Middle Level Bill
Wednesday 29th March 2017
(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Middle Level Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It might be helpful for the House if I give some background to the Bill and set out the reasons why it is before us. The first point—
Kevin Foster
I will make some progress and then I will happily give way.
For those not familiar with the Bill, the first thing is to ask, “What is the Middle Level?” The Middle Level is the central and largest section of the Great Level of the fens, which was reclaimed by drainage during the mid-17th century. The area is bounded to the north-west and east by the Nene and the Ouse washes, to the north by the previously drained marshland silts, and to the south and west by low clay hills. The Middle Level river system consists of over 120 miles of watercourses, approximately 100 miles of which are statutory navigations, and has a catchment of just over 170,000 acres. Virtually all the fenland within the Middle Level catchment lies below mean sea level.
The Middle Level Commissioners, together with the local internal drainage boards, therefore operate a highly complex flood protection and water level management system to balance the various water uses and requirements, and to alleviate the risk of flooding of land and properties. The efficient operation of this system is vital to the safety and prosperity of the 100,000-plus people who live and work in the area and the 26,000 properties that depend on it. But for the operations of the commissioners and the local boards, much of the fenland would be underwater for a lot of the year, access from higher ground would be cut off, and many of the current land uses would be impossible.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The levels are very important because they often have quite sensitive archaeology. Would the Bill affect that in the slightest?
Kevin Foster
My understanding from the promoters of the Bill is that it is about the framework for the management of the levels and the waterways, rather than specific developments or projects. If the commissioners decided to pursue such things, they would have to go through the usual process to get permission. Given the historical nature of some of these sites, that could involve an extensive consideration of archaeological impact.
Mr Chope
Now that my hon. Friend is taking interventions, may I ask him what his status is? He is telling us about the Bill and the location with which it deals, but his constituency is nowhere near the affected area. Why has it not been possible for the promoters of the Bill to find a local MP who is sympathetic to it?
Kevin Foster
My hon. Friend is a doughty scrutiniser of Bills, even if they do not relate to Christchurch. I know that he, like me, takes his duties as a Member of the House very seriously when it comes to promoting and debating legislation. He rightly champions the point that there is no restriction on our debating legislation even if it does not directly affect our constituencies. Private Bills must be sponsored by Back-Bench Members, for obvious reasons, and some of the MPs directly affected by the Bill are Ministers. Given the interest that I have expressed in waterways and their consistent management, I think that it is appropriate for me to sponsor this Bill. Of course, all Members will have the opportunity to participate in the debate, and I hope that we will hear from at least one local Member who is directly affected. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also share his insights into the Bill.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am not directly affected by the Bill, but the drains and waterways in question are adjacent to my constituency. I support the Bill 100%, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend is sponsoring it. I think it is appropriate for him to do so, because a local MP might encounter conflicts of some kind. It makes a great deal of sense for an MP from another part of the country to sponsor this important Bill to give the commissioners more powers, and we are grateful to him for doing so.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I could not have put it better myself.
Why do we need a Bill? As many hon. Members know, I regularly make the point on Fridays that legislating is not something to do for the fun of it or a unique form of parliamentary sport. For a Bill to be worthy of parliamentary time, there must be a clear need for it. This private Bill is being promoted by the Middle Level Commissioners, a statutory corporation constituted under the Middle Level Act 1862. The commissioners provide flood defence and water level management to the Middle Level area, and they are the navigation authority for the Middle Level river system. The legal framework that governs the commissioners’ navigation function is made up of several 18th and 19th-century Acts that regulate the use of these waterways, which were mainly laid out in the 17th century.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
May I, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, offer my sincerest apologies for my lateness? I was detained coming into the Palace.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the area covered by the Middle Level Commissioners is not strictly analogous to that of other navigation authorities, in that the Middle Level area consists essentially of interconnected drainage basins rather than stand-alone, bespoke rivers and canals?
Kevin Foster
My hon. Friend shows his exceptional knowledge of his constituency and the assets that support it. He is right. Fundamentally, as I will come on to say when I talk about the regulatory framework, the waterways in question were built as a drainage system, but they have gone on to be used by pleasure boats and other vessels. One of the reasons why the Bill is necessary is because some of the uses were not envisaged at the time of the 1862 Act. Clearly motorboats did not exist at the time, and the concept of canal usage was very different.
Kevin Foster
I will make some more progress and then I will be only too happy to give way again.
The regulation of these waterways, which were mainly laid out in the 17th century, is considerably out of date and does not align with modern requirements or the statutory framework applicable to other navigation authorities, including neighbouring ones. In particular, the current legal framework that governs the commissioners does not include adequate provision for the registration of vessels using the waterways or the levying of charges for the use of the waterways and associated facilities. In my briefings with the promoters, it was remarked that the framework means that the exemptions are for pleasure craft and those transporting manure. As a result, the commissioners currently do not receive any income from the navigation of the waterways, so money raised through drainage rates and levies has to be used to fund navigation, rather than flood defences. In the financial year ending on 31 March 2016, this amounted to £178,929.06 of unfunded expenditure. The commissioners are therefore seeking to update and clarify their powers to enable them to regulate and fund their waterways properly.
The powers sought are similar to those already used by other large inland navigation authorities, such as the Canal & River Trust, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority. In essence, the future maintenance and management of the waterway will be funded in a similar way to others, not based on one set of users, and those who benefit can be asked to contribute.
Why do we have a private Bill? The commissioners originally proposed to update their governing legislation in the 2000s using a Transport and Works Act order. They approached the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which rightly considered that the introduction of the proposed registration and charging schemes would be outside the powers of a TWAO, so the proposals did not proceed any further. Having consulted on updated proposals, the commissioners approached DEFRA again last year, but in October 2016, the Department confirmed that its position had not changed and that a TWAO could not be used. Its reasoning was that a TWAO could not be used to impose charges on navigation governed by primary legislation that does not itself contain charging provisions, as is the case for Middle Level navigation. It was therefore suggested that the commissioners should pursue a private Bill to update their powers.
I am sure that Members will agree that this is the right approach. It is welcome that we can debate these important subjects in our consideration of the Bill. Although this is the first opportunity for a wider debate in the House on this matter, the proposals will not come as a surprise to those who might be affected, as there has already been a wider consultation.
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. May I put it to him that, at first sight, the Bill is an attempt to regularise the Middle Level vis-à-vis legislation for other navigation authorities, but what is missing from it—this might be different with secondary legislation—is any commensurate commitment to upgrade facilities that are similar to those of other navigation authorities? That is the Achilles heel of the Bill, and it is where it might need to be looked at again by this House or the other place.
Kevin Foster
I will respond to those comments when I come on to the petitions. However, I agree with my hon. Friend: clearly nobody wants to pay extra charges for the same facilities, but if we do not change the legal framework, those using the Middle Level for drainage are being asked to pay for facilities for those using it for navigation, making it very unlikely that facilities will ever be developed. These things need to go hand in hand. When I move on to the petitions, I will say a bit more about the commissioners’ views about the facilities that people who are required to pay should expect in exchange.
Mr Chope
Is it right to say that the consultation took place at the same time as the EU referendum, the outcome of which we are celebrating today? Is it also right to say that, for example, the March cruising club, whose headquarters is almost opposite the commissioners’ offices, was not consulted, and that other petitioners were not consulted either?
Kevin Foster
I know that my hon. Friend would agree with me that people are more than able to deal with two issues at the same time. The EU referendum was very important and many hon. Members engaged with it—I know that he engaged passionately and put his side of the argument—but they can also deal with other things, as was true today, when hon. Members have had various items on the agenda. I would not say immediately that the fact that the consultation coincided with the referendum meant that nobody took part in it. Petitions against the Bill have been deposited, and if the Bill is read a Second time, the petitioners can be heard before an Opposed Private Bill Committee, which will scrutinise the Bill in more depth. I hope that my hon. Friend will support the Bill on Second Reading so that those points can be made, the petitioners can come along and we can consider how to work constructively and appropriately to create a modern framework of regulation, rather than continue with a framework based on the needs of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.
Sir Henry Bellingham
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. He made the key point earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), which is that the powers need to be brought up to date, made more fit for purpose and more modern, and brought into line with similar powers over other waterways, as exercised by the Environment Agency, the Canal & River Trust and the Broads Authority, which is near my constituency. An update is long overdue.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for putting succinctly the exact points that need to be made. The current system of regulation dates from another era and it needs to be brought into line with the successful system elsewhere. The House is not being petitioned to revert other areas to the old system, but there is a demand for change.
It might be helpful if I go through the consultation that took place between February and June 2016. The commissioners notified affected parties, including those with navigation interests, land drainage interests and local authorities, and published newspaper notices and placed details on their website. Of the 23 responses received, 18 were supportive, three neutral and two opposed.
It might be helpful if I list the supporters. They include the Inland Waterways Association, the East Anglian Waterways Association, the Association Of Nene River Clubs, the National Association of Boat Owners, the Middle Level Watermen’s Club, the Residential Boat Owners’ Association, the Association of Waterway Cruising Clubs and five local councils. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham), who represents a nearby constituency, has also indicated his support.
It is also right that I mention the concerns. Six petitions against the Bill have been deposited by individuals with varying interests in the navigation of the waterways, including the March cruising club, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has mentioned, and the National Bargee Travellers Association. The commissioners have been considering the points raised in the petitions. As I touched on in response to my hon. Friend’s intervention, if the Bill is given its Second Reading the commissioners will respond to those points prior to the Opposed Private Bill Committee. Both the commissioners and the petitioners will then have the opportunity to give evidence directly supporting their case to the Committee, which will determine the line-by-line detail of the Bill and whether its principle has been proved.
The Bill is long and complex and, for the benefit of Members, I do not intend to go through every aspect of it or of the petitions. There are, however, two issues that I think I should cover to assist the House. The first relates to houseboat owners. For some, the Middle Level is their home, not just a pleasure watercourse. I acknowledge, therefore, that one of the petitioners is the National Bargee Travellers Association. I have raised that issue in relation to the Bill’s powers and have been advised that the commissioners are a public authority bound by the Human Rights Act to comply with the European convention on human rights. If removing a vessel would interfere with its owner’s article 8 rights—namely the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence—that could be done only if it is proportionate to do so. The courts have indicated that it is more likely to be proportionate if a vessel plainly fails to meet safety standards or its owner consistently refuses to show that they have insurance, but it is not likely to be proportionate if there is a genuine dispute about breach of licence conditions.
The commissioners can spell that out in more detail in registration byelaws, if the Bill is passed. Of course, those byelaws will also be subject to ministerial confirmation. We could also explore the issue in more detail in the Bill Committee. Ultimately, those who make the place under discussion their home could also benefit from gaining better facilities and a more secure future via a modernised system of regulation and a modernised legal framework for the Middle Level.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) highlighted the second point, which is the idea of people paying more but not getting any facilities in return—in other words, a tax on using this stretch of water. I accept—I hope that the Bill’s promoters do as well—that this has to be a two-way street. Those who navigate cannot be charged more if they are going to receive a pretty similar service. There has to be a clear benefit. I have raised the issue with the Bill’s promoters and they have advised me that the commissioners recognise that navigators being asked to pay charges will have to get something in return for their money—there is no two ways about that. They have agreed with the Inland Waterways Association, the East Anglian Waterways Association and the National Association of Boat Owners that they will set up a users’ panel, if the Bill is passed and the framework modernised. The panel will be able to discuss an annual programme of maintenance improvements before each year’s charges are set. The precise arrangements for the panel have not yet been agreed, but the commissioners could certainly set out more detail before the Bill Committee if that would be helpful.
I hope that that provides some reassurance to the House, but again this is a matter we could explore in some depth in Committee. I would just make the point that, as with the older regulatory Acts, we may wish to consider carefully how much we want to put on the face of a Bill and how much could sensibly be left to allow some flexibility for the day-to-day management of the levels.
There is a lot of detail I could go into, particularly in relation to the patchwork of rather elderly Acts that regulate this waterway. To allow time for debate, I will not go through them all. I am, however, happy to respond to points raised during the debate and I look forward to the Minister’s comments. I hope that the Bill receives its Second Reading, so that its promoters and petitioners can make their case in Committee, and the Middle Level can have the modern, up-to-date system of regulation it deserves.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak to the private Bill on behalf of the official Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for so thoroughly covering the background and setting out why the Bill is needed. I would like to emphasise a few points, because I think it is important that the House has a clear understanding of the proposals and of why the Bill is needed.
