Rights of Boat Dwellers Bill [HL]

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the National Bargee Travellers Association and the Public Bill Office for their help in drafting this piece of legislation, which is long overdue and very important to those who make their homes on Britain’s rivers and canals. I thank those few noble Lords who are speaking this afternoon for taking part.

The 2021 census counted 105,000 people living on boats and other mobile homes. Many living on boats did not receive the census information at all. They have no postal address and cannot receive mail in the way everyone else takes for granted. Housing law does not apply to boats. Boat dwellers who travel have no access to health services, as you need a permanent postcode to register with a GP. A marina or canal-side address is not accepted, and I will return to that.

Since 2015, the Canal & River Trust has enforced a policy that pushes boaters without a permanent mooring to travel a distance and pattern that can cut them off from work, from their children’s school and from family. This goes well beyond what the British Waterways Act 1995 requires. For those with children—which admittedly is a very small percentage of boat dwellers—gaining access to education is problematic if they are forced to move on every 24 hours. I fear it is difficult to comprehend the Minister in the other place saying in December 2024, in answer to a Parliamentary Written Question:

“Those with children who choose to live on a boat without a permanent mooring are responsible for ensuring they have access to education”.


If a family were to live in the middle of Dartmoor, miles from the local school, would the education authority say it was the parents’ responsibility to provide access to the relevant school?

It is time that boat dwellers who travel have recognition and enjoy the same rights as the rest of society. I have received emails from those with views from both ends of the spectrum of support and antipathy, and I take that as a sign that this subject needs a proper airing.

The Bill is short, and one or two of the clauses appear to be causing some concern: Clause 4, on the right to access public services, and Clause 5, on security of tenure for boat dwellers. This is what debate in the House of Lords is all about: airing concerns, modifications and agreements.

I am not personally a subscriber to social media. However, I have been sent a copy of the National Association of Boat Owners’ Facebook page from 11 to 29 June, anonymised. There were a wide range of views, for and against, with many who have boats for leisure activities worried about how the Bill will affect their use of the water. I understand this. However, I will just quote from one contribution:

“Giving rights to someone does not take away from anyone who already has that right. It just makes it fair to all”.

I agree with this statement.

One boat dweller, contacting me via email—I have taken out the venue he has listed to protect his anonymity—says:

“In the spring, summer and fall, I travel. In the winter, my boat is in a static place. However, I cannot register with a GP in this static area. I would like to know, if this Bill became law, would it require financial services—banks and credit agencies—to treat boat dwellers equally and not a reason to lower their credit ratings?”


The RBOA has welcomed the Bill and the debate that will arise as a result. It says:

“The Bill addresses a number of long-standing issues affecting resident boaters, including recognition of boats as lawful homes, access to public services, security of tenure and treatment of those living aboard without a permanent mooring”.


I return to the issue of access to health services. I have received an email from a travelling boater—whose name I will not mention—who illustrates the difficulties:

“Recently, my wife has been able to register temporarily with a GP, and this has its problems. Because they use a different computer system from the one our home GP uses, they are unable to access her past records. Also, because we are now moving away, we now have to incur expensive and time-consuming train travel to get back to the hospital, because appointments cannot be transferred without going back to the bottom of the waiting lists”.


It is obvious that boaters who travel have significant disadvantages compared to those living in permanent moorings or bricks and mortar. Those objecting have particular difficulties with Clause 6, on cruising patterns and licensing conditions. Those who cruise for leisure instead of as a way of life believe they will be adversely affected. Those with fixed addresses appear not to understand the difficulties of those who are unable to register an address to receive mail, register to vote and enrol with a GP. These are the basics of life to which everyone should have access. There are those who, having moored their boats, appear to seek to block the towpath, causing difficulties for others, and I do not support their actions. I am grateful to those who have made contact with me to tell me of their concerns, but not always of the way in which they have expressed themselves.

The debate is moving on. In 2006, Sir Vince Cable secured a Westminster Hall debate on this subject, so I am following in his footsteps. On that occasion, the Leader of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, responded as the relevant Minister. Boat dwellers deserve rights and the same access to services as you and I in this Chamber enjoy. Governments from both sides of the House believe that boat dwellers are not a housing issue. This may well be true, but this is certainly an accommodation issue, and those who choose this lifestyle should not be looked down on or ignored.

My Bill is not in the same class as others debated this morning, but it deals with those who are at a disadvantage. I am not a lawyer, but I hope my Bill, having started a very serious discussion, will be successful. I look forward to Committee, where we can explore the pros and cons that have arisen, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this very short debate, especially the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, for his expertise, as he has been dealing with this matter for a very long time. He is right that, when we tried to amend the Renter’s Rights Bill, it was said that it was just too difficult to do. There is a housing crisis and this is possibly part of the solution. The issue around flexible moorings, which the Minister referred to, produces the ability to evict, so it does not provide what we are looking for in the Bill. The fact that it is too problematic to do something is not a good enough reason for not taking any action.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who is right that it is about the rights of those who choose a different lifestyle. Sometimes it is very difficult for people who are following 99% of the population’s choice of lifestyle to accept that some make a different choice. We need to protect that, because if we do not protect minorities that diminishes us all.

I was very interested in a boat being a chattel. My noble friend is right that it is still a home. It is not like a wine glass or a chair; it is the home, and homes are important to everybody’s well-being. You shut the door, and that is your home: that is where you feel safe. It does not matter whether it is on land or on water.

Somebody said that the Canal & River Trust has different types of moorings. It has permanent and temporary moorings. That is good, but those who do not have a permanent or a temporary mooring get moved on. I heard what was said about being moved in 14 days. That is not always what happens. Sometimes people are moved on within 24 hours, and it is distressing for them.

I welcome the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that all should have access to public services. I agree with what he said about council tax and about people who are looking for more security on rivers and canals. It is absolutely about more rights, but with more responsibilities. The one is not going to come without the other. I sign up to that completely. It is not a question of giving people rights through the backdoor for which they have no responsibility. It is about making sure that those who live on boats can maintain a nomadic lifestyle and have access to services at the same time.

The Minister is quite right to raise the issue of the navigation authorities. They are agitated about what is in the Bill and I have had contact from them, but moving forward on the issue of moorings is key. I am not sure that Section 99 of the Housing Act is likely to be amended so that it includes boats, but it is something we could look at, and we have to consider that.

I have to find a way, through this Bill, to get some kind of security for boat dwellers who travel. They do not just mosey up and down the river on a leisure activity; they are moving as part of their lifestyle and, in some cases, as part of their business. They are using their boat to conduct their business where they go, then they move on and do it again somewhere else. They have to be able to do that.

The Minister says that GPs cannot turn boaters away because they do not have a postcode and that they should be able to access the health service. Unfortunately, that is not what happens in every case, and GPs have refused to take on people because they do not have a postcode.

I thank everybody for the debate. It is really interesting. We have started the debate, and I do hope that we can move it forward.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.