Of Byelaws and Other Nonsense

In a previous blog essay I threatened to return to the subject of the changing laws on the Middle Level. Royal Assent was awarded the Middle Level Act 2018 in November 2018. This means the Private Bill I was fighting against for about two years is now law, although I guess I should admit to being a little bit pleased that had it not been for a delivery driver, a postie, a care worker, a bar worker and this old hippy muso, boaters in the Fens would be in a much worse position than that in which they now find themselves. Our little gang with some sterling support from a retired barrister and a rather extraordinary experienced campaigner on waterways issues managed to get the Bill sponsors to accept about twenty amendments and undertakings to the original draft of the Bill that one MP in the first Commons debate described as "Draconian". The process for this to happen was somewhat curious.

Private Bills are rare. When they appear they are usually unopposed and generally favour a commercial interest of some kind - HS2 is one about which many people will have heard. Bills like these are often rubber-stamping exercises. Had we not made our arguments against the Bill over eight days of Committee in Parliament I don't think any of the amendments would have come about. Despite the fact that we proposed most of them (although I personally wanted this example of feudalism to be thrown out altogether) it seems to be one of the many Parliamentary procedures that confuses me so much that it was deemed more fitting for the Bill's sponsors to propose the amendments that scuppered the worst excesses of their own ambitions. For what I believe is the first time, laws relating to the inland waterways in this country have secured some recognition for live-aboard boaters, including continual cruisers, to be recognised as a special group. It was written into the 2018 Act.

I have been surprised, therefore, that the "consultation" document proposing draft Byelaws, as allowed for in the 2018 Act, seems to have returned to the spirit of the original "Draconian" Bill. I still object to people having the right to come on to my boat, my home, to check that I am complying with their rules. These people do not own my boat, I do. These people do not own the waterways, they are there to keep the land free from flood and keep the waterway navigable. The law now gives them the power to impose a licence arrangement. Alongside that they already have the power to require that I have the correct insurance. My insurance company requires that I can prove I have a valid Boat Safety Scheme Certificate. No local authority has the right to enter people's homes merely on the flash of an identity card or even of the twenty-four hours notice this navigation authority thinks is sufficient. Even the emergency services require a very good reason to come into someone's home uninvited and the police would require a warrant. I am mildly put out, verging on outraged and I'm a white (and by implication, privileged) man. I can only imagine how impositions such as these would be seen by solo women boaters, for example.

The 2018 Act requires that the new Byelaws be drawn up in consultation with a Navigation Advisory Committee. Before the Act there was no such thing as this Committee. Somewhat naively I expected there to be a little bit of a democratic process to define who is going to be called to serve, specially when they are meant to be looking after my interests. A search on the navigation authority's website is a frustrating affair at the best of times. It has all the appearance of a professionally constructed site, but whoever designed it should really have a think about what a website is for. Finding any information, even using the built-in search engine is difficult. I don't understand how it is also so hit-and-miss. These are computers. If I use specific search terms one day those same terms should find the same results the next. Unfortunately, that rarely seems to be my experience. After a hint from another boater I found a set of minutes that listed names of people from organisations who had apparently been invited earlier on this year to sit on the Navigation Advisory Committee. There are no minutes of any Navigation Advisory Committee meetings which the 2018 Act made a legal requirement to consult, either to agree or to go to binding independent arbitration on a number of matters including the drawing up of the Byelaws. Instead, the list of Committee members I have seen recorded in the minutes of a different meeting altogether shows no hint of democratic process. This authoritarian organisation has made a list of its friends who accepted without question the first version of the Bill, you know - the Draconian one, and asked them to join the gang. There is no one on the list I have seen who has actually questioned the navigation authority about their decisions and behaviour so far. The liveaboard "representatives" actually spoke for the sponsors of the Bill, as expert witnesses, during its passage through Parliament. Perhaps I was being overly sensitive, but many people living on their boats just about get by. We don't have the means to be able to buy new boats from the spoils of a superannuated job and the sale of an empty bricks-and-mortar nest. There are some who seem to think the inland waterways are best left as a reservation for those who can keep their boats looking pretty and thoroughly maintained. This was certainly the message I took from this particular "expert witness" in Parliamentary committee. As far as I can tell there are no solo boaters on the NAC either.

I have long suspected that democracy was not what most of us assume it to be. What I experienced during the Parliamentary process and my eight days in Committee was an appearance of being part of the democratic process which, on reflection, may not have been real. My first shock was the chairman of the Committee of MPs who went back to Parliament and gave a speech on behalf of the Bill's sponsors. He was clearly not as impartial as we thought. I have more respect for the process as it went to the Lords where the sponsors were given a good grilling over many of the points we, the petitioners, had raised as well as a number of others we hadn't. The Lords seemed to have read (and, more importantly, understood) the documents. However, the end result was that the sponsors got what they wanted. Of course they made concessions in terms of their undertakings and amendments, but we were not seriously party to those decisions.