The Bill amends and updates the powers of the Middle Level Commissioners to regulate navigation on the Middle Level of the fens. It will bring the Middle Level into line with powers granted to the Environment Agency, the Canal & River Trust, and the Norfolk Broads Authority. We have heard that the existing legislation dates from the 18th and 19th centuries, primarily the Middle Level Act 1862, and so it is remarkably out of date.
The Middle Level Commissioners provide flood defence and water level management to the Middle Level area, and are the navigation authority for the Middle Level river system. The Middle Level, the largest of the Great Level of the fens, was reclaimed by drainage of the land in the 17th century. It consists of over 120 miles of watercourses, with 100 miles of them being statutory. But for the operations of the commissioners and the local internal drainage boards, much of this fenland would be underwater, as much of it is below sea level. This would have a devastating impact on the 100,000 people who live and work in the area.
The commissioners have consulted widely and thoroughly with interested parties, the substantial majority of whom were in favour of the proposed changes. In a nutshell, the Bill would allow the Middle Level Commissioners to: charge vessels to use the waterways; fine people for staying longer than allowed at moorings; check that boats using the waterways have valid insurance; remove sunken or abandoned vessels; temporarily close sections of waterways for works or events; and enter into arrangements with other navigation authorities for the mutual recognition of registrations and licences.
Chris Howes, a local boat enthusiast, told the Wisbech Standard in March 2016 that he agreed with the commissioners’ plans, citing the apparently abandoned boats rotting away on the Old Nene that could be got rid of under the new powers. He said:
“the proposals are potentially so exciting, and so beneficial to Fenland, it’s hugely important that they come to fruition…If we want Fenland to aspire to be a tourist destination in the same way that Holland is, generating income to invest in our currently largely inaccessible waterways is a necessary stage.”
Iain Smith, the chief executive of the Middle Level Commissioners, said:
“it is important to update the laws, enabling us to have better control of the waterways we oversee.”
Additional income for the commissioners could make a real difference to fenland and to the waterways. I personally know the area well, having lived near there for a number of years, and would support any efforts to boost the local economy.
The Bill would bring legislation covering the Middle Level into the 21st century, in line with other navigation authorities. We support it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on his opening remarks. I am delighted to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham), because today is his birthday. That just shows how dedicated he is to his constituency duties. As he accurately identified, although his constituency is covered by the Middle Level Commissioners, this particular part of the navigation covers other stretches, including parts of the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) who, as members of the Government, cannot speak directly to this Bill.
Sir Henry Bellingham
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her extremely kind remarks. She will be aware of two things. First, she will know that quite a lot of the navigation traffic—boats and other craft—start their journeys in King’s Lynn or in my constituency and go upstream into some of these waterways. Secondly, on a point that I am sure she will come to, she and I share a passion for flood defences, and one has to remember that the extra money will be used to secure some of these waterways to prevent flooding. Flooding would obviously be devastating for all the surrounding farm areas and the many people who make their living in this area.
Dr Coffey
As my hon. Friend shows, he is assiduous in ensuring that people who start their journey in his constituency are well served. I recognise what he said about how the management of waterways can help with flooding.
The main purpose of the Middle Level Bill is to amend and update the powers of the Middle Level Commissioners to regulate navigation on the Middle Level of the fens in the city of Peterborough and the counties of Cambridgeshire and Norfolk. The commissioners are the navigation authority for these waterways, and have powers under a range of local Acts passed between 1663 and 1874. They are the fourth largest inland navigation authority in the country by length of navigable waterway.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay set out, the commissioners have previously lobbied my Department, which is the lead policy Department responsible for inland navigation matters in this country. They wanted us to take forward legislation to amend the navigation powers, but given the constraints on Government time for legislation and the fact that the focus of the provisions is local, it was on our advice that the commissioners brought forward this private Bill. I welcome the work they have done in bringing forward the legislation that we are considering today.
As for Government scrutiny of the Bill, as the Minister responsible for inland navigation matters, I want to be satisfied that the proposed legislation and the measures included in the Bill are fit for purpose. I believe that they are, because the existing legal framework that governs the commissioners’ navigation function is now considerably dated. Some of the current laws under which the commissioners are working not only date back more than 250 years, but do not align with modern requirements. Furthermore, the current laws do not align with the statutory framework applicable to other navigation authorities—including, in particular, the commissioners’ neighbouring navigation authority, the Environment Agency, which is responsible for navigation on the River Nene and the Great Ouse. This Bill will update this dated legislation.
Unlike many other navigation authorities, such as the Environment Agency, the commissioners do not have charging powers to license boats that use their navigations. The Bill will allow that to happen and give the commissioners powers to introduce a registration scheme for vessels using the waterways. It will give the commissioners powers similar to those already exercised by other authorities such as the Environment Agency, the Canal & River Trust and the Broads Authority in respect of their own navigations. Importantly, the Bill will not alter the commission’s existing duty to protect and maintain the navigations, or affect the public’s right of navigation on the waterways. The Government would consequently be content for the Bill to make progress.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I begin with the remark that all politics is local. We are now discussing the Middle Level Bill, while earlier today we were talking about major geo-political issues, including the invoking of article 50. Such is the cornucopia of delights available in the House of Commons.
We should not divide on this Bill. It is important to have a full and comprehensive debate today, but it should then proceed to Committee so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) who so eloquently introduced the Bill as sponsor said, it can be looked at in greater detail.
I am a local Member of Parliament, but, as the Minister said, it has not been possible for Ministers directly affected by this Bill, principally my parliamentary neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), who is a Government Whip, to speak to it. However, as Members will know, the waterways we are discussing meet the River Nene at the city of Peterborough, and I therefore have a direct connection with and interest in the debate. Incidentally, in Cambridgeshire it is the River Nene, whereas in Northamptonshire, across the county line, it is—for some bizarre reason—the River Nen.
I pay tribute to one of the petitioners, my constituent Chris Taylor of Newborough, who has been indefatigable in raising this important issue and holding the Middle Level Commissioners to account. Like him, I believe that the petition period was insufficient and that there has not been a proper debate, but my principal worry is that there has been no cost-benefit analysis.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay earlier, we are not talking about a navigation authority that is analogous with authorities such as the Broads Authority and other authorities throughout the country that provide better facilities—in fact, provide any facilities—and I think that legislating for a power to impose tolls and charges without upgrading those facilities would be a draconian and retrograde step, which is why, in my view, we need to debate the issue further in Committee.
I appreciate that it is imperative to regularise the legal basis for the navigation authority’s duties and responsibilities, with—as the Minister said—the proviso that the Government do not become involved in the detailed operational matters of the Middle Level Commissioners, but oversee their statutory duties. I understand that the Government broadly support the need to update and amend the existing legislation, on the basis of what is in the documentation. As the Minister said, it is very aged legislation. There is not just the 17th-century legislation that she mentioned; there are the Middle Level Acts of 1810 to 1874, the Nene Navigation Act 1753, the Land Drainage Act 1991, and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
As I said earlier, what we are discussing is not a traditional canal or river, but interconnected open drains. The land was drained in the 17th century to release it for agricultural and other uses. As it is below sea level, until then it was effectively an inland sea. As for the town of Whittlesey, the clue is in the name. It was pretty wet, and was not used greatly. However—of course I would say this, as the local Member of Parliament—it contains some of the finest agricultural land in Britain, if not Europe, because it is incredibly well irrigated. We must bear in mind that the Middle Level Commissioners differ substantially from the more traditional navigation authorities.
The key issue that has caused concern is not just the basic issue of charges, as covered in clause 3 and, potentially, clause 9, which deals with byelaws. I accept that the petitioners are in the minority, but they contend that their public rights of navigation—not exactly ancient rights, but very well-established historical rights, bestowed on them in the latter part of the 17th century by the Duke of Bedford, who was a major landowner to the east of Peterborough and in the fens as a whole—are being curtailed and reduced. Indeed, they contend, in their petition and in further papers, that those rights go back much further, beyond even Magna Carta in 1215: as far back as the 4th century. That is a major issue.
Let me give some more details of the petitioners’ complaint. We must bear it in mind that this is about charges on the 600 to 1,000 pleasure boats that use these 100 miles of waterways every year; it is not about commercial activity. I accept that in these straitened economic times public authorities have to look where they can to secure extra funding, and that it cannot just come from landowners, farmers and the taxpayer. I do not have an ideological aversion to further tolls and charges, therefore, but I do have an aversion to any unfairness to existing users of the facilities.
At the moment there are no services on this waterway: there are no water points, changing facilities, moorings, toilets, showers or collection points for rubbish. More importantly, notwithstanding the fact that secondary legislation might ameliorate the issue, at the moment that is not covered by the Bill and is not promised. That is an important point made in the documentation by the Residential Boat Owners Association and the National Bargee Travellers Association.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay rightly pointed out that there is a human rights legislation issue, because if we are curtailing the right to a family life under article 8 by removing the capacity of people to enjoy what is their home—a barge, for instance, or a pleasure cruiser—that is a wider legal issue. That could be explored further in Committee.
Sir Henry Bellingham
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency near neighbour for giving way. Does he accept that this is not just a question of using the levies for fees for providing services, because essential bank maintenance is also needed? Unless the banks are properly maintained, in a worst-case scenario there could be appalling flooding with the banks giving way, because, as he rightly points out, this area was extensively drained in the 16th century. So it is not just a question of providing facilities; it is also a question of maintaining the fabric of the waterways.
Mr Jackson
May I add to the congratulations of the House on my hon. Friend’s birthday? If I may say so, he is pretty ageless—he has not aged during the 12 years I have been in Parliament—and felicitations to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that flood prevention and flood amelioration are massively important; we agree on that.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I come from Somerset, and while I am not familiar with the exact area, my example is just the same. Surely any income that can be raised from navigation of the waterways would be welcomed, because currently, as I understand it, precious moneys raised through drainage rates and levies that ought to be going to vital flood prevention work to protect our precious farmland are being diverted to navigation works. This Bill is just tightening that up to correct this injustice.
Mr Jackson
I am mindful of time and know that other Members want to contribute, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), so I will wrap up—also the Whip is giving me the evil eye, but only in her most endearing way.
I defer to the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), and know that Somerset suffered the most appalling trauma of wide-scale flooding about five years ago. I do not think that it is mutually exclusive for us to be removing sunken boats, dredging and doing important infrastructure work that needs to be done, but it needs to be done in a more systematic way, and I am unconvinced about this private Bill, which seeks to be quite innocuous but is potentially quite draconian in what it imposes on people whose rights have been established for many hundreds of years.
It has been a pleasure to have this opportunity to represent Mr Taylor and some of the other people. If we are not here to represent unfashionable views of our constituents, we are wasting our time. In the course of the debate about this Bill, I hope that the petitioners and others with a key interest in the Middle Level will have the opportunity to have a cordial, productive meeting with the Middle Level Commissioners, and that some of those comments will be taken on board in Committee, so that the Bill will be improved. I hope that we can regularise the legislative necessity of the Bill while keeping faith with the people who are the lifeblood of the area—the pleasure boat users—because we need to look after their interests, too. I hope that we will find a mutually beneficial compromise in the near future.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am mindful of the hour, so I will keep my contribution brief. As a member of the all-party group on waterways and a narrowboat enthusiast, I support this private Bill and want to take a few minutes to explain why.
Across the country, we have benefited from and continue to benefit from an incredible network of over 2,000 miles of canals, waterways and other navigations. In my constituency, we have the Wyrley and Essington canal, on which we have taken our own boat, but I have never been on the Middle Level—yet. Once the means for transporting goods in and out of and across the west midlands, the waterways are now a place for walking and for leisure. Through the work of the Canal & River Trust, the Inland Waterways Association and others, including many local organisations, charities and volunteer groups, we have seen a remarkable revival in our waterways in recent years, and they are being put on a more sustainable footing.
The Middle Level Bill relates specifically to the central and largest section of the Great Level of the fens—an area reclaimed by drainage during the mid-17th century. There are Members present with far more local knowledge than I would ever declare having, but the area covers 120 miles of watercourses, 100 miles of which are statutory navigations. As we have heard, the Bill seeks to modernise the commissioners’ operational powers and allow them to levy charges on users of the waterways to pay for their navigation functions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Something that has been in the press over the past few weeks is the amount of litter that has been deposited across the countryside, including in waterways. Will charging boat owners mean that that litter will be taken away and properly disposed of? If that is part of the Bill’s purpose, it must be a step in the right direction.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. When I am out on the waterways, I certainly notice stretches with a lot of litter and debris. Every user of our canals, whether on the water or walking, has a duty to play their part in collecting litter, and we need provision for places where it can be placed.
What is particularly interesting about the Bill is that the commissioners currently have no navigation income. Any navigation works must be subsidised by those who pay a drainage levy. It is the largest navigation authority in the country without a navigation income.
