Canal & River Trust’s (CRT) Future of Boat Licensing Commission report has been published, and has immediately met with condemnation from boaters. Proposals in the report include forcing boats to fit GPS trackers to enforce compliance, even more bureaucratic rules for boat owners, and the granting of greater enforcement powers to CRT including making it easier to fine, tow or even evict boat owners from their homes. This series of worrying and possibly illegal departures from the current status quo could lead to a further decline of the waterways and the end of the travelling boater way of life.
What does the report recommend?
The 82-page report, which can be found here, makes 36 recommendations around topics including boater movement requirements, enforcement, issue of licences and other assorted issues of ‘relationships and communications’.
Although the three person commission responsible for the report is billed as ‘independent’, it was staffed by a trustee of CRT, included no representative from the travelling boating community with whom it is primarily concerned, and started its ‘investigation’ based on a biased CRT Terms of Reference document which described travelling boaters as a challenge ‘from an operational, financial and reputational perspective’.
Among the most concerning recommendations to come out of the report is the claim that “the Trust should have the right to fit a tracking device to any vessel where there is clear evidence of a failure to comply with movement requirements”. This would mark a major escalation in the charity’s approach to their boater customer base, and raises serious concerns over boaters’ right to privacy, GDPR and whether it is appropriate for an unaccountable charity to remotely track private individuals.
The report also claims that CRT should have greater enforcement powers to remove boaters from their homes, including towing boats away within a month of non-payment of fines, and even the use of ‘reasonable force’ in eviction proceedings. Again, this suggests that this charitable body could be gearing up for a wave of possibly violent evictions as they seek to remove boaters from the waterways. Sadly, this comes as no surprise to many boaters who have had to deal with increasingly aggressive CRT enforcement for years, alongside opaque monitoring systems which have seen many compliant boaters spuriously accused of failing to meet their licence requirements. The aforementioned ‘Terms of Reference’ noted CRT’s frustrations at having to comply with the Human Rights (1998) and Equality (2010) Acts in its enforcement proceedings – these new policies send a clear signal that this unaccountable charity wishes to pursue its targeting of the boater population with authoritarian force.
Relatedly, the report suggests that CRT should have the right to refuse to issue licences, specifically on the basis of ‘suitability for navigation’. This would give CRT new powers to restrict not just the number of boats on the waterways, but the types of boats that they deem suitable. Bearing in mind that all boats already require an independently administered Boat Safety Scheme Certificate (BSS) in order to be licensed, this recommendation opens the door to CRT refusing licences to boats it deems undesirable for whatever reason – a recipe for an increase in the social cleansing of lower income and vulnerable boaters from the waterways which the charity has already been engaged in for years.
In a final ironic twist, the report also recommends that CRT repairs its relationship with liveaboard boaters, suggesting that they provide funding to set up another independent charity to advocate for them. Given the amount of time CRT spends complaining about its funding, and the fact that it frequently refuses to meet with boaters or boater organisations – with its Head of Boating, Matthew Symonds, referring to this section of its customer base as ‘gits’ – many boaters are incredulous at the idea of creating yet another layer of bureaucracy to manage this damaged relationship.
What are the real issues?
Boaters are particularly frustrated by these recommendations because, according to CRT’s own survey on boat licensing held last year, the vast majority of respondents did not list boat licensing reform as a priority, and instead wanted to see the charity ‘get back to basics’ and deal with the declining maintenance of the canals. The NBTA’s full press release on this survey can be read here, but in essence:
*Results showed that more than 8 in 10 were frustrated with the day-to-day management of CRT waterways in the UK.
*Over 60% of respondents were frustrated about maintenance – including of towpaths and banks, management of water supply and a lack of investment in infrastructure – making this the biggest issue raised in the report.
*Despite CRT scapegoating the rise in itinerant boat dwellers, only 1 in 20 surveyed saw overcrowding on the waterways as an issue.
*Some 9 in 10 did not support legislative change, despite this being a key requirement of many of the new recommendations.
A recent feature in Novara media investigated the many issues that boaters face in their relationship with CRT, including the spiralling costs of boat licences, aggressive enforcement and the almost total neglect of waterside facilities like bins, toilets, water points and pump outs, including an interview with a boater who has taken to “fixing broken pipes, toilets, wash basins, and water points to stop raw sewage from entering the waterways”. The removal of many towpath bins has also seen boaters starting ‘Nomadic Litterpickers’ groups both in London and the Kennet and Avon to try and fill the gaps in service that CRT have left.