Now we have the draft Byelaws and consultation for these has closed. I did not even know about the draft Byelaws document until a fortnight before the consultation period ended - strong sense of déja vu here. In Parliament one of the sponsors made it clear that important notices could be delivered directly to boats. The draft Byelaws that are going to have such an impact on my life for as long as I am in this area were clearly not considered sufficiently important to justify notifying me. I don't suppose many others heard the news either. In fact I know they didn't. The farmer who owns the land near where I moor regularly didn't know until I told him. The member of the navigation authority who lives next door may have known, but he doesn't speak to me, not even to return a greeting.

There are going to be some aggrieved people come the time the Byelaws are rubber-stamped into existence. One of the new rules states that boats cannot be moored within either ten metres of a bridge or thirty metres of any other water control structure. Going through the nearby villages on my trip last weekend I made a mental note of boaters with garden moorings. Some of them are adjacent to bridges. I knocked on the door of someone in such a situation and asked whether he knew about the Act and the draft Byelaws. He said he had heard of them, but had no idea what was in them. "I expect a letter will drop on to my mat before too much longer," he said. I was very disappointed that a) many people are so fatalistic about these unnecessary impositions and b) he wasn't prepared to do any legwork to find out for himself. "Do you realise your boat will be moored illegally once the Byelaws come into effect?" I asked him. "You are right next to a bridge." His garden isn't wide enough to move the boat ten metres away from the bridge. "It's a footbridge," he replied ... "and just let them try!" He has more optimism that he can fight the system than I have. I'd hate to see him lose his boat, because he thought it couldn't happen to him.

The proposed Byelaws are full of absurd ideas. One of the original petitioners found fault with many of them and listed eight or nine ways the proposals are actually in contempt of Parliament. I wrote an eight-page response to the proposals. I'll finish this essay by giving just one example of the poorly-considered changes to our conditions of being here. In fact, what the proposed law contains is not just daft, it puts single-handed boaters like me in danger if we attempt to comply. I hope the  arguments I have given in my response will cause the section on using locks to be amended.

Locks are dangerous places. People die in them. I take the greatest of care when using a lock. The proposed Byelaws state that a boat should be secured at the bow and the stern when going through one. I polled a discussion group of single-handed boaters and all who responded, just like me, only ever use a centre rope to steady the boat in a lock. Trying to keep on top of everything while water is rushing in or out requires great care. A boater on their own cannot safely control a 50' steel boat like mine (or a longer one like many) using both fore and aft ropes. That is possible only with a crew. Even if I could reach both ropes at the same time I could probably not hold the boat steady with the different forces acting on it in the lock. I don't like to tie the boat to the bollards because I may not be able to release my rope quickly enough when I need to do so. Tying up from both ends is unthinkable. The last thing I want is to hang my boat and submerge it if I couldn't get to one of the ropes quickly enough! The law is in great danger of becoming the proverbial donkey. I certainly do not want to serve on the Navigation Advisory Committee (and couldn't anyway with the kind of peripatetic life I have), but I don't have any confidence that the navigation authority knows how to approach people who know what they are talking about. If you hear about boaters dying in a lock in the Fens, or losing a limb, you'll know the navigation authority probably didn't agree that I have a point.

This man is someone whose blog I have followed for a few years. He knows what he is talking about too.

https://livingonanarrowboat.co.uk/why-a-narrowboat-centre-line-is-so-important-for-solo-owners/

Of Floating Free 4 And Existential Issues Of Smoke

I might as well add the final video I made of this little trip. The Well Creek Trust, who played such an  important part in reopening the Old Course of the River Nene to provide the navigable section from Marmont Priory Lock through to Salters Lode have also, over the years, put in some visitor moorings at Upwell (one as you come into the village and one by the village church/Five Bells pub), one each at Outwell Basin and Nordelph and a rather isolated one between Outwell and Nordelph. I don't know if they were also responsible for the moorings at Salters Lode, but I didn't get that far this time. The mooring that features in this video is the rather isolated one.