Wendy Morton
I am about to conclude, so I will continue because I am mindful of the time pressure.
The Bill is needed because it will aid the Middle Level Commissioners in becoming—this is crucial—a sustainable navigation authority with the proper powers to manage a 21st-century navigation, which is the in the interests of those who use it and those in the local area.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
This debate would not be taking place if I had not blocked the Bill from going through on the nod on Second Reading. We have already heard about the benefits of having a proper Second Reading debate on a private Bill. Having spoken to some of the petitioners on the telephone, I point out that the Bill’s promoters have a serious responsibility to engage with those who take a different view or have concerns about its contents. One petitioner told me there has been no contact whatever from the authorities.
It is easy to talk about the Bill going to an Opposed Private Bill Committee. I have no objection to the Bill having a Second Reading, but it is important that it goes to an Opposed Private Bill Committee after there has been an exhaustive discussion between the petitioners and the promoters, rather than the Committee being used as the forum for that discussion, because the private Bill procedure in Committee is expensive and potentially adversarial. I wish that there had been more discussion between the promotors and the objectors.
Kevin Foster
When he intervened on my speech, my hon. Friend cited the example of the March cruising club. I have asked for clarification, and I am advised that the club was written to and telephoned but, sadly, there was no reply. A petition would allow further communication, but I have been advised that there was no reply to the consultation. I fully agree that there needs to be such engagement, as well as a formal Committee session.
Mr Chope
I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with the need for informal engagement before the Bill goes to an Opposed Private Bill Committee, because apart from anything else, some of the petitioners are not well funded. If the Committee is prolonged and the petitioners have to be represented by counsel, the costs will be disproportionately high.
The National Audit Office published an illuminating report on internal drainage boards on 21 March—basically we are talking about a collection of drains, not canals. The report expresses concern about conflicts of interest and the need for proper oversight and assurance that the internal drainage boards will not engage where there are conflicts of interest.
I notice that there are 33 independent internal drainage districts within the Middle Level, each of which is responsible for the local drainage of its area. When we talk about giving more powers to the Middle Level Commissioners, we need to be circumspect about the checks and balances on the exercise of those powers, which I hope the Committee will be able to investigate when it meets to consider the proposals and the petitions against them.
One of the petitions is from Nigel Moore, who says that he is
“a boat owner and manager of other people’s boats on various navigations, is an adviser on nationwide legal issues relating to boating, and is currently an approved lay advocate for a boater in a High Court action wherein issues arise over the interpretation of similar clauses to that proposed in this Bill.”
He objects to the Bill because it
“entails clear abolition of private and public rights to no justifiable purpose, and will lead to unnecessary future litigation over ambiguities.”
Like other petitioners, he refers to the Bill’s wide interpretation of the term “waterways”. Schedule 1 will extend the term to a lot of areas that are not even navigable. The Bill will also extend the commissioners’ powers to adjacent waters, including private waters that are not currently within their jurisdiction. Apparently that, so Mr Moore says, has been
“a contentious point in related litigation.”
Sir Henry Bellingham
My hon. Friend says that rights are being taken away. Surely we are talking about the introduction of a few extra responsibilities and a few extra charges. What rights will be removed?
Mr Chope
As a result of the Bill, owners of private waters that are not subject to the Middle Level Commissioners’ control will find themselves incorporated within the responsibilities of the commissioners, who will be able to use their regulatory powers in relation to what are currently private waters. That is an extension well beyond what one might have thought of as being the scope of the Bill. As my hon. Friend knows, being an experienced Member of this House, as soon as people get the opportunity to start legislating they always want to take more powers than they strictly need, which is one of the petitioners’ concerns.
Mr Jackson
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is confusion about the duties and responsibilities of the authority as between navigation and dredging under the Bill? That needs to be clarified when the Bill goes into Committee.
Mr Chope
Again, that is a good point, and it has been raised in several of the petitions.
Mr Moore expresses another concern, in stating that he
“objects to Clause 8(3) because the wording follows that of the contentious British Waterways Act of 1983, section (8), which has led to years of litigation as to its effect, whereas the wording of the similar clause in the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2012 section (16) is far superior, and allows for no such ambiguity and potential attempted and unwarranted extension of powers. The wording ‘without lawful authority’ is also wholly inapplicable to refer to boats on public navigable waters, when the right to be on the waterways derives from the public right, and the proposed provisions for registration of boats does not change that. This was the burden of Environment Agency submissions in a recent case on the Thames, which was, in my submission, correct”.
So he thinks that as worded, clause 8(3) would not only be against the expressed policy of the Environment Agency, but
“would be unenforceable and ineffectual in law, contrary to the expectation of the Commissioners, and prejudicial to the rights of boaters.”
I hope that even if nothing else is sorted out in Committee, those issues raised by Mr Moore will be.
As we have heard, a petition has also come from the March cruising club, which has been submitted by Mr Harwood, the club harbourmaster. Apart from complaining about the inadequate consultation, he raises a number of issues. Following on from the history that has been outlined by a number of the participants in this debate, he says:
“Pleasure boats have had free navigational access to the Old River Nene, which forms a large navigational section of the Middle Level, from before 1215 protected by Magna Carta and many subsequent statutes and Royal Commissions. There are even Roman transcripts describing navigation along the Old River Nene as early as the 4th Century during the Roman occupation. The Old River Nene is a natural river and a Public Right of Navigation has existed since Time Immemorial and was first codified in the Magna Carta of 1215.”
Kevin Foster
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware of the preamble to the Nene Navigation Act 1753, which describes the ancient navigation as
“being, at all times, extremely tedious, difficult and dangerous, and very frequently altogether impracticable”.
Mr Chope
I do not quite know what point my hon. Friend is making, because he is referring to a preamble to a piece of legislation—of course that is not an Act of Parliament. I am not sure that what he says undermines anything I have been saying in citing the submission of the March cruising club. I am sure that when the promoters engage properly with that club, they will be able to explore that issue further.
One other point made by the cruising club, which contradicts a number of assertions made in this debate, is that the commissioners already have the power to charge boats for the use of their waterways, but what they do not have is the power to charge pleasure boats. If there is a shortfall of £178,000 of unfunded expenditure, as has been alleged, there is nothing to prevent the commissioners from charging vessels that are not pleasure boats, or indeed charging for other activities. That would be consistent with the historical rights of pleasure boat owners to use the navigation without charge. The club goes on to say that the Middle Level is basically a “network of navigable drains”, so it is in a completely different category from some of the comparators that have been cited in support of the Bill by its promoters.
The club makes several other points in its submission, one of which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). It objects because
“the Bill contains no obligations under which the Commissioners would be duty bound to provide an adequate depth of water for navigation; dredging; maintenance or any facilities to boaters. Essentially, boaters would notice nothing positive, but would be subject to legislation that would: force them to pay a fee to register; pay annual licence fees; be a criminal offence to use the navigation without a licence; be forced to display a registration number; restrict access during certain times of the year; have the risk of being refused a licence and appealing the decision in a Magistrates Court. There are no advantages for boaters in return. This will destroy the Middle Level navigation and the boating community.”
There are several other detailed points in the submission, but I shall not cite them all.
Unless the issues I have described are resolved amicably between the petitioners and the promoters, the Bill will have a pretty slow passage through the House, because I am sure Members will not wish to impinge on the rights that individuals have enjoyed for many years unless there is strong justification.
Another petition comes from Mr John Hodges, who describes himself as a “member of the public” and a
“homeowner with mooring on the banks of the Middle Level”.
He says that the proposals will “directly and specially affect” his rights. That is an indication of another category of objector.
There is also a petition against the Bill from somebody called Derek Paice, whose submission describes him as living
“on a narrowboat (which, since it is not a ‘commercial boat’, most fits the description of ‘pleasure boat’ in the Nene Navigation Act 1684) on the Middle Level and this has been his home since 2011. This was the only available and affordable option after losing his home of eight years when his father died.”
His submission alleges that
“the proposals contained in the Bill will directly and specially affect his rights and interests, including allowing the commissioners new powers to seize his home and sell it on for less than its value, effectively making him homeless, destitute and an additional cost to the state.”
Mr Paice’s submission goes on to say that the Bill
“contains no protection for the homes of people who, like him, live on their boats.”
Indeed, that theme was picked up by Pamela Smith from the National Bargee Travellers Association, who said that people who have lived and worked on boats for many years but who do not have moorings feel threatened by the proposals. She estimated that between 10,000 and 25,000 people—not just in the area of the Middle Level, but throughout the United Kingdom—live on boats but not at a fixed mooring. They are a different sort of itinerant community, and she feels that they will be very much discriminated against by many of the proposals in the Bill. Those concerns are echoed by other petitioners.
Clause 9 proposes giving the commissioners more powers to make byelaws, but those commissioners already have adequate byelaw-making powers under the Middle Level Act 1874. Under the clause, the commissioners are seeking the authority to examine people’s homes, which, in most cases, amounts to an unwarranted, unnecessary invasion of personal space. There are statutory bodies, including the police, with the authority to enter people’s homes under appropriate circumstances. Requiring boaters to surrender their right to privacy as a condition of being granted a licence to navigate is unreasonable and intrusive.
There are quite significant attempts in the Bill to impose on the rights of individuals. I noticed that when the Minister gave her certification in relation to the Bill’s compliance with the European convention on human rights, all she said was that she had no reason to suppose that the assertions made by the promoters were incorrect. I am not sure whether we can be satisfied that the Government have yet explored the issues relating to human rights for their own purposes so that they can assure us that, in their own view—not just the view of the promoters—the Bill is fully compliant with the law on human rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough has already referred to the petition from his constituent, Christopher Taylor, so I will not refer to it again. I have referred briefly to what Pamela Smith has said on behalf of the National Bargee Travellers Association. That organisation has put in a major objection to much of the Bill. It has more than 700 members and four local groups and represents the interests of an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 bargee travellers in the United Kingdom. A significant number of members of the association either live permanently on the Middle Levels or use the waterways regularly. It is therefore a matter of great regret that there has been no proper discussion with the bargee travellers on the very important issues in the Bill, and I hope that that will remedied sooner rather than later. The association says that many bargee travellers use the Middle Levels as a transit route between the East Anglian waterways, such as the River Cam, the Great Ouse, or the Wissey, and the rest of the inland waterways. There is no other inland waterway route, and there would be no choice for them but to be bound by the proposed terms and conditions and to pay the proposed charges.
I am not very familiar with this part of the fens, and, apart from having visited other people who have a narrow boat, I am not familiar with this type of recreational boating. However, I am familiar with the sort of recreational boating that happens in my own constituency of Christchurch. All I can say is that if my constituents were faced with some of the regulations and powers to invade their privacy that are proposed in relation to the Middle Level of the fens, they would be outraged indeed. We have a large number of boats moored on the River Stour in Christchurch, and they do not all have names on them. People certainly do not have to give their name and address to some passing enforcement officer.
It seems to me that a lot of the Bill should be removed before it comes back for further consideration on Report. I hope that detailed discussion, consideration and scrutiny in Committee will have that consequence and that we will be able to look back and say, “This has been a worthwhile exercise, because a not very good Bill has been much improved as a result of proper scrutiny.”
I am not going to speak at length on this occasion, but I and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough are concerned that the rights of the petitioners should be heard in this great home of democracy.
Kevin Foster
It has been a pleasure to sit through this debate. I will not detain the House any longer by going through the individual comments we have heard, but I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for the detailed scrutiny and consideration they have given the Bill. There are certainly elements that we can take from the debate and deal with in Committee. In particular, we can deal with the byelaw powers and the question of engagement.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.
Middle Level Bill
Wednesday 28th February 2018
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Middle Level Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:33 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 177 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Requirement to provide specified facilities at Stanground Lock and Salters Lode Lock.
New clause 3—Requirement to provide specified facilities in March.
New clause 4—Requirement to provide specified facilities and moorings.
New clause 5—Removal of power to charge before specified facilities and moorings provided.
Amendments 1 to 26.
Sir Christopher Chope
The background to new clause 1 is the principle of quid pro quo, because the petitioners are concerned that new charges and obligations are being brought in without their getting anything in return. Before I expand on that, I should say that all the new clauses and amendments are grouped as one, so we are effectively discussing the Bill as a whole. I think that every part of the Bill is included in one or other of the amendments.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that that is the situation. It would therefore be apposite for me to make a few introductory remarks by saying that I, the petitioners and others much appreciate how the Bill’s promoters have responded positively to many of the points that have been made. A series of good points are set out in the promoters’ statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), who was an assiduous member of the Committee, is present, and everybody agrees that it is a credit to the House that the Bill has been considered in such detail.
