Marine Navigation Bill

[Graham W]

This may not have garnered much publicity but it appears that the UK government is intent on eroding democracy yet again http://www.rya.org.uk/newsevents/news/Pages/RYAcallsforrecreationalboatersviewsongovernmentproposaltogiveunrestrictedpowertoharbourauthorities.aspx?utm_source=InBrief&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=dec12-inbrief

It's bad enough putting up with the anti-democratic institutions of Brussels without our own government also having a go.

I can't imagine why harbour authorities need unfettered powers like this and I would be interested to hear from someone who can explain the opposing view, even if they don't agree with it.

[Tony]

Hi, Graham.
Thanks for drawing this to my (our) attention.  I've signed up and expressed my views as requested by the RYA. (Not that I agree with everything the RYA does, by any means, but it is, perhaps, a voice which may be listened to in this matter. )
In a democracy we may not get the politicians we want – a sorry bunch of arrogant ignoramuses on the whole, whatever their political leanings – but we can at least express an opinion about their wilder flights of fancy on subjects that we have some interest in and knowledge of. 
Someone, if you like, has to whisper "Memento mori !" in Caesars ear, even if the politicians interpret it as  a reference to an opinion poll. (Now there's something they  DO understand.)

..........as for your remark about Brussels , I feel I must trivialise a serious point.....
Most people in Europe did not vote for their MEP – or even know who the candidates were!  We are all as bad as each other in this respect.
Consider the following – only half in jest:-
The Germans vote for whoever wears sensible shoes.
The French vote for the person with the most glamorous partner – then take to the streets.
The Italians vote against anyone who suggests shortening their lunch time but otherwise don't give a damn.
The Greeks vote for their nearest relative - then ignore any legislation they don't agree with.
The British believe the most often repeated political lie in the gutter press, then vote for X-Factor.

I could go on.....

[Graham W]

As Tony mentions, you can make your opinions known on this piece of arrant nonsense, simply and quickly, by using this page http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9FLPJLJ

[Andy Dingle]

It must be a 'stuck indoors' day today as after my early morning perusal of the forum I thought to actually have a look at this Marine Navigation Bill and see what the furore is all about. It made stunning reading...  twice even, as I searched for something that might have caused such a heated reaction from the suits in the RYA. Now, although I have had some law input in a previous life, I am struggling to find quite what the problem is with it? Can anyone (whose life is as sad as mine!) advise me what it is we are being asked to object about? - or is it that I've just wasted several hours of my life reading the wrong Bill!?

Its main thrust seems to be aimed at at Pilots, Harbour directions and closures, Port Constables, Lighthouse authorities, Manning of ships and Marking of wrecks. Etc. all of which seems eminently sensible and, sadly, boring!

Aha, thinks I. Something about Port Constables, that's worthy of further research - has the Old Bill been tasked to swoop on those with a fluttering Swallow Boats Pennant, who, no doubt, are all shady characters worthy of further scrutiny. Or is the consumption of alcoholic beverages BEFORE the sun is over the yard arm causing the yobs of the yachting fraternity to be binge drinking on the quayside, annoying the wealthy tax dodgers parked up in their gin palaces. But no, again sadly not. It appears they just want to extend their jurisdiction to that immediately over the curtilage of the Port.

It seems to me, after not particularly extensive research. that the only topic that might effect the recreational user and cause this assumption that our ports and harbour authorities are going to make up their own laws and bang up anyone they don't think suitable to grace their very expensive bit real estate, is that they are being granted powers to set their own speed limits and safety measures, without going having to recourse back to Government to make the laws - which can apparently take 6 - 8 years to get through. Surely this is in everyone's interests and keeps down the dreaded jet ski brigade and makes any safety direction they have created actually enforceable. Surely not a bad thing? You will know that this has in fact, been in operation for some time already and the Bill is just legalising this?

There is further blurb on the Bill imposing national standards for Pilots and Harbour Masters which might be of some concern to professional seamen, but not really to us as an amateur yachting assocation. It also 'deregulates' the harbour authorities to be answerable to Govt 'as to the exercise of their functions in the interests of public safety'. The 'voluntary' Port Marine Safety Code which they say is working well and the Govt are taking away  the requirement to make this a staturory document. Again, is this such a bad thing?

