Middle Level Bill: Revival — House of Commons, 2017-10-17
Topic: Civil Rights
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): It is great that, compared with when we first discussed the Bill, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) has shown an interest in the subject, and I am glad that his constituents have taken the opportunity to brief him on some of their concerns The issue before the House is obviously quite simple—whether the Bill should be revived. My view is very much that it should not be revived, but should go back to the drawing board, because there is a lot more work to be done by the promoters and the petitioners in discussing some of the nitty-gritty issues, some of which have been referred to in this short debate I have been shown a copy of the commissioners’ response to the National Bargee Travellers Association’s comments in its petition. In the view of the association: "The Commissioners’ response contains weak assurances concerning our concerns. We have little confidence in these assurances although we accept the Commissioners may have made them in good faith. Accordingly, we have not withdrawn our petition." The association encourages me and other parliamentary colleagues to continue "to support boat dwellers, and…indeed all inland waterway boaters, by…opposing…this Bill." To take one example, paragraph 6 of the petition says: "The Bill contains no protection for the homes of people who live on boats and it fails to recognise that Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provide boat dwellers with protection for their homes The legislation and enabled Byelaws could be used to evict boat dwellers, seize boats and carry out social clearance and discriminatory exclusion of boat dwellers from the Middle Level." That is quite a serious charge, you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Commissioners responded: "Case law makes it clear, where the exercise of a power to remove vessels would interfere with the vessel owner’s Article 8 rights, it would be for the navigation authority to show that the interference is proportionate to their legitimate aims in seeking to enforce their powers." In other words, they do not deny that they would or could interfere in the rights of boat dwellers to continue to reside on their boats in the Middle Level. The commissioners continue: "If the Commissioners could not do this, they would not be able to exercise the powers." That is a circular argument, and it typifies the problem that will continue to exist if the Bill makes progress. The commissioners have not responded adequately to the concerns expressed by people who have exercised the right to live on the Middle Level waterways, as has been the case for centuries, and to exercise navigation rights without being subject to penal charges and undue regulation As with many private Bills, as soon as such a measure is introduced all sorts of people come along and say, "Why don’t we regulate this? Why don’t we regulate that?" It is like a Christmas tree, with a whole lot more regulatory powers attached to it. Many of those powers, the House will find, are over the top and disproportionate, so I hope that in due course we can achieve a Bill that is much better than the current one. I had hoped that the Bill’s promoters would withdraw it and go back to square one, but they have not done so, which leaves us in the situation we are in. The agents acting for the promoters have been courteous and so on, but when they see what is going to happen next, I hope that their courtesy will be accompanied by a lot more substance, so that the serious concerns of Bargee Travellers can be met The last time we debated this, we heard a contribution from our then hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, Stewart Jackson. He took this cause very much to heart, and I thank him for the contribution that he made on behalf of his constituents and other Bargee Travellers. We owe it to him to be able to continue that campaign, and it is great that we have the hon. Member for Cambridge on our side as well.