Several points were made on Second Reading, the commissioners responded to them, and some of those responses were reflected in amendments in Committee. When the petitioners had the chance to be heard—I think over three days—many of their points were also accepted. The stage that we are at now is the consideration of the amendments that were proposed as a result of those representations. There are questions over whether the amendments go far enough, whether they could be tweaked in some way and about what signals could be sent to the other place, which has yet to consider the Bill. When the Bill goes to the other place, I am sure that there will be petitions against it.
We will be able to see the extent to which the petitioners’ arguments are accepted today, because it is obviously open to the Bill’s promoters to say at any stage, “Well, I think that’s a good point. We hadn’t thought of that.” My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who is sponsoring the Bill on the promoters’ behalf, is a good listener, and I sure that things will go well in the future. If the Bill had never been objected to, it would have gone through as it was originally, but it is now much better. However, “much better” does not mean that it is not capable of being improved further. That is the whole purpose of putting forward these new clauses and other amendments this afternoon.
Paragraph 2.3 of the statement on behalf of the promoter, the Middle Level Commissioners, in support of the Bill makes it clear that
“the Commissioners currently do not receive any income from navigation of the waterways.”
With the passage of the Bill, they will receive such income. New clause 1 is designed to ensure that the quid pro quo is that if the waterway is not navigable, those charges should not apply. The petitioners believe that under case law in the case of Brett v. Beale and others, the commissioners must provide something beyond what is already provided in return for making additional charges. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay will accept that that is a reasonable proposition.
The March Cruising Club is of the opinion that if boaters can be charged to use the system for navigation, it is essential that boater facilities are maintained and that an adequate depth of water is introduced as a minimum standard. Where that does not apply, any requirement to pay charges should be waived.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Bill affects my constituency. Without the Middle Level Commissioners, we would not have many homes protected and many thousands of hectares of farmland would not be kept productive. Does he agree that the key point is that if navigation, locks and waterways are funded through this charge, there will be more money for flood defences, which are a key priority in this part of East Anglia? Does he agree that the principle of the Bill is fit for purpose? Now that he is involved with his various amendments, the Bill may well become better, but surely the principle is very strong.
Sir Christopher Chope
I think the principle is that if the farmers—I know my hon. Friend has a significant interest in farming—are going to benefit from land drainage schemes, and this is essentially one mega land drainage scheme, I do not see why they should not have to pay for the benefit that they get from the scheme. That is what this is all about.
I am told—I do not hold myself up as an expert on anything, but certainly not on this—that if there was no longer any land drainage, the navigation would be much wider, more effective and deeper. In a sense, the land drainage enables the farmers to make their profits off the land and is of direct benefit to them, whereas the navigation would be there even if there was no land drainage. I do not know whether my hon. Friend accepts that that is a true analysis—perhaps he is a better student of geography than I—but that is what I am told.
When the commissioners were first given their role, it was on the basis that they would recover charges from the landowners, rather than from the users of the navigation. If charges are to be introduced for the use of the navigation, the argument is that those charges should be used to keep the navigation open and usable by those who are being charged for using it. That seems to me a perfectly equitable principle on which to proceed. That is the background to the first new clause.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing his opening oration. Can he tell me how many times this water is not maintained to this depth? Are we dealing with a solution looking for a problem or is this a genuine problem?
Sir Christopher Chope
I am not briefed to have an answer to that. All I can do is make the general comment that this has been raised by the March Cruising Club, which I imagine would not be concerned about it if it was not a problem. The March Cruising Club believes it is important to have this adequate depth of water set out to make sure the navigation is available.
That brings me on to new clause 2, which would require the provision of specified facilities at Stanground Lock and Salters Lode Lock. It states:
“The commissioners must, within twelve months of the day on which the Act comes into force, provide facilities at Stanground Lock and Salters Lode Lock including a lavatory, a fresh water point, bins for the disposal of refuse”
and so on. It also states that they should provide
“a minimum of ten moorings, each available for up to seven days at any one time and capable of accommodating a boat of up to fifty feet in length.”
Again this is a quid pro quo: if the commissioners want to make money out of the navigation and the vessels using it, it would be sensible for them to make sure there are proper facilities for those vessels, which will be paying significantly for the privilege of using the navigation.
A similar point is raised in new clause 3 by the March Cruising Club. This clause states:
“The Commissioners must, within twelve months of the day on which this Act comes into force, provide facilities within the town of March including a lavatory, a coin operated water shower”
and so on. I understand that the commissioners have more or less guaranteed that that is what they are going to do, but the petitioners understandably want to ensure that those undertakings and expressions of good intention are properly reflected in the legislation, rather than just being left as a matter of good will.
Sir Henry Bellingham
Surely there are few precedents for putting in the Bill specific infrastructure service provisions such as these. Doing so would cheapen the Bill in some ways and would make the point publicly that there was not this confidence between the Middle Level Commissioners and the different boating interests. What those boating interests want above all else is good navigable waters that are well maintained and at the right depth and with locks that work so that they can enjoy their boats at different times. If there is a surplus of revenue, and the relationship between the commissioners and the boating interests is positive and proactive, these other facilities can be looked at in the future. I urge my hon. Friend to consider that putting this in the Bill is not a good idea.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am glad my hon. Friend agrees that the provision of these facilities is a good idea, but I cannot understand why he thinks requiring them to be provided in the Bill is not a good idea.
Sir Christopher Chope
Ultimately, it is an issue of trust as to whether or not the undertakings given will be honoured. We have precedents from other private Bills in this House—for example, the north London cemetery Bill—where the promotors have written to the Chairman of Ways and Means giving an undertaking, which was then put in the public domain. That may be another way of resolving this problem. From what my hon. Friend is saying, it seems that everyone is agreed that these facilities are necessary and desirable, and should be provided.
New clause 4 says that the
“Commissioners must within twelve months of the day on which this Act comes into forces enable access to the facilities and moorings specified under this Act to be by a boater key system paid for by boaters for a nominal fee and operated by the Commissioners.”
That is not an unreasonable suggestion. It is a commonplace practice in the boating industry.
Philip Davies
I particularly support new clause 5 and struggle to find a reason why anyone could not, because it seems to be only fair and proper. Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the Bill’s sponsor or the people behind it to find out whether they think it is a common-sense clause that they would accept or, if not, what logical reason they have for not accepting it?
Sir Christopher Chope
We have not yet reached that stage. That might be my fault, because I have not sat down with the Bill’s promoters to discuss these issues in detail. I understand that there was quite a lot of discussion of such issues in Committee. For the reasons that I have set out, the petitioners are still unhappy and feel that there should be a new clause to incorporate this provision.
Kevin Foster
I am finding my hon. Friend’s speech of some interest. He might be interested to know that clause 4 was amended in Committee to make it clear that revenue from navigation would be spent only for navigation purposes. That was done specifically in response to the petitioners’ concerns, to ensure that they could be confident that, although they are currently getting something for nothing, they will get something for what they pay—the navigation fees will go on navigation facilities and costs.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. We will come to clause 4 and the amendments to it later. I shall say nothing other than that the petitioners and I were pleased that clause 4 was introduced in Committee in response to the concerns that were expressed. As I mentioned at the outset, just because it was introduced at that stage, that does not mean that it is perfect, which is why we are dealing with these new clauses and the amendments to clause 4, to which I shall come in due course and in order, because it is much easier for people to follow proceedings if people start at the beginning and go through clause by clause.
Philip Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that if new clause 5 is not accepted, that would effectively mean that people think it would be fine for the charges to be made but the facilities not to be in good repair and working order? That would clearly be intolerable—[Interruption.]
Sir Christopher Chope
I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, who speaks on behalf of the promoters, saying from a sedentary position that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is wrong about that. Let us wait until we discuss clause 4, which was introduced in Committee, to see whether we can tease out a little more information on all the implications.
Amendment 1 basically says that the time given between the Bill obtaining Royal Assent and being implemented is unreasonably short. The period is currently specified as only 28 days; it seems to me that it would be reasonable for it to come into force six months after the day on which it was passed. I would not say that it is the most important of the amendments, but it would be interesting to hear why the promoters do not think that that is a reasonable position to have. We know that, under the provisions of this Bill, some byelaws will have to be drawn up. That does not mean that work on the byelaws cannot start in advance of the Bill being passed into law—a period of six months will then need to be left for the Bill to be implemented—bearing in mind the fact that we are dealing with a lot of lay people who will probably need quite a lot of notice of the changes that will have to be made under the provisions of this Bill.
Amendment 2 is, in a sense, a drafting amendment. As we get a definition of “polluting matter” under clause 2, it seems much easier to keep it as an objective test. I have no quarrel with defining polluting matter as
“sewage or any other injurious matter, whether solid or liquid”.
We will not let our imaginations run riot on that. What I find more difficult is what is meant by the word “offensive”. What is added by including that word? Essentially, what is offensive to one person may not be offensive to another, and it is a subjective test. I would be interested to know from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay what that subjective test adds in that particular part of the clause on polluting matter.
Let me turn to amendment 3. I am going through these amendments quite quickly, because there is no need to spend a lot of time on amendments to which there should be a short and succinct answer, saying, “Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, these are good amendments and we will be happy to incorporate them in the Bill.”
Amendment 3 is more of a probing amendment. We are in the new age of electricity, and the definition of power-driven vessel here includes
“any vessel propelled by a detachable outboard engine”
but it does not include a sailing boat, a rowing boat or a canoe—fine. However, now that we have a new generation of electric motors, why do we not introduce in a Bill such as this an incentive for people to use electric power on these waterways? Obviously, electric power is much less polluting and better for the atmosphere. If it is as quiet as many of these new cars seem to be, it will hardly disturb anybody, as the boat, powered by an electric motor, glides down the route of the navigation. I am interested in hearing the thoughts of my hon. Friend on that.
Indeed, in recognising the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Front Bench, who has come along to help us in our deliberations, I could perhaps say that this is an issue for the Government. Perhaps the Government might be interested in thinking about introducing some sort of incentive for the use of electric motors rather than outboards. I know that a lot of my constituents would be very happy if there were more electric-driven vessels rather than power-driven vessels. This could open up a much larger issue, but why not start raising it now on the first occasion today?
That takes me on to amendment 4, which is about the “use”. Are we talking about the use of vessels? The Bill says:
“‘use’ in relation to any vessel on a waterway, includes launching the vessel onto the waterway, keeping or mooring it on the waterway”.
I have no quarrel with the rest of it, which is
“navigating it on the waterway, and letting it for hire on the waterway”.
There seems to be a lot of concern about what happens when people have a vessel that is kept at the side of the waterway or even in a marina, or is used as a houseboat. Are we really saying that that amounts to using the vessel on a waterway? Under this definition, it would amount to using the vessel on a waterway and that does not really seem to be common sense. Surely using a vessel on the waterway means actually using it—navigating it and letting it for hire on the waterway—but it does not include keeping or mooring it on the waterway.
Amendment 5 is a more extensive version of a similar concern that has been raised by a number of the petitioners. They say that the amended definition of waterways, compared with the definition before the Bill was in Committee, is a
“move in the right direction”,
but that
“it still serves to extend the jurisdiction and control of the Commissioners into privately owned property (such as marinas), which will usurp the rights of property owners to decide who and which boats can use the water over their land.”
The petitioners feel that this is an
“unwarranted interference with the rights of private citizens”,
and that, at the very least, there should be a provision for boat owners whose vessels remain permanently in the marina to make an off-the-water declaration—a sort of waterways statutory off road notification—so that they are no longer liable for the charges. In fact, that is a very good analogy. If individuals do not use their motor vehicle on the road, they do not have to pay road tax, so if people are not using their houseboat on the water, why should they have to pay these charges? That issue could be resolved by having a narrower definition of waterway, which is what amendment 5 would do.
Lines 11 to 18 of clause 2 say that
“‘the waterways’ means the waterways in respect of which the Commissioners are the navigation authority…including…the waterways set out in…Schedule 1”—
what we would all understand as the waterways—
“water control structures…or…the banks of, those waterways; and…any watercourse in the Middle Level”,
which is obviously what this Bill is about. However, I do not see why that should include a lake, pit, pond, marina or substantially enclosed water adjacent to those waterways and from which any vessel may be navigated, whether through a lock or into the waterways themselves. If a vessel is navigated into the waterway, it is in the waterway and is liable under the provisions of this Bill. But if it is not navigated in there, it does not seem relevant to say that it could be navigated. One way of reducing the scope of the definition of “waterway”, about which the petitioners remain concerned, would be to support amendment 5.