But boaters are not the only ones who have expressed frustration with CRT’s lack of focus on delivering on their central mission. A major feature in PoliticsHome earlier this year pointed to poor communication and frustration between the Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and CRT.
Given its failure to complete many aspects of the task it was set up to do – that is, to manage the waterways, and to develop into a self-funding charity rather than relying on government grants – it is perhaps no surprise that CRT is falling back on its old tricks of blaming the tiny community of roughly 7000 travelling boats for its organisational woes.
Novara’s piece provides one possible explanation – with conflicts of interest between CRT executives and property development portfolios, managing the canals may not even be the priority. In his article, Cameron Baillie investigates these links and writes:
“Are non-profits like the CRT and Peabody – well-intentioned though their staff may be – fronts for asset speculation and sell-offs in the private sector? And are the CRT’s investment decisions being made by people with those inclinations?”
What does NBTA say?
Ian McDowell, Secretary of the NBTA, said:
“Despite not being able to articulate an actual problem which needed to be addressed, and a consultation in which licensing and congestion was low on the priority list of boaters in general, the Commission’s recommendations have given CRT unlimited permission to pursue a long-held wish list of changes which will enable it to even further marginalise boaters without a home mooring.
From further ad hoc differential (discriminatory) pricing and regional licence rationing, to a draconian increase in enforcement powers and the removal of the Rivers Only discount to name but three, the Commission’s recommendations give CRT the ammunition to seek the legislative changes which would threaten the very existence of our community.
CRT seek to use boaters as a scapegoat for their failings…but the collateral damage will be the waterways themselves. Boaters are the lifeblood of the UK’s waterways. We keep them flowing, we keep them safe, and we keep them functioning as a vibrant, welcoming, public space.
We encourage those concerned to start by emailing their MP – or the MP where they are currently moored – to make them aware of how the travelling boater community, and the waterways in general, will be damaged if CRT attempts to use any legislative instrument to realise the Commission’s recommendations.”
Pamela Smith, Chair of the NBTA said:
“The CRT Future of Boat Licensing report contains many recommendations that are simply unworkable. This is the result of the absence of direct representation of itinerant boat dwellers on the Commission.
The report recommends revising the navigation requirements for boaters without a home mooring. If CRT is going to do that, itinerant boat dwellers demand to be a central and key player in any and all revision activities. Nothing about us without us!
I am outraged by the harshness of some of the recommendations. For example, imposing fines for minor breaches of the law. If a boat dweller cannot pay a fine, the Commission proposes towing their boat to a secure location and charging them daily storage fees—thus depriving them of their home without benefit of a court hearing to decide whether removing their home is proportionate. This would be a gross violation of their Article 8 rights. The storage fees are likely to outstrip boat dwellers’ ability to pay them, punishing people for being on a low income. What if there are children on board when a boat is towed, or the occupant is ill? What if children come home from school to find their home has gone? Where will those boaters live who are unlawfully and disproportionately dispossessed of their homes? And how much will this cost CRT in storage fees for boats the owners cannot afford to repossess? The implications of this have not been thought through at all – because there was nobody on the Commission with the lived experience required to do so.”
What do boaters say?
Oscar, a liveaboard boater currently moored on the River Lee said:
“I’m a separated parent who shares my daughter fifty-fifty with her mum. She goes to school in Leytonstone, so these proposed changes—longer cruising ranges and mandatory canal licence fees—would make the school run much harder. I’d either need a car or spend far more time commuting to school, and on top of that, I’d be paying around six hundred pounds more each year, not even counting the above inflation increases they’re forecasting. That’s a huge strain for me and my family.
I actually gave up the canal licence after the first year because of safety issues. The Regent’s Canal has persistent leaks in gates and paddles, and boats are often left grounded. I had to call emergency services three, four times per week to stop my boat from sinking. It was stressful and dangerous, especially with a child on board.
Beyond cost implications, the recommended enforcement measures—such as fines, towing, or eviction for non-compliance—pose severe risks for parents striving to provide a secure home.
If they force this extended cruising range, I’d have to move back into Regent’s Canal, which is unsafe and poorly maintained. So, in short, I’d be pushed into areas I don’t need to be, make family life harder, put my daughter in danger, and all that in exchange of paying nearly double what I do now. It makes no sense. I really hope the Trust considers how these policies hit families like mine and focuses on safety and affordability instead.”