Crept out of my bed at the ungodly hour of six o'clock this morning. Peered out of the window, right daggy old day, thick as pea soup.

Waddled down the garden, tackle in hand, couldn't see 'Spray' out on her moorings, about thirty yards away. In reality had she been twenty yards away I doubt that I would have seen her.

So off I goes, engine on tick-over, quite safe, searching for a pike or two. Heard another engine but saw nothing, nothing unusual in that at this time of the year.

But it could be, if the BA has its way. It wishes to prohibit the movement of vessels at times of poor visibility. That is if they can see them in order to be able to prohibit their movement. It also wishes to be able to tell them where they might moor.

Just a thought, as I nosed out into the Broad, it's a laughable proposal really, but it could become law.

And when the mist lifted I saw six other angling boats moored as they wish, and not where they were told, all of whom might be breaking the law in a year or so.

No, it couldn't happen, 'cept for the Bill. No mention of the BMF/RYA agreements in my copy of the Broads Authority Bill, as amended in committee.

Oh dear, Peter, if you want to moan about something, you really need to read it first.

BA Private Bill (as amended in committee)
" In this Act, unless the context otherwise require, words and expressions to which meanings are given by the 1988 Act shall have the same respective meanings ...."

1988 Act Part IV Cl 25

""pleasure craft" means any vessel used for sport or recreation,
whether hired or privately owned, and includes a houseboat;"

BA Private Bill (as amended in committee)
(5) A general direction relating to any matter referred to in subsection (3)(e) or (f) shall not apply to any pleasure craft.

See, perfectly clear - even on a foggy morning.

Phil

Yes, Peter, there is a lot not yet right with the Bill. You picked one aspect that is almost sorted, and it may be that the BHBF and BMF might want to think further on the point you have made.

The whole process has ground on and on. The fundamental failure to agree objectives with stakeholders before starting to draft the legislation has led to severely escalating costs. Money that could have been spent on practical benefits for the area and the navigation has been frittered away on lawyers' fees and the confrontational manner of negotiating when objections were raised has damaged relationships between the Authority and its stakeholders.

Phil

Private Bills have problems if they are contested. Talk to anyone who has successfully piloted a Private Bill through Parliament (and I have done) and they will tell you that the key thing is to get your stakeholders behind you. The essential first step is to hold a series of conferences / seminars where you ensure that the key players are involved and set out your stall. What are you trying to achieve, why are you doing it and why is your approach the right one.

If you can get them to buy in to what you are trying to do, your problems are solved.

Using a Private Bill to bludgeon people into accepting something they don't like is a mugs game. Private Bills are low on the priority list for Parliamentary time and contested ones are lower still. Doing your negotiating through lawyers and parliamentary agents instead of face to face is expensive and time consuming.

I suspect that the BA took their advice from Defra, who are used to piloting Government Bills through Parliament - with a guaranteed majority and little concern for opposition.

Had the objectives of this Bill been agreed beforehand with the local and national interest groups such as the RSPB, NWT, SWT, RYA, BMF, BHBF, NSBA, and all the local authorities, then its passage would have been straightforward. As it was, the first people saw was a draft piece of legislation, said to cover safety on the Broads but in fact covering much more than that.

Little wonder that eyebrows and much more have been raised.

Phil

Going back to the original subject at the top of this thread, I'm not so sure that you have got it wrong, Peter.

The scenario to which you refer in poor visibility could be dealt with by those wishing to restrict movement of vessels under a "Special Direction".

From the latest copy of the amended Bill as sent to me, on page 5 clause 6 Special Directions to vessels subsection 1 states:

The Navigation Officer may give directions under this section ("Special Directions") for any of the following purposes-

Section (b)
For regulating the time at which and the manner in which any vessel may enter leave or navigate within the navigation area:

Page 6

Section (c)
For regulating or requiring the movement, berthing, mooring or unmooring of any vessel in the navigation area:

Section (d)
For regulating the position, or placing, of any vessel while it is in the navigation area:

Section 2 states:

In an emergency the navigation officer may give special directions applicable to all vessels or to a particular class of vessels, for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection 1


Although not specific to the particular scenario of reduced visibility you outlined, the above directions could nevertheless be used to restrict vessel movement under such circumstances, and there is no exemption under special directions clauses for any type of craft including "pleasurecraft".

I am still very concerned about the whole issue of "directions" especially "special directions" from the BA.

And lots of little guns, rest assured.

By the way, an interesting link is this:
http://www.ba-wakeboarding.talktalk.net/
Not directly connected to the Bill, but, nevertheless an interesting insight to the Authority and one man's quest for what he believes is right.

Both Pete & Phil, there are powers within the '88 Bill that really shouldn't be there. Back then it was made clear, by such as Mark Wakelin, that in return for folk not objecting to the '88 Bill, and accepting the unacceptable, then the BA would not enact those potentially unacceptable clauses. But then everyone liked the old Prof, trusted him, and he was not a man to rock too many boats, and a gentleman's word was his bond.

Had the present incumbent asked, before the first draft went out, and listened, and been prepared to revise, and remove the unacceptable, rather than just add salt to the wound, then I suspect the Bill would now be sliding into place with enthusiastic support and hero status willingly being given.

Pete Sanders wrote:

As you say, Peter, the current BA Management have very successfully eroded all trust in them,

Did I really say that? Gosh! There are many at Colgate that I trust implicitly.