I turn to amendment 6 to clause 3—a clause that was introduced as a result of the work done in Committee. The clause establishes a navigation advisory committee, and the petitioners are very pleased about that, but they also think that it needs further definition. That is not a criticism of the people who tabled the amendment. However, given the way that we deal with legislation in our two Houses, sometimes an amendment can be improved when further considered.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for the points that he is making. However, does he agree that the slight danger with this amendment is that it would say that the persons are representative of all the interests, when the whole point of a representative committee would be to have people who represent different interests, just as we in this House all represent different constituencies even though we have the same duty as Members?
Sir Christopher Chope
My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point, but it is nothing to do with this. It is not a question of what the persons are representative of, because that is spelled out, but a question of whether they are representative of the groups listed or appear to the commissioners to be representative of them. It should be quite easy to establish whether somebody is representative of these interests rather than appearing to the commissioners to be representative of them.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had intended to make this point of order when the hon. Gentleman stopped speaking, but I feel that he might be in the middle of a “Stackhouse filibuster”. Earlier today, Toys“R”Us announced that the company has gone into administration. That has ramifications for the store in Parkhead in my constituency. I have spent the majority of today trying to get in touch with the administrators of Toys“R”Us, with no success. Have you been given advance notice of any ministerial statement tomorrow? How can Members of Parliament do their job if they cannot get in touch with the company to seek security for the staff who work for it?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Normally I would not take a point of order at this stage, but as Sir Christopher has only just cleared his throat in making his speech, I recognise that it would be frustrating for the hon. Gentleman not to get in. The matter is on the record now. I have been given no notice of a ministerial statement about the serious issue at Toys“R”Us. I do recognise that you are representing your constituents. I hope that the message has gone out loud and clear that Toys“R”Us should be linking up with the Member of Parliament to ensure that you can represent the rights of the workers there.
Sir Christopher Chope
Unfortunately my children and I are so old that they do not benefit from visits to Toys“R”Us, but it is very sad when any long-established business goes into administration.
Philip Davies
With regard to whether people are representative or appear to be so to the commissioners, perhaps the commissioners might fear that there could be some kind of legal action on the basis of whether and how someone could be determined to be representative—that somebody might say, “Well, I don’t think these people are representative of X, Y and Z”—and so a qualification was put in to help to get them out of a potentially sticky situation. Does my hon. Friend think that that is why the amendment was worded as it was?
Sir Christopher Chope
If I may say so, that is a more plausible explanation than the one being put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, but I think we have said enough about that. We will hear what he thinks when he responds to the debate.
I turn to amendments 6, 7 and 8 to clause 3. The petitioners are concerned that the requirement that the commissioners must take the committee’s views into consideration has limited use, because the commissioners could say that they have taken those views into consideration but found them to be of no value. The only remedy for any such failure to take the committee’s views properly into account would then be judicial review, which is strictly time-limited, expensive and hugely unreliable, with historical bias, they think, in favour of authorities. I do not know about that, but certainly they are right in saying that judicial review is a long-winded and potentially expensive way of seeking redress.
In the light of those concerns, I have tabled amendment 7 to clause 3(6), which would mean that instead of the commissioners being required to “take into consideration” any matter, they must “give full” consideration. There is a difference between taking into consideration and giving consideration. If the commissioners gave full consideration to any matter, that would be useful.
To reinforce that point, amendment 8 would add a sentence to the end of subsection (6), which would then say that the commissioners give full consideration to any matter, recommendation or representation which may from time to time be referred or made to them by the committee
“and in the event of not accepting such a recommendation or representation give full reasons for that decision.”
That would provide the sort of protection that the petitioners seek and would strengthen clause 3 and make it an even more effective addition to the Bill.
Amendment 9 to clause 4 would leave out subsection (2). It is in essence a probing amendment, to draw attention to the whole issue of charges and constraints upon the way in which charges can be made, which, as has been said, is a useful amendment to the Bill. I am suggesting that it could be linked more specifically with each of the different uses for which charges will be recoverable.
Amendment 10 would mean that in exercising the power under clause 4(1)(a), rather than the whole of subsection (1),
“the Commissioners must aim to secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from charges under that subsection does not exceed the annualised costs incurred by the Commissioners in exercising their functions in respect of navigation under the navigation Acts.”
It seems that that relates to the use of any waterway by any vessel. Those would be the charges for the use of the waterway, and they would link in directly with the functions in respect of navigation under the navigation Acts.
I am much more dubious about linking in the reasonable charges for the provision of services and facilities in respect of the waterways and their banks, because they are not separated out from the more general, nor is the requirement for registration of any vessel under navigation byelaws. Those charges should be separately identified and accounted for, and they should undergo this test: taking one financial year with another, the charges under those subsections should not exceed the annualised costs. This is a refinement of clause 4, and I think that it would improve the clause significantly.
Amendment 11 also deals with the annualised issue. The effect of amendment 12 would be as follows:
“The Commissioners may revise, waive or remove any charge fixed under subsection (1)(a), and different charges may be fixed for different cases or classes of case.”
The amendment would extend the commissioners’ discretion, while making sure that it was specific to the different categories of activity for which they can recover charges.
Amendment 13, which is a probing amendment, would leave out subsection (4). I hope that we will hear further explanation of why the commissioners want to
“make the use of the services and facilities referred in subsection (1)(b) subject to such terms and conditions as the Commissioners may specify in writing.”
The most radical amendment that I have tabled to clause 4 is amendment 14, which I hope will find favour with Members from across the House. The amendment would add, at the end of the clause:
“No charge shall be payable in respect of the use of a waterway by a vessel being used by a person who is registered disabled”.
I raise that because there is quite an issue about disability, the use of waterways and the use of powers similar to those sought by the promoters of the Bill. Such powers have been abused on occasions, and disabled people have been severely pilloried and discriminated against. Why should it not be possible to exempt disabled people from these charges?
I have been sent a press cutting dated April 2015 from Wiltshire, where a disabled boat owner who lived on the Kennet and Avon canal faced costs of up to £76,000 as a result of action that was taken against him by the Canal and River Trust. The individual was living on incapacity benefit and disability living allowance. Instead of allowing him to repair his boat over a period of time, the trust strictly imposed the conditions of his licence and required him to vacate his boat, which was also his home. Insult was added to injury by the fact that he was denied legal aid, and he was instead represented by the legal officer of the National Bargee Travellers Association.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Sir Christopher, I am just waiting to see how this links in with the Bill.
Sir Christopher Chope
It links in with my amendment 14, Mr Deputy Speaker, because amendment 14 would exempt—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am more bothered that this is about the Avon canal and that particular individual, who is not actually on the Middle Level or affected by it. I understand you making a reference, but not in detail.
Sir Christopher Chope
I accept that we do not want to go into any more detail than I have already, but the analogy is that the powers that are being sought in the Bill by the Middle Level Commissioners are almost identical to the powers that have already been obtained by other organisations, such as the Canal and River Trust, which operates on the Kennet and Avon canal.
Sir Henry Bellingham
Is there any serious demand from disabled people in the boat-owning community in East Anglia for this exemption? I have a number of disabled constituents who are boat owners, and as I pointed out on Second Reading in the last Parliament, many boat owners from my constituency will motor upstream into the different parts of the Middle Level. I have not come across any demand from disabled people; this is not like the blue badge scheme. We have great respect for those in the disabled community, but is my hon. Friend really saying that there is a desire to give them an exemption from these charges? Would that not just make the scheme that much more bureaucratic? Also, most disabled people are very proud, so do they really want this exemption?
Sir Christopher Chope
Obviously, they would get the exemption only if they applied for it. Disabled people are proud, and I have a lot of disabled residents among my constituents, but that does not mean that, for example, they do not cherish the ability to park their cars using a discretionary parking permit.
In direct answer to my hon. Friend’s intervention, I had not received any representations from disabled constituents of his before making this speech; if I had, I would have referred them to him. However, what I can say is that the Canal and River Trust, which was dealing with this issue in Wiltshire, has now accepted in principle that disabled boaters should not have enforcement action taken against them in the same way as able-bodied boaters, but it has not yet been very keen to communicate that policy to disabled people there.
All I can say is that, given how the powers have been used on inland waterways in other parts of the country, there is potentially an issue, and by putting forward amendment 14, I have at least ensured that it is discussed. As we know, there is even more interest in the other place in promoting the cause of disabled people than there is in this House. It may well be that, when the Bill gets to the other place, Members there will wish to pursue the content of amendment 14 if it is not accepted by the sponsor today.
Amendments 15 and 16 are designed to leave out clauses 5 and 7. I tabled them to enable us to have a debate on the content of those clauses, should that be thought desirable. However, having regard to the time, the best thing to do is probably not to speak to those amendments but to go on to one or two of the later amendments.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very informative speech. He will recognise that other Members are affected, other than just those from the fens, because the River Nene—or “Nen”, depending on which part of my constituency someone is from—flows into the Middle Level. So this issue is wider than just a local area.
Sir Christopher Chope
It is very important that my hon. Friend has been able to put his interest in this subject matter on the record.
Amendment 17 relates to clause 9, which addresses stranded, grounded and sunken vessels and vehicles. The amendment would remove the subsection 3, which states:
“Whenever any vessel is, without lawful authority, left or moored in any waterway the Commissioners may after serving not less than 28 days’ notice on the owner of the vessel, unless it is not practicable after reasonable inquiry to ascertain the name and address of the owner, raise and remove the vessel.”
As set out in the rest of clause 9, it is perfectly reasonable for a vessel that is stranded or abandoned in a waterway and is interfering with navigation to be removed quickly. However, when one takes into account the very wide definition of “waterway”, the inclusion of subsection 3 is potentially oppressive. It could mean that the commissioners could, for example, go into a marina and raise and remove a vessel at considerable cost after no more than 28 days’ notice. The amendment would therefore remove that power from the Bill.
Clause 11 relates to the requirements for registration and incorporates a very important amendment promoted by the March Cruising Club and others on the charges and the amount by which they could be increased in any one year. It introduces a requirement that such charges should not increase above the rate of inflation as defined by the consumer prices index. Many boaters—some may be represented by my hon. Friends here this evening—are not very well-off in financial terms and need to be able to plan their budgets ahead. When they work out the costs of having a vessel on the waterway, they need to have the certainty that the charges levied cannot be increased by more than the rate of the CPI each year. By analogy, the Government have said that council tax should not increase by more than the CPI. They have made some exceptions to that recently, but the general proposition is that they cannot be increased by more than the CPI.
Sir Christopher Chope
Much as I would like to agree with my hon. Friend, there has to be some discretion, because the fees needs to relate to the powers and duties that will be carried out and funded by them. One of the clauses that we looked at earlier specified that the money for the fees had to be spent on various things, particularly, for example, on navigation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Can I just help a little? In fairness to Mr Bone, he was not here, but you do not need to explain what we have already discussed and we do not need to go back over it. I know that you were not attempting to do so—come on, Sir Christopher!
Sir Christopher Chope
Okay, amendment 26 is to clause 15, line 38. The clause, on the protocol of removal of vessels, states:
“The Commissioners must, in consultation with the Navigation Advisory Committee, prepare, publish and maintain a protocol on the use of powers under or by virtue of this Act to remove vessels.”
My amendment proposes to change “in consultation with” to “in conjunction with”, because it seems to me that the Navigation Advisory Committee should work jointly with the commissioners rather than just in consultation with them on this important matter. Again, amendment 25 tries to reduce the powers conferred upon the commissioners under clause 14(4) and how they can be exercised.
As I said at the beginning, this is a much improved Bill, compared with how it was. It has now reached the stage where, because all the amendments have been grouped together, it would not be sensible to test the will of the House on each one—I am glad that you agree with me on that proposition, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, the Bill’s promoters are worried about whether the fact that we are discussing these things in the House today means that they cannot be discussed further when the Bill gets to the other place. My understanding is that when it goes to the other place, there is a fresh opportunity for people to put in petitions, in which they can include whatever they wish to, and I am sure that the other place will build upon the discussions that we are having this evening and have had prior to it, so that eventually, the Bill will be even better than it is now.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I am pleased to respond on the Opposition’s behalf to this opposed private business. Although it might not be the most conventional way to introduce legislative change, and I have heard the detailed reservations of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), we are none the less satisfied that the Bill makes sense, and our intention is to support the Bill as it stands. Although the Bill is fairly narrow in scope, we acknowledge that it has important consequences for those who will be affected. We are satisfied that due scrutiny has taken place in Committee and is taking place at consideration stage this afternoon.
