Rights of Boat Dwellers Bill [HL]

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I think