(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberThis text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Rights of Boat Dwellers Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill. The noble Baroness raises a very important issue, which, as she knows, we have debated before in your Lordships’ House. The Government recognise the important role that the waterways play in enriching people’s lives by providing homes for those who live on boats. With the housing crisis that we are only now beginning to tackle, the option is being considered by more and more people.
The Government are committed to tackling insecurities across all housing sectors, including boat dwellers. The question before us is about not only housing rights but the practical management of finite public waterways and the ability of navigation authorities to discharge their statutory responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to this. Several of the Bill’s provisions would substantially reduce the ability of navigation authorities to enforce licensing requirements and to manage the network fairly. While the Government accept the need for proportionality and appropriate safeguards, navigation authorities must retain the ability to deal with persistent non-compliance, licence evasion, unsafe vessels and potential obstruction of the network.
To use a boat as a main and only home, the boat owner will require a licence, a mooring with planning permission for residential use and the agreement of the mooring owner. The agreement with the mooring owner will grant the boat owner a licence to occupy the mooring and will set out how long the boat owner can stay on the mooring. A boat owner on a residential mooring may also benefit from the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. This requires a mooring owner to obtain a court order to evict a boat owner who continues to use the mooring after their licence agreement has ended.
Boat owners using their boats for other purposes, including recreational use, will have access to other types of moorings, including utility and short-stay visitor moorings. On waterways managed by the Canal & River Trust, if a boat is licensed without a home mooring, it must move on a regular basis and must generally not stay in the same place for more than 14 days.
The Bill aims to formally recognise the rights of people whose main home is a boat, the definition of which in Clause 2 includes a number of floating structures. The Government do not consider that the proposed legislation would achieve its intended outcome. The Bill proposes that boats should be brought within the definitions of “house” and “dwelling” in Section 99 of the Housing Act 2004 and that other legislation be amended as required, so that boats would then be considered as lawful homes and boat owners would have access to public services.
The existing definition of “house” in Section 99 of the 2004 Act currently refers only to a “building”. A “building” is defined in common law as a structure which forms part of the realty, changes the physical appearance of the land and requires some degree of permanence. Section 99 also defines the term “house” as it applies to the selective licensing regime. The proposed amendment would therefore have practical effect only where a boat is located in an area already designated for selective licensing. The amendment would not have any impact if the boat was not located in an area subject to selective licensing.
Clause 5 places a duty on the Secretary of State to, within one year of enactment,
“publish a report to assess the extent to which boat dwellers with and without permanent moorings have security of tenure within the meaning of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954”.
In simple terms, “security of tenure” under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 means that certain tenants may have a right to stay in occupation or seek a new lease when their existing lease comes to an end. That regime applies only in specific cases, including some long residential tenancies at low rents and certain commercial tenancies.
Boat owners on a residential mooring will not be party to a commercial lease: rather, they will have a licence to occupy the mooring. Boat owners without a residential mooring will also not have a lease agreement: rather, they must comply with the terms of the boat licence agreed by the relevant navigation authority. Therefore, the concept of security of tenure, as it applies to long tenancies at low rents and to commercial leases, is not relevant here. The Bill also places certain requirements on relevant authorities, which include navigation authorities, port authorities, the Environment Agency and riparian owners. There would need to be extensive consultation with those authorities on the Bill’s proposals to ensure the effective operation and management of the waterways.
I turn to some of the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, whom I thank for his long campaign on this subject. He and I have had many conversations on this issue. On security of tenure, boat owners with a residential mooring have that licence to occupy the mooring, and their security of tenure will depend on the terms of the agreement they entered into with the mooring owner. As I said earlier, they may also be protected under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
Some boat owners will not want a residential mooring but instead prefer to move frequently around the waterways, and it is important that boat owners continue to have that choice. A tenancy arises when a landlord grants a person a legal right to exclusive possession of premises for a specified period of time in return for the payment of rent. In law, a licence arises when there is no right to exclusive possession and there is no intention to enter into a legal relationship of landlord and tenant. A boat owner’s security of tenure will depend on the terms of the agreement with the owner of the residential mooring.
Access to public services is a key point and I understand the concerns about it. Boat dwellers who have a residential mooring will have security of tenure based on their mooring agreement and will be able to access public services. Giving boat dwellers without a residential mooring the same rights as those with a residential mooring would have significant implications for the management of the waterways. Any changes that may impact the management of waterways should be taken after consultation with navigation authorities and key stakeholders and must also take account of the findings of the review commissioned in 2025 by the Canal & River Trust, one of the largest navigation authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, particularly mentioned issues of GP and other services. For GP services, there is no regulatory requirement to prove identity, address or an NHS number to register as a patient, and there is no contractual requirement for GPs to request this. If anyone is turned away by a GP, the NHS has published guidance online on what their rights are. A residential mooring will usually have a fixed address attached to it, which will enable the boat owner to access public services just like anyone else in the catchment area. They can register with a local GP and dentist, access local schools and vote.
On the issue of education for people not in residential moorings, I will write to the noble Baroness. I know that LEAs have responsibility for people who move around the country, because they do for Travellers, but I am not sure how that applies to boat owners, so I will write to her on that.
On different GP IT systems, I am not sure that that is an insurmountable issue, because GPs will treat you in a different part of the country if you are there on holiday, for example. So I am not clear why that should be an issue for people who move around the country for other reasons. So, if the noble Baroness perhaps has some evidence on that, I would be happy to look at it and find out more about where there is an issue.
Banks, the DVLA and HMRC will all generally accept a residential mooring address in the same way as other addresses. Many banks may insist on a fixed residential address for identity checks, though.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised housing needs assessment, which is a good point. Planning policy of course requires local authorities to assess the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community, and to set policies to address those needs. Those groups include Travellers and boat dwellers.
I recognise and welcome the commitment of the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Cashman on the issue of boat dwellers. The Government’s opposition to the Bill is based not on any lack of respect for those views but rather on a lack of clarity on what the Bill intends to achieve. Any changes to the security of tenure of boat owners must be carefully considered, together with the views of all navigation authorities and the findings of the 2025 review on the licensing of boats, commissioned by the Canal & River Trust.
The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Cashman will appreciate the current pressures on resources in my department and the many competing demands to add additional priorities for work to be carried out on policy. That said, I am sure that with a fair wind, to use a boating expression, I will be happy to continue discussions with them about how we work to make things better for boat dwellers. With that, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.