The Middle Level of the fens was first drained in the 17th century to reclaim an area of farmland in Cambridgeshire and west Norfolk. The Middle Level Commissioners are the navigation authority for the waterways, established through a series of local Acts passed between 1663 and 1874, so we appreciate that the legislative framework underpinning the role of the commissioners is in need of an update. This is not least because almost all the fenland within the Middle Level waterways is below sea level, and if it was not for a complex system of flood mitigation and drainage schemes managed by the commissioners, the waterways could pose a significant risk to the estimated 100,000 people who live and work in the area.
In the simplest terms, the Bill will introduce a registration scheme for vessels in the Middle Level and allow the commissioners to bring in revenue from boat owners that will be used to improve the waterways. The Environment Agency, the Canal and River Trust and the Broads Authority all have similar powers in respect of their own navigations, so in many ways, the Bill is long overdue in bringing the Middle Level into line with its neighbours. Additional income for the commissioners could make a real difference to the fenlands and waterways, and although I appreciate the desire of local boat users for improved facilities on the waterways, as we have heard, the Bill will allow the commissioners to raise revenue to deliver this.
Philip Davies
Does the hon. Lady have any sympathy with any of my hon. Friend’s amendments, particularly the one about no charge
“being payable in respect of the use of the waterway by a vessel being used by a person who is registered disabled”?
Is that not something the Labour party would welcome?
Holly Lynch
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, which is a valid one, and of course we want to improve accessibility so that everyone can enjoy our waterways. It is certainly something we would consider further in later discussions on the Bill, but it is not something we would vote for later today.
Taking everything into account, we are satisfied that the Bill is sensible in updating the legal framework setting out the role of the Middle Level Commissioners and bringing them into line with what is now standard practice across comparable waterways. Despite its unusual journey through Westminster, we have no problem supporting it this afternoon.
Kevin Foster
It is a pleasure to get another opportunity to speak on the Bill. Given that it has already had its Second Reading, I will focus my remarks on today’s amendments and the changes made in Committee.
As the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) just mentioned, a number of positive changes were made to the Bill in response to the petitioners’ concerns, and I was grateful to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) say that changes had been made and that people had listened. It is appropriate, however, that I say briefly why I do not think it would be appropriate for the amendments and new clauses to be accepted.
New clause 1 would set a minimum navigation depth actually lower than the one in current legislation. New clauses 2 to 5 refer to specific facilities that could be provided. As suggested in an intervention, it does not seem logical to specify in statute things such as coin-operated water showers. Were that to sit in primary legislation, it would run the danger of the Bill becoming completely outdated. It also makes sense for users, via the mechanisms proposed in the Bill, to be able to discuss what are appropriate facilities. The inclusion of some of these items might also render particular powers ineffective where planning permission is refused. I therefore urge the House to reject all the new clauses.
Philip Davies
I take my hon. Friend’s point about the specific items, but new clause 5 does not mention anything specific; it just maintains that something should be in “good repair and working order”. If that new clause is not accepted, what would the appropriate remedy be for boaters to ensure they did not pay for something they cannot use?
Kevin Foster
Clause 4, as amended, means that incomes can only be used for navigation purposes. Ultimately, this becomes a chicken-and-egg situation: money will have to be raised if the commissioners are to provide the type of facilities people want on the Middle Level in consultation with navigation users. The alternative is to ask those who are paying for drainage to pay for those facilities to be provided initially via their council tax bills, which seems neither fair nor equitable. This cannot be a money-raising exercise. The purpose of any moneys raised by navigation must be absolutely clear. People are already paying for drainage via council tax and a levy.
Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)
Would the historical public right of navigation and extending the powers to privately owned waters and marinas give the Middle Level Commissioners complete control and enable them to charge boats licence fees?
Kevin Foster
An amendment was made in Committee making it clear that the powers would not be extended to someone who owns the waterways and the frontage of a property. The promoters have confirmed that the owners of the marinas wish to be included in the powers of the commission. There is no specific definition. We are not talking about a lock or a quay; we are talking about an open waterway. The aim is to manage it as a whole system, with registration applying throughout, and without different safety standards or insurance requirements. That should benefit the hon. Lady’s constituents.
Amendment 1 would extend the time between the passing of the Act and the date on which it would come into effect. A 12-month transition period applies to many of the provisions relating to construction and use, but it does not make sense to delay all the provisions—such as the commissioners’ new duty to have regard to the interests of boat dwellers—to that extent.
Let me now deal with amendment 2. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch asked where the words “any other offensive” had come from. The wording is actually similar to the requirements under the Environment Agency’s powers to control discharges into water for works purposes under section 163 of the Water Resources Act 1991. It is a well-established definition, and I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend said that amendment 3 was a probing amendment. Adding a reference to electric vehicles to a provision that also includes vehicles under sail does not take into account the direction in which technology could well move. Electric motors are becoming much more powerful, certainly far more powerful than a sail vessel. However, as I have said, my hon. Friend did say that this was a probing amendment.
The promoters would find amendment 4 unacceptable, because it would potentially remove the need for a static vessel to meet construction and safety standards or insurance requirements. I think that, given the issues that we have been debating over the past year, few of us would consider it sensible for those requirements not to apply to houseboats.
Amendment 5 would extend the commissioners’ powers in quite an odd way, and could require them to dig out virtually every watercourse in the area that is not a navigable course. It suggests the idea of a sort of waterway statutory off-road notice. This has already been taken care of by a change that was made in relation to boats that people own that are on their own property and used only by them. Parking a boat in a marina, for example, would be the equivalent of parking it in a public car park.
I made a point about amendment 6 in an earlier intervention. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), replacing the words
“appear to the Commissioners to be (taken together)”
with the word ”are” could allow a challenge over who had been appointed if someone felt that an appointee did not represent them. I do not feel that that would be an appropriate or helpful addition to the Bill. Such a challenge to the advisory committee could potentially frustrate its establishment.
I oppose amendments 9, 16 and 22 because the point of introducing a practical power is to provide for a simple registration plate that can be enforced. Getting into an argument about whether a boat has been used or not seems neither sensible nor appropriate, particularly if we are talking about looking to have basic construction and safety standards and insurance standards. In exactly the same way as if we park a car on a public road, it does not matter whether we are driving it or not as it still needs to be roadworthy and have paid vehicle tax. There are therefore similar precedents in other areas of legislation, so again I suggest that these amendments are both unwelcome and unnecessary.
As for amendments 10 and 11, the Bill makes it clear how the income from navigation will be used to fund benefits for navigation so, again, neither of them is necessary. On amendments 12 and 13, it does not seem unreasonable to allow commissioners to set conditions on the use of facilities such as, for example, cleaning showers and not abusing waste facilities. Indeed, it could undermine the purposes of providing those facilities if they were not able to provide a basic regulation system for how they were used, which is common in many other environments.
On amendment 14, I appreciate the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for ensuring that disabled people have a strong voice in this Chamber, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, who is a passionate advocate of equalities, hence his membership of the Women and Equalities Committee. However, this amendment is flawed as it refers to a register of disabled persons when that register was abolished by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, so again I suggest it would not be sensible to bring that in.
Philip Davies
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s ability to find a technical reason why he should not accept the amendment, but does he accept the principle behind it?
Kevin Foster
We are on Report, whose purpose is to look at the technical detail of the Bill and satisfy ourselves it would be appropriate. In terms of whether I support the principle, my council does not offer a parking fee concession for those who hold a blue badge, only the ability to use reserved spaces that are very close. Again, that principle is established in many areas, so I do not think the principle of this is one to take forward. This is not about someone needing an extra facility because they are disabled; this is about a boat and navigation and whether people pay the same charge as everyone else and are effectively treated exactly the same.
On amendments 15 and 16, it does not make any sense to remove the ability to promote reciprocal arrangements, and it could end up costing boat owners more if they have to have separate licences and registration and different standards, so I urge the House to reject these amendments. On amendments 17, 18, 19 and 20, a protocol will be put in place, so I do not accept the suggestion that the existing powers would be oppressive. A houseboat would only be removed in the last resort and where it was proportionate to do so.
On amendment 23, it makes little sense to apply this cap only to the application fee; it does not apply it to the registration fee. This could produce perverse effects in the long run, and I again suggest it should be rejected.
My view and that of the promoters is that amendment 26 this would cause confusion: if things are done in “conjunction” with, rather than through “consultation”, and someone wishes to take legal action, whom do they take it against? They could end up taking it against members of the navigation advisory committee which actually just got involved to represent people, so this could act as a deterrent for anyone wanting to be involved.
There are many good reasons for this Bill to be passed. It has been examined in great depth in the Opposed Bill Committee and on the Floor of the House. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for his great interest and the scrutiny he has given this Bill, but I urge the House to reject all the new clauses and amendments, if necessary.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to be able to make this short speech in support of the Bill, unamended as it is. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and those who sat on the Committee. They seem to have done a great deal of clever and thoughtful work. I know very little about the Middle Level Bill, but I do know a lot about the Gloucester and Sharpness canal, where we had similar issues relating to the need to update and to who should be able to moor and therefore be charged for facilities. That was resolved, although not without difficulty, because there was some opposition. Eventually, however, people saw sense on issues such as shutting the canal on certain days when there is limited need to use it, to allow people easier passage over its many bridges. It is right and proper that such arrangements should be revisited from time to time, to ensure that our canal system and the waterway system in general are fit for purpose. I should like to add my congratulations on the work that has been done, and I hope that the Bill will pass without amendment.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I had the pleasure of chairing the Opposed Private Bill Committee, which took evidence on this legislation. I and four parliamentary colleagues—two from this side of the House and two from the Opposition—have considered the objections raised by the petitioners in great detail, and the undertakings made in response. I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for his kind comments about the conduct of the Committee, and about its work. I believe that the Bill strikes the right balance between the clear need to upgrade the levels and the legitimate concerns of those who use them, and as a result I am happy to recommend the new Middle Level Bill to the House.
Julian Knight
I will give way to the hon. Lady, as I know that she has a local concern.
Fiona Onasanya
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he assure me that low-wage families living on boats will not suffer homelessness as an unintended consequence of the legislation? Can he also confirm that the revenue acquired from the licence fee will be spent on boaters and their facilities?
Julian Knight
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I know that she has taken a particular interest in this matter. On the question of homelessness, I shall deal in detail with the potential for a review if the interests of houseboat dwellers are not taken into account. She also asked about licence fees, and the Bill contains the idea that the money raised from those fees should be spent on navigation. In fact, according to the information that we have, that is unlikely to be enough to cover all the potential navigation costs.
As I have said, I believe that the Bill strikes the right balance. Today’s debate is, rightly, restricted to the technicalities of the Bill, as the case for updating the law governing the Middle Level navigations is undeniable and has been accepted by the House. The existing Acts were laid down in the 19th century and simply do not reflect the realities of managing a modern waterway. The Bill will bring the Middle Level into line with the rules governing neighbouring systems, prevent the diversion of resources away from vital flood prevention measures, and allow the commissioners to provide the standards of safety and convenience that should be standard on all British waterways.
I know that some object to the Bill on the ground that to charge those who navigate the levels breaches an ancient right of free navigation. However, after close scrutiny, my colleagues and I do not believe that that is the case. For starters, there has always been a levy for using the Middle Level. When the previous Middle Level Acts were drafted, the waterways were heavily used by commercial and industrial shipping, with pleasure craft almost an anomaly in that respect. It was therefore sensible to concentrate fees for maintaining the navigations on commercial shipping.
However, the situation today is entirely the reverse: the levels are well used by pleasure and leisure craft, and they see little, if any, commercial traffic. It is therefore only right that we empower the commissioners to levy funds from those who enjoy the Middle Level today. We should also remember that many of the costs are incurred explicitly through keeping the waterways navigable. Locks could easily be replaced by much more cost-effective alternatives such as weirs, were flood control the commission’s only consideration. I believe that this also addresses concerns about a supposed right to free navigation. Certainly, the case can be made that the state ought not to levy a fee to sail on a naturally navigable river, but when public funds must be laid out to maintain an artificial navigation, it is just that those who benefit should pay.
I also urge the House to remember that the Middle Level navigations are not only navigable waterways but important flood protection measures, without which much of the fens would be under water for at least part of the year. The Middle Level commissioners are responsible for both those important functions, but without the ability to levy funds from those using the waterways, they have no choice but to maintain them by diverting money from their flood defences. As a matter of public safety, as well as one of basic fairness, this should change.
In Committee, we heard another important objection to the proposed fees system that I would like to address here: what will those who pay the fee receive in exchange? That is a perfectly reasonable concern, and I will briefly explain to the House how the Bill has addressed it. First, we have a commitment from the commissioners that they will not under any circumstances levy more money from boat users than they need to maintain the navigations in good order. In fact, I am told that they are likely to raise much less than that. The commissioners also know that they will only undermine their own fundraising efforts if they set the rates at a level that discourages the use of the waterways. I am therefore confident that the rates will remain competitive and in line with the rest of the inland waterway network, which is in effect a market.