I recently changed the fuel that I burn to stay alive. When I moved on to the boat the previous owner recommended Taybrite processed coal nuts that came in bags. When the price went up substantially I switched to Winterblaze, which was also recommended for multi-fuel stoves, because it was £3 cheaper for a twenty-kilo bag. I wanted to use logs, but storing them until they are properly seasoned and ready for burning is a bit of an issue. I know lots of people burn logs and many gather their own and keep them on the roof, but that has never seemed to work for me. Wood gathered from the wild is too wet to use immediately. It produces little heat and fouls the chimney whilst also creating a tar-like substance that gathers and runs along the roof and down the sides of the boat in unseemly black/brown streaks. When this happened to my boat I never found out how to clean those streaks off. The mess also removed paint from the roof and sides and made the boat look unloved. Having only relatively recently paid nearly £10,000 for a month-long job comprising of a complete grit-blast back to bare metal and repaint the prospect of unseemly streaks isn't an attractive one. I really need this paint job to last as long as possible. For a similar reason I don't really want to store wet wood on my roof until it can become sufficiently seasoned to use. Having steep sides to the cabin walls I also suspect that too much weight on the roof will risk destabilising the boat, specially in windy conditions. The steep sides mean I actually have a wider roof than most narrowboats and I can see where temperature changes have made the metal roof expand and contract more than might be evident on a narrowboat of more traditional build. I have tried using kiln-dried logs, but they burn to ash almost before I close the door to the stove. The Winterblaze burns steadily at a good temperature and, like the Taybrite, can keep the fire in for twenty-four hours or longer. Then there is the IPCC report, getting involved with XR and the whole conscience thing that comes with being a activist - damn it! We have just about reached the point of no return. I have made many changes in my personal life and here I am getting through three bags of coal a week in winter.

Recently I discovered a compressed wood fuel called HeatLogs, produced by a company called Heat Express. I never bothered with reconstituted wood before because I didn't know what sort of substances had been used in the mix to bind the wood. HeatLogs claim not to use any. They cost £5 a dozen in my nearest supermarket, burn for a few hours and are smokeless - allegedly. I have also spoken to the merchant from whom I have been buying my bags of fuel. He informed me that the Winterblaze I have been using for about five years is not smokeless, although Taybrite is (which may explain the extra cost). Consequently I have returned to Taybrite. However, instead of getting through two to three bags a week I have decided to use the compressed smokeless wood during daytimes. This has allowed me to reduce my usage of coal by two bags a week. It is by no means ideal, since I am still burning fossil fuel, but I have cut the amount by 60%, so it is a start while I look for a better solution. As an idea it all seemed to be going rather well. By burning wood I am not releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that would otherwise stay locked in the ground. By burning smokeless fuel I am minimising the number of particulates I release. However, on this return journey the chimney was throwing out a lot of smoke. I wondered if, perhaps, I needed to clean the chimney and that it was the flue that was smoking. I thought I would stop at the isolated mooring and check out where the smoke was coming from. In the video below it can be seen quite clearly. Opening the fire door revealed that what I was burning is actually producing smoke within the stove. This seemed to undermine somewhat the point of paying extra for smokeless fuel, although it remains possible that the flue is also the source of some of the smoke.

The jury is out. I'll carry on looking for more ethical and sustainable solutions, but in the meantime I am still a polluter. My engine is also powered by diesel fuel, which is receiving its own bad press at the moment. Again I don't know what the answer is. I have cut down on a lot of travel including the dozen trips a year I took for many years on aeroplanes. If I move off my home mooring I can only stay on a public mooring for thirty-six hours before having to move on. I am proud of having much of my electricity provided via the sun, but that only really works for about half the year. I don't have the money to replace the van and buy a hybrid engine for the boat. electric vehicles require lithium batteries ... mining lithium devastates environments and child expoitation is rife when cobalt is required ... nuclear? Atomkraft - nein danke! Fitting a sail might help ... but then there is Bridge 69 on the Twenty-Foot ...

A correction. In the video I mentioned that Well Creek ends at Denver Sluice. Of course I meant Salters Lode Sluice. There is a tidal length of the River Great Ouse between Salters Lode and Denver. The current flows pretty fast and you have to make sure not to get stuck on the sandbank opposite the exit to Salter's Lode Lock/Sluice.

I bagged up the rubbish and put it in the farmer's dustbin. At least the mooring looks neater now.

Of Floating Free 3 And An Aqueduct

The Fens, much of which is below sea level, might seem an odd place for an aqueduct. There is one, though, and it carries Well Creek (part of the link route between The Great Ouse and the River Nene) over the Middle Level Main Drain, which itself terminates at the huge St German's Pumping Station (when it was rebuilt a few years ago it was the largest pumping station of its type in Europe) at Wiggenhall St German's.

Following the video as I set off in the morning I hadn't intended to record anything else, but I realised that some people may not have seen the previous entry I made about Mullicourt Aqueduct a year or so ago. When Well Creek was opened up again to navigation in the 1970s the route included the Aqueduct which, according to Evelyn Simak, was constructed in 1921.

Such a construction was necessary because one of the almost certainly unforeseen circumstances of draining the Fens in the seventeenth century was the shrinkage of the peat, the drying of the topsoil into a fine tilth that would be blown away easily by the wind. This process leads to a progressive lowering of land levels. The Fens are therefore experiencing erosion from both directions - rises in sea level attributed in large part to climate change as well as land shrinkage as the soil is eroded through natural processes.