ties with the community and access services, like a GP. Section 17 (2) (ii) of The BW Act 1995 was put in place to protect boaters’ rights. This section allows a boat to moor for 14 days and then to move on (or stay longer if necessary). The distance and direction of travel was deliberately left undefined to protect live-aboard boaters, When British Waterways, a publicly-owned body, accountable to a secretary of state, DEFRA, was transferred to a charity, the Canal and River Trust, with no external accountability, inherited legislation and was governed and expected to comply with all of the duties and responsibilities of British Waterways.

CRT has failed to comply with the 1995 legislation and has given itself additional enforcement powers relating to how far a boater has to move between point A and point B and stipulates that a boat has to make a progressive journey. CRT calls these additional enforcement powers ‘guidelines’. It has not put in writing as a condition to a licence how far a boat must travel in order to comply with the guidelines. It will not define the distance required to be compliant with the guidelines. Obviously, putting this in writing would be in breach of the 1995 British Waterways Act. If a boater is viewed as being non-compliant, they can have their licence revoked and their boat destroyed. It has become the norm to grant only three-month licences and the boaters’ movements are under surveillance.

Recently, a boater was on the Jeremy Vine show with Mr Symmond, from CRT. Jeremy Vine Asked the boater to ask Mr Symmond for a definitive distance of travel that would make the boater compliant with CRT guidelines. He said that I am not able to inform you.

How can an individual be considered a miscreant and in breach of guidelines that are not known and made clear to all parties?

To make it clear that CRT are in breach of the legislation I refer to Hansard’s verbatim report on the transfer proceedings.

The Grand Committee of the House of Lords debated the transfer order on the 25.6.2012. The concerns of boaters without permanent moorings were discussed in depth.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach assured the Grand Committee that the transfer order does not create new enforcement powers for the Canal and River Trust. The CRT will have the same powers to manage the waterways as British Waterways. The existing safeguards will continue to apply to any enforcement action taken by CRT. Lord Taylor reported that section 17(2)(ii) of the British Waterways Act gives boaters without moorings protection. A boater may moor for 14 days and then move on, longer if necessary. Direction and distance of travel was not defined.

Lady Parminter asked how can we ensure that CRT will reflect the full duties and responsibilities entrusted to British Waterways by parliament. She referred particularly to boaters on the waterway without a home mooring. Lady Parminter said that she had checked the website of the Charity Commission and found that CRT had not mentioned their duty towards boaters who live on the water without a home mooring. Thus, the new charity’s purposes and responsibilities do not reflect some duties that currently exist in legislation and which British Waterways undertakes. Lady Parminter discussed the debate in Parliament in the 1990s and the concerns that boaters’ rights were protected. Sect 17(2)(ii) of the British Waterways Act served to protect the rights of boaters without moorings. Parliament was concerned that extended distance of travel will result in loss of employment and children unable to attend school Lady Parminter concluded, the House has a long history of ensuring the rights of all stakeholders are upheld on the waterway. In the absence of any duty towards those who live on the waterways in the new charity’s remit, the Government must by other means ensure that this duty is safeguarded in the future.

Lord Berkeley concurred with Lady Parminter and felt the situation was worrying as there was no way in which they [boaters} can seek parliamentary discussion as they could when British Waterways was publicly owned. (CRT has no external monitor for accountability.) I hope that this brief summary of some of the debate puts matters in a legal context. CRT are acting illegally. They are not accountable to parliament and are self-monitoring. Accountability lies with the trust consisting of over 200 individuals, representing various organisations. Boaters are the only users of the canal that make a financial contribution towards the maintenance of the waterways through boat licences and CRT moorings. A third of CRT’s revenue comes from the boating sector. We have no voice outside of a seat on a navigational group. This was achieved after considerable lobbying.

CAROL KREBS, Kennet and Avon Canal