Secondly, the commissioners have committed to spending the money raised from those using the navigations on maintaining the navigations themselves. Thirdly, the facilities on the Middle Level are clearly in urgent need of an upgrade. At present, there are only two public facilities on the entire system, and it needs not only more toilets, but other services such as drainage, watering posts, and refuse collection. All that needs to be paid for, and it does not seem right that local council tax payers are asked to fund improvements so that the actual beneficiaries can enjoy them free of charge.
Another objection heard by the Committee was that new rules would unfairly penalise houseboat dwellers. The rules in question are the commissioner’s powers to move vessels that have been abandoned or moored without authority. Some of the petitioners were concerned that the notice periods were too short. Others even alleged that the proposals violated the human rights of those who live on the level. However, I believe that the Bill has addressed such concerns. For a start, there is obviously no possibility of this or any other Bill empowering the commissioners to violate anybody’s human rights unless some explicit exemption were written into it for that purpose.
Beyond that, the Bill contains several additional measures intended to reassure residents of the Middle Level. It provides a clear definition of the “lawful authority” under which vessels can be removed and specifies that any notices must be served to the vessels in question. Clause 15 requires that the commission publish a clear protocol to specify that moving a vessel will be a last resort. Moreover, clause 13 explicitly mandates the commission to have regard for the rights and interests of boat dwellers and to report annually on how they have upheld that duty. That means that the Middle Level navigations will offer some of the best and most explicit protections to houseboat users of any part of this country’s inland waterways. I concluded that the protections are more than adequate to offset the legitimate concerns of boat users while still allowing the commission to perform the essential function of moving abandoned or illegally moored vessels that are either blocking the use of moorings by others or obstructing navigation of the narrower waterways.
Finally, on byelaws and regulation, the new powers proposed in the Bill will allow the commission to require vessels to be insured and to meet proper safety standards, while providing a period of adjustment so that those using the levels can make sure their boats are up to code. My colleagues on the Committee and I all felt that that was important not only for its own sake, but to prevent the Middle Level becoming a dumping ground for old, unsafe vessels that are no longer legal on other parts of the network. Furthermore, the Middle Level will be adopting standards similar to those of neighbouring waterways, which will mean minimal disruption for anybody trying to use the navigations as part of the broader network. In short, the Bill will modernise the management of the Middle Level while preserving, and indeed enhancing, its unique historical character both for today’s users and future generations.
Sir Henry Bellingham
The Bill affects my constituency along with several others, and it is vital to the people living in the fens. Without the modern drainage that was brought in during the 18th century, they would not have homes, and we would not have nearly 200,000 acres of prime agricultural land. It is also important to the owners of pleasure craft. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), who chaired the Committee, and agree with what he just said, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for his indefatigable work as the Bill’s sponsor.
It is important that we have a charging regime that is simple, transparent and not too bureaucratic. Some of the amendments do make quite a lot of sense but, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), I urge the House not to have anything to do with the new clauses, which would complicate the Bill and make it more bureaucratic. What we want is a simple Bill, with a charging system that really is fit for purpose. We want to build up a position of trust between the commissioners and the boat owners and users who will be paying the navigation fees.
On that basis, I very much hope that the Bill is not delayed a day longer than is necessary, because it is so important to my constituency.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
Members will be pleased to know that I can be relatively brief.
The Government support the Bill, which is promoted by the Middle Level Commissioners, a statutory corporation constituted under the Middle Level Act 1862. We have had a good debate this evening and I commend the many probing amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) tabled, but I believe that all the points he raised have been dealt with comprehensively, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who has a deep grasp of all the detail of the Bill.
The legal framework that governs the commissioners’ navigation function is made up of a number of 18th and 19th century Acts, which are now considerably out of date and do not align with modern requirements or the statutory framework that is applicable to other navigation authorities. In particular, the current legal framework that governs the commissioners does not include adequate provision for the registration of vessels using the waterways or the levying of charges for the use of the waterways and associated facilities. As a result, the commissioners do not receive any income from the navigation of the waterways, which has meant that moneys raised through drainage rates and levies have had to be used to fund navigation rather than for flood defence purposes, which is contrary to Government policy.
The commissioners are therefore seeking to update and clarify their powers to enable them to properly regulate and fund their waterways. The powers that they are seeking are similar to those used by other large inland navigation authorities, for example the Canal and River Trust, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority.
I very much support the Bill and hope that it will pass unamended this evening.
Sir Christopher Chope
We have had a good humoured and thoughtful debate, and I am grateful to everybody who has participated. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham), who conceded that some of my amendments were sensible, if not the new clauses. I hope that if they are not accepted by the promoter tonight, they will be taken forward when the Bill is debated in the other place in due course, as it inevitably will be.
The issues we have discussed are of considerable concern to the petitioners. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) for having got to his feet. It is quite unusual in these debates for the person who has got down to the detail in Committee to come here to explain his reasoning and the work that he did. I thank him and the other members of the Committee once again for the work that they did and the courteous way in which they dealt with the concerns expressed by the petitioners. He has set a useful new precedent: instead of hiding their light under a bushel, the people who get involved in the Committee stage should participate on Report, as he has done.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for showing sympathy with some of my amendments, although she cannot bring herself to support them yet.
I will not press all the amendments in the House tonight, because it will be much better for them to be dealt with in the other place, where the ideas can be developed and the responses from the petitioners and the promoter can be made available. However, I do think that amendment 14 bears further consideration. For the benefit of those who were not here for the debate, amendment 14 is in page 6, clause 4, line 11, at the end to add
“(8) No charge shall be payable in respect of the use of a waterway by a vessel being used by a person who is registered disabled”.
I only got one response on that from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), whom I thank for having gone through all my amendments seriatim, which is fantastic. He, like my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, is assiduous in answering the points that have been made. It makes it much easier for someone summing up a debate if they know their points have been answered.
On the issue of disabled people, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay seized on the fact that “registered disabled” is no longer a category of persons, but this amendment would apply to people who were registered disabled with the Middle Level Commissioners. Obviously, there is a registration system for people who have these boats and it would be able to include provisions as to whether or not someone is disabled, so the technical objection that my hon. Friend raised is not a valid one. If I had used a capital “R” and a capital “D” in my amendment, perhaps it might have been. I hope people will support the amendment on the basis that a lot of people are disabled and face considerable difficulties, and it would be reasonable for all other boaters to be prepared to cross-subsidise those who register with the commissioners as being disabled.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
Kevin Foster
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank all hon. Members who have come to support the Bill, which is a needed piece of legislation that will reform an outdated system of regulation of this waterway. I hope that all Members will support it receiving its Third Reading.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Middle Level Bill
Tuesday 16th October 2018
(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Middle Level Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 20.
Kevin Foster
This debate marks the end of a detailed process of parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill, which has both been welcome and led to significant changes and improvements to it. That process has been followed tenaciously by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who is in his place today and who I am sure will again give us the benefit of his thoughts on their lordships’ amendments. It must be said that the Bill is better for the scrutiny it has had in both Houses, with its Opposed Bill Committee in the other place having been chaired by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, a former Lord Chief Justice.
Today’s debate focuses on the 20 amendments made by their lordships, resulting from the concerns raised in the Opposed Bill Committee, further to refine the Bill to ensure that its purpose is clear, that the powers it grants are proportionate and that the needs of all users of the Middle Level, including those who rely on it for drainage and for whom it is their home—that has been a particular issue of debate throughout the process—are properly considered. I have spoken at length with the promoters, and they support the Lords amendments and urge Members to accept them.
To give a brief history of the Bill for those who have perhaps not followed it quite as closely as I have had the pleasure of doing, it was originally introduced to the House in November 2016 and had its First Reading on 24 January 2017. It was debated on Second Reading on 29 March 2017, when my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I had the opportunity to debate it at some length. A motion to revive the Bill in the new Session of Parliament followed the general election and was agreed by this House on 17 October 2017, and the House of Lords agreed to the revival of the Bill on 25 October 2017. The Bill went before an Opposed Bill Committee of the House of Commons on 15 to 17 January 2018, and consideration of the Bill as amended in Committee took place in this Chamber on 28 February. On Third Reading, the Bill passed without a Division.
My gratitude goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight)—sadly, he is not able to join us for this debate—who chaired the Opposed Bill Committee of this House and made some valuable contributions. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch highlighted on Third Reading how valuable it had been to hear on Report the contribution of the Chairman of the Opposed Bill Committee, as it meant that we could further explore some of the issues that had been presented there.
The passage of the Bill in the other place has been slightly quicker, as there was no intervening general election to cause an issue with its consideration. Its formal First Reading in the other place took place on 1 March this year and its formal Second Reading on Thursday 22 March. It was then considered for five days in June by an Opposed Bill Committee, chaired by the eminent jurist Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. He and the Committee brought a good level of scrutiny to it, ensuring that we have a very good Bill. I think that we can have every confidence in agreeing with their lordships today and then seeing this legislation enacted.
My understanding is that the Committee in the other place heard evidence from four of the seven petitioners against the Bill. Two of the petitioners had withdrawn their petitions and one was held not to have a right to be heard by the Committee, although I understand from speaking to the agents of the promoters that that person was still able to speak by providing evidence on behalf of one of the petitioners. To be clear, everyone has had a strong chance to put their views. Three of the petitioners had also appeared before the Opposed Bill Committee of this House.
The Middle Level Commissioners proposed amendments to the Bill in response to the concerns raised by the petitioners and members of the Committee. They also gave the Committee a number of undertakings that are not part of the Bill. However, I will turn to them in a few moments, because Members may find it helpful to know the reasons behind some of the undertakings given, as well as the reasons why they were given as formal undertakings to the Committee rather than incorporated as amendments to the Bill.
The amended Bill received formal Third Reading in the other place on 12 September this year, and we are now here to consider the Lords amendments. The promoter considers that the amendments do not extend or materially change the substance of the proposals in the Bill as earlier passed by this House, but they do provide some advantages.
Lords amendment 1 addresses a concern regarding small unpowered pleasure vessels. People may wonder what on earth that might mean. The amendment provides that vessels such as canoes and kayaks should not be included in the charging regime introduced by the Bill. However, when I speak about one of the other Lords amendments, I will explain that there may be a reasonable way—comparable with a similar system used on other waterways—to seek a contribution from those using the waterway for such purposes towards the costs of maintaining the waterway for navigation. This amendment is part of ensuring that the Bill is proportionate, and—to be blunt—to ensure that someone using a canoe or kayak does not find themselves being charged as if they were putting a pleasure boat down the waterway. It speaks to the socially inclusive nature of the use of the Middle Level; it is not just about those with large motor boats or significant amounts of money.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I am very conscious of what my hon. Friend says, and we want to encourage people to be active in their recreation. Have the commissioners considered a case whereby such vessels may be part of a commercial operation, with kayaks being rented out or training taking place? Have they recognised that the Lords would not want such cases to be covered by this provision?
Kevin Foster
I thank the Minister for her intervention. Yes, that is partly why Lords amendment 7 allows an ability to provide some charge for a more commercial operation. It could perhaps be a block charge to British Canoeing for those who are using the waterway, so that people pay a membership fee to British Canoeing before they are able to use particular waterways rather than paying individual fees to each individual operation. I see some nodding from those in the Under-Gallery. It is about trying to avoid a situation where a person with a canoe finds themselves having to register as a boat user to get on the water and pay a fee as if they were a large operation. They will not be completely barred, but they will be in a different charging regime from the standard one for the major pleasure boats and crafts using the waterway.
As the Minister will be aware, the current system of regulation means that fairly large pleasure and commercial boats can use the Middle Level with absolutely no charge at all. That is severely hindering its development and opportunities. Most worryingly of all, the current legislation does not provide for a modern system of safety regulation. This Bill does, hence why the commissioners are very keen to get it in place so that they can ensure that there is a modern and recognisable standard of boat safety on the Middle Level.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Could I be quite clear about this, because I am slightly worried? There is no question, is there, of a family taking a canoe out having to pay when they go on these waterways? That would seem excessive.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. The Lords amendment that I have just briefly covered is designed to deal with some of those concerns. It would be quite common on other waterways to have a system whereby if someone was a member of the British Canoeing Society, that membership fee would cover the cost. The commissioners may also put in place some restrictions regarding, for example, children wearing life vests. I think most of us would feel that that would be a sensible form of regulation on the waterway.