I fear the RYA is sensationalising - not to mention making a Genoa out of a Storm Jib - by saying they are creating 'criminal offences' (the defination of that alone is a very grey area), any offences committed will be summary offences, certainly none will be recordable or have a power of arrest (by the poor old Port Constable) attached. They further say there will be 'no redress'. Not so I suggest, any such offences would be dealt with by a local magistrate in the normal manner with all the safe guards and considerations you would expect.

Maritime UK, who seem to be similar to the RYA of the 'professsional shipping, ports and maritime business' state that the legislation 'appear to be sensible deregulation and tidying up of existing legislation,‭ ‬and in some cases reflect existing practices'.

It's quite likely that I am barking up the wrong main mast, but unless someone can advise me to the contrary I shan't be objecting to this.
Or is this yet another case of 'if it's a Tory led Bill then it's bound to have a secret agenda to hit the so-called most vulnerable in society then we must fight it even if we don't have a clue what it is all about' ?!!

Any one else with any thoughts on this?  .. No? Don't blame you really ...




Andy and 'Psalter'

[Graham W]

Here's what Tom Colville said on the Drascombe Association forum, which is where I noticed it in the first place:

"But one aspect did disturb me more than the right for each harbour authority to create its own set of provisions. This was a section that seemed to imply that Harbour authorities would have the right to determine minimum acceptable crew levels, minimum acceptable levels of equipment and stipulate qualifications of those who navigate within their jurisdiction.

I can see that provisions of this sort would be immensely useful for large port authorities such as Southampton/ Solent region, Dover harbour the lower Thames, Harwich /Felixstowe, Humber, Leith, Aberdeen etc.to make shipping movements even less risky. But for recreational craft there has never been a requirement while in UK waters for any formal qualification for private use. So consigning such regulation to the whims of any harbour authority would seem a very imprecise and underhand way to deal with the issue. Very far from the sensible Dutch system of compulsory Vaarbewijs for skippers of vessels over 15 mtrs or that can travel faster than 20 kph.

Take one hypothetical scenario. A small sailing yacht ( Drascombe) is on coastal passage between Ramsgate and Folkestone. Nice following wind, favourable tide, calm sea conditions..solo skipper, no VHF radio, and mobile phone is off because its battery is down and it gets no signal. A decision is made to enter Dover west harbour for a rest. Unknown to the skipper the harbour regulations may just recently have been "tweaked" . Now the harbour extends 5 km to seaward of the outer mole and requires that all vessels obtain prior permission before entry. All vessels are required to have a minimum crew of two, and to proceed when authorised along designated courses only. On arrival in the inner harbour our tired solo skipper may now find he has broken half a dozen regulations..and his boat is seized. How this " putting your vessel into danger" scenario helps safe navigation by forcing such a skipper to sail away out beyond the marine exclusion zone surrounding the harbour is beyond comprehension.

Clearly the Act should be revised. It should set out to exclude recreational vessels - under say 15 meters -from any locally imposed regulation that could properly result in prosecution of much larger commercial craft."

Politicians should be made aware of unintended consequences.  Especially as most of them have little experience of the outside world.

[Graham W]

Here's some of what Damian Hinds MP wrote in reply to a concerned constituent:

"This Bill is a Private Members' Bill, which I understand is welcomed by the
Department for Transport and which promises to deregulate and tackle unnecessary
legislative restrictions affecting the ports and shipping industry and General
Lighthouse Authorities. The Bill has now progressed to the House of Lords.
Clause 5 provides that harbour authorities may give general harbour directions
to ships within, entering or leaving their harbour relating to their movement,
mooring or unmooring, equipment and manning. I appreciate your concerns on this
issue, however, I am advised that the Department for Transport considers there
are various safeguards that will exist to prevent the power being misused.
This power is not extended to all harbour authorities, but only those that are
designated within a subsequent Order. A harbour authority must apply to the
Secretary of State to be a designated harbour authority and, before making the
Order to designate a harbour authority with this power, the Department will
consult widely. The Shipping Minister, Stephen Hammond, has confirmed that he
would also expect a harbour authority to have signed up to a Code of Conduct
when applying for designation. Port representatives and users are developing
this Code of Conduct covering consultation good practice and a mechanism to
resolve disputes about harbour directions.
Before giving harbour directions a harbour authority will have to consult users
of the harbour and must publicise a proposed harbour direction for at least 28
days before it is given. At the most recent debate on the Bill in the House of
Commons, Stephen Hammond, stated that guidance will be issued to harbour
authorities on how to use this power, including a model set of harbour
directions. An independently chaired panel will be established to maintain the
Code of Conduct."