The general intention of the Lords amendment is to recognise that the Middle Level is a key part of the local community. Many use it informally. Although we need to bring in a form of safety regulation, it is not intended to bring that into the main scheme, although, as on other waterways, there might be a requirement to be a member of a recognised organisation that then contributes to the upkeep of safety equipment and other areas. There would then not necessarily be an additional charge to go on the Middle Level.
Lords Amendments 2, 3 and 4 deal with some of the issues that were raised on the membership of the navigation advisory committee and how it would work. Lords Amendment 2 would be familiar to anyone who has served on a local authority, with the idea that one should declare any personal interest or any matters that would be relevant to one’s decisions. Some of the petitioners raised a concern that the navigation advisory committee must fairly represent the users. In essence—the promoters may not thank me for saying this—it should not be the case that, for example, the commissioners’ mates or one particular group end up finding themselves on the navigation advisory committee.
However, the promoters were happy to accept the idea that relevant interests should be declared and that there should be clear processes for how that works. I do not think that any of us would see it as unreasonable that someone appointed to a representative body should declare to those they are representing what potential interests they may have that are relevant to their position on, in this case, the navigation advisory committee. They would not have to give a life story of their entire business affairs, but they would certainly have to declare anything that was relevant to their being on that committee—for example, what their interest is in the Middle Level, what they are doing there and how their business might operate. Those using the waterway for navigation could then satisfy themselves that there was a broad range of people represented there.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
I am perplexed by the term “a relevant interest”. Will my hon. Friend elaborate on that, so that I can understand what a relevant interest might be?
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for his interest. The amendment responds directly to concerns raised by petitioners in the Lords Committee about how the commissioners would not be sufficiently accountable to navigation interests. It gives boat owners on the Middle Level the same right to scrutinise the commissioners’ navigation accounts, and to challenge them if necessary, that local government electors have in relation to local authorities. In effect, boat owners using the Middle Level can act in the same way as a local government elector. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question.
Lords amendments 18 to 20 are more technical in nature, and I do not intend to talk about them unless Members have a particular query. A number of undertakings have been provided, and I can certainly make them available to Members who wish to see them in more depth. I would flag up the third undertaking given in relation to the advertisement of byelaws. In effect, an undertaking has been given to advertise byelaws in the same way as traffic orders—for example, in the local newspaper or, in this instance, in a magazine of interest to boaters. That is not in the Bill because, as many of us would accept, 40 or 50 years ago the local newspaper was the obvious place to go to for relevant news and information. If we begin to codify that in legislation, it could become out of date.
A specific undertaking is given on the registration fee for static houseboats and the publication of the removal protocol. That is a particular issue, and it will be treated as if it were a byelaw. The final issue of note is the undertaking to return to a residential mooring strategy and looking at how we could use the Middle Level to provide more opportunities for residential use, but that is an undertaking to try, rather than a statutory “must”, because ultimately the mooring facilities are determined by the local council.
The Bill has returned to the House in an excellent condition from the other place. We should accept the Lords amendments, as they strengthen the Bill and make it a measure that the whole House can accept.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. For the sake of clarity, it might be useful for the House to know that it is perfectly in order for Members to speak on Lords amendments 2 to 20 as well as amendment 1, as they have been grouped. There is no real need for me to say that—I merely say it for the sake of clarity. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) has addressed amendments 2 to 20, and clearly I would have called him to order had that not been in order. He is rarely not in order. We are now debating Lords amendment 1, together with amendments 2 to 20.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for a full and detailed description of the Lords amendments. Although his constituency, and mine in Plymouth, are some distance from the geographical area in focus, the legislation has important consequences for that locality, so it is right that we give it due attention.
The Bill amends and updates the powers of the Middle Level Commissioners to regulate navigation on the Middle Level of the fens in Cambridgeshire and west Norfolk. The legislation that the Bill updates is over 150 years old, so the Bill brings the Middle Level into line with powers granted to the Environment Agency, the Canal & River Trust and the Broads Authority in Norfolk. The existing legislation dates from the 18th and 19th centuries, primarily the Middle Level Act 1862—who does not remember that gorgeous piece of legislation? The foreign policy mastermind, Henry John Temple, Third Viscount Palmerston, was in his second term as Prime Minister. A member of the now defunct Liberal party, he was grappling with the American civil war. Queen Victoria was on the throne. We had riots in Lancashire over the cotton recession. The new Westminster bridge opened in London, and criminal law was amended to make robbery with violence punishable by flogging. We remember that year well. Across the pond in 1862, Abraham Lincoln announced that he would issue an emancipation proclamation the following year—what a time to be alive. We had the Middle Level Act on top of that—indeed, our cup overfloweth.
Turning to the Bill, the Middle Level Commissioners provide flood defence and water level management to the Middle Level area and are the navigation authority for the Middle Level river system. I mention that, because many people will want to know what and where the Middle Level is. The Middle Level, the largest of the great levels of the fens, was reclaimed by drainage of the land in the 17th century, and consists of over 120 miles of watercourses, 100 miles of which are statutory watercourses. If it were not for the operations of the commissioners and the local internal drainage boards, much of that fenland would be under water as it is below sea level, which would have a devastating impact on the 100,000 people who live and work in the Middle Level area.
The chief executive of the Middle Level Commissioners, Iain Smith, has said that about 1,500 vessels use their locks every year and that about 100 boats are “hiding” unlicensed on the waterway, so it is important to update the laws, enabling them to have better control of the waterways that they seek to oversee and ensuring safe navigation, as the hon. Member for Torbay set out.
The amended Bill originally intended to allow the Middle Level Commissioners to charge vessels to use the waterways; fine people for staying longer than allowed at moorings; check that boats using the waterways have valid insurance; remove sunken or abandoned vessels; temporarily close sections of waterways for works, or for events; and enter into arrangements with other navigation authorities for the mutual recognition of registrations and licences—all good stuff, the House will agree. We know that the additional income for the commissioners could make a real difference to the fenlands and the waterways. The Bill will bring the legislation covering the Middle Level into the 21st century in line with other navigation authorities, as set out by the Bill’s sponsor in his remarks.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate on this very important Bill. I would first like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who volunteered to take it on. It has required a lot of work and effort. I want to put on record that he has done a quite superb job, handling it with great expertise and enthusiasm. He has made really good progress with what is an important Bill. He would make a very good Minister and this is perhaps a trial run for when he takes his first Bill through Parliament.
I would also like to thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who has been very supportive. In the process, he has become very knowledgeable about the Middle Levels and, indeed, about many watercourses that are so important to the Fens.
I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wanted to put on record those two points, but also to say that I have a constituency interest. My constituency is right at the north-eastern end of the Middle Level, but it encompasses much of the constituency of my neighbours, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay). I do have an interest and represent a significant number of constituents who enjoy using the Middle Level and associated waterways. To them, this is a way of life. It is an incredibly important part of their leisure activities, and there are many commercial activities involving boats and pleasure craft, too. The Bill is important to update the way the Middle Level in particular is controlled and managed.
I would like to put on record the excellent work done by the commissioners and the drainage boards. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport pointed out, without the oversight of the fens and without the management of the drainage systems in place—of which the Middle Level is obviously but one of a number—we would not have the incredibly successful farm land or all the other enterprises associated with food production and processing. As he also pointed out, a lot of houses are below sea level and simply would not continue to exist without this management in place. We should pay tribute to and salute the people who do it, very often completely free of charge on a pro bono basis. In addition, many constituents own boats, and from their point of view, having a well-managed system in place with fair and reasonable charging is incredibly important.
To make one specific point, under the new regime it is important that boats that are occupied—where people live on the boats in question—are treated fairly and with a light touch. That is incredibly important, because as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport pointed out, many are on relatively low incomes. This is very often not a lifestyle choice, but a choice that has been forced on them. They have contributed a great deal over the years to the whole atmospherics of the waterways in the fens and they should be respected and looked after properly.
I have looked at the amendments very carefully. I was very supportive of the Bill in the first place, but I shared the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who is sitting behind me, that it could be improved. Well, it has been improved. All the amendments have been well thought out. They are well crafted and well drafted. We now have a Bill that is absolutely fit for purpose and that can become an Act of Parliament that endures. It is one that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay can be very proud of, because it will serve my constituents very well in the future. I very much look forward to seeing its success in the years to come.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Is it not good that we are having a debate about these amendments so that comments can be put on the record and people looking at the history of the Middle Level in future can say, “This is what these amendments were about.”? I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for introducing and explaining them and putting that on the record, because otherwise this might have gone through on the nod.
My hon. Friend referred to the amendments in such detail, so I shall concentrate on one or two of the undertakings, because they are an equally important part of the process. The undertakings are contained in a letter dated 13 July to Lord Thomas, who was the Chair of the Opposed Bill Committee on the Middle Level Bill in the other place. I shall start with the first undertaking, which states that the commissioners undertake
“to spend at least 25% of the annual income received from charges under section 5 on providing facilities on the Nene-Ouse Navigation Link which meet the current Minimum Standards for the Provision of Facilities for Boaters as published by the Inland Waterways Association, until the standards are achieved on this route; and will maintain those facilities until the Navigation Advisory Committee agrees that they are no longer needed (or an expert appointed to determine any dispute following the procedures set out in section 3 determines that they are no longer needed)”.
As you may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that issue took up quite a lot of debate during the Bill’s earlier stages in the House, and the undertaking that has now been given is very important.
I also refer briefly to undertaking (5) on the level of the registration fee for static houseboats, which limits the charges for residential houseboats. Undertakings (7), (8), (9) and (10) relate to the residential mooring strategy, which, again, my hon. Friend referred to briefly. He was saying that it all depends on the local planning authority. I hope that it does not, because undertaking (7) says that the Middle Level Commissioners are undertaking
“to prepare and publish a strategy setting out how they intend to exercise the powers conferred by section 15 with the aim of increasing the availability of residential moorings (including transit and temporary moorings) on the waterways”.
Undertaking (8) sets out
“that the strategy will include details of the steps that the Commissioners will take to…identify potential residential mooring sites to be put to the local planning authority…facilitate applications for planning permission for residential moorings”
and to
“provide residential mooring themselves, subject to obtaining funding and planning permission”.
In undertaking (9), they undertake
“in preparing the strategy, to consult the Navigation Advisory Committee…as well as the local planning authorities, and housing authorities”,
and in under undertaking (10), they undertake
“to keep the strategy under review, and revise…as necessary”.
Those are much more proactive undertakings than one might have thought from my hon. Friend’s summary, and they point to one of the big concerns from the outset, which was that the people using the Middle Level for the purposes of residential occupation felt they could be priced out or discriminated against. The undertakings in the letter, however, which have been incorporated into the amendments, are a significant improvement on what was there originally.
I do not need to undertake an exercise of self-justification. I am pleased to have been able to pursue this debate on behalf of the petitioners, as I can now see the beneficial results.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
It is a great privilege to contribute to the later stages of the Bill.
I am conscious that the Bill has been promoted by the Middle Level Commissioners. I am sure they will recognise the importance that Parliament attaches to scrutinising draft legislation that was not part of any party’s election manifesto, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) was absolutely right to ensure that the Bill got the level of scrutiny he gave it. There has been a good response from the other place as well.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). In my first Parliament, I took a private Member’s Bill through the House and on to the statute book. It was also on a topic affecting rivers and similar: the Wreck Removal Convention Act 2011. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was key to ensuring my Bill made good progress, and he has done the same during the various stages of this Bill.
The Bill matters because, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) pointed out, this is a really important part of the country, stretching from the area around Bedford through to north-west Norfolk. A mixture of things happen on the Middle Levels that are critical to the future prosperity of that part of the country and for which it is important that people can access our canals. They are our blue lungs, running throughout the United Kingdom, but particularly the Middle Levels. It is appropriate that the amendments, while recognising the need for future investment to ensure that these activities continue, seek to ensure that people who enjoy them do so in a measured and considered way, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay pointed out, there will be appropriate consultation on some of the changes.
I asked the question I did earlier partly to check that other users of the Middle Level would not be able to find a loophole for potential commercial activities simply on the basis of encouraging people into recreation. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay answered my question very fully, and as he said, there were nods of assent from the appropriate people in the Under Gallery—that is a habit he will have to get used to if he is ever called upon to be part of Her Majesty’s Government. As you will be aware Madam Deputy Speaker, Ministers regularly look towards the Box to check that they are saying the right thing—and of course they always are.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). It is right that draft legislation that is not about manifestos gets the appropriate scrutiny. I am particularly pleased that, through the amendments to clause 9, we have ensured that the new powers will not prevent any environmental impact, or indeed any navigational impact from, for instance, sunken vessels, from being dealt with immediately. As for matters such as navigation functions, I think that the House has been reassured, and I am sure that it will support the amendments—and the Bill—this evening.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 20 agreed to.