It all sounds very soothing.  Unfortunately, UK governments of all persuasions have a long history of "extensive consultations" and then going ahead in the direction they originally intended, regardless of local opinion.  Particularly where large amounts of money are involved.  HS2 anyone? 

It's time to start pushing back on creeping over-government, especially if it encroaches on one of the few remaining areas of relatively unregulated endeavour, boating. If an apolitical old fart like me has had enough, it must be getting really bad!

[Tony]

The age of the altruistic politician has long passed  - about 3,000 years ago at a rough estimate – and  so I view this bill, like all others, with grave suspicion. Not with the rapier-sharp mind of the trained lawyer, it's true,  but with the leaden bludgeon of bitter experience. ( I've never known a politician yet who wasn't ultimately seeking self-aggrandisement or a fast buck.  Examples on request.)  However you package this business  with talk of the betterment of society, protection of the environment and administrative expedience, I'll bet you a pound to a penny that someone will use it make a few bob at the expense of the public in general and you and I in particular.

An aside:-
Just as all motorcyclists are not Hell's Angels, not all PWC users are anti-social maniacs. I admit that you tend to notice them more when they decide to do aquatic doughnuts ten feet away from your moorings but that shouldn't put you off the type. When, or more optimistically, IF I become too stiff and old to sail my luggers I intend purchasing a Jet Ski (the stable sort used to tow surfers in Hawaii) and a very good wet suit. Consider the advantages. Cheap  to buy and run; easy to launch and recover; can burble up narrow creeks and yet cope with winds seas that keep owners of "sensible" craft tied to something solid. A Jet Ski with a fourstroke engine will cruise up and down estuaries and backwaters at 3 knots all day – an ideal platform for watching wildlife, snorkelling  or marine photography – then get you home at 30 knots (Sorry! Forget the last bit!).The downside is that you have to cope with the image of Jet Ski users that the Bad Boys have created,(Any Merchant Bankers or Lawyers out there will understand just what I mean.) and, of course, the Port Authorities will, no doubt, have banned their use by then, except in the areas designated for smokers and other elements deemed anti-social by popular culture.

Oh yes!
A Happy New Year to all!

[Michael Rogers]

I simply do not believe it - Tony extolling the virtues, and anticipating future possible proprietorship, of a jet ski............it's nowhere near 01/04/13...... that lunar greencheese hypothesis.... are such musings to be tolerated on this forum, even under the guise of levity/lunacy?? (I hope I don't come across as intolerant, by the way.)

This post is primarily to inch me towards the much-coveted (by me, anyway) status of hero member. However, Tony, having been bested in a recent taxonomic exchange, can I , ever so gently, draw your attention to a grammatical irregularity in the last sentence of the first paragraph of your post? (Your acknowledgement is taken as read, since you are a hero already.)

Happy New Year, everyone, soggily from waterlogged Cheshire.

Michael

[Tony]

Well, Michael. 
To quote Bugs Bunny;  "He don't know me vewy well, DO he!"

Happy New Year!

[Graham W]

There's an article about the possible consequences of this Bill in February's 'Yachting Monthly'.

[Graham W]

Progress of sorts http://www.rya.org.uk/newsevents/news/Pages/PositiveprogressonRYAconcernsoverMarineNavigationBIll.aspx

[Tony]

Hi,  Graham.

Having some "NO to Clause 5" placards made as we speak! 
(Takes me back to my student days in the sixties. Young people were politically motivated in those days.)

Photo below is just to wind Michael up a bit.  "Yee haaaa!"

[Michael Rogers]

I won't be wound, Tony (not on this occasion, anyway). As a Chinese sage remarked, 'De gustibus non disputandum est' (translated for those who are not fluent in Mandarin, and because I thought use of the gerundive might entertain you). We all have our peccadillos: we don't, ahem, all flaunt them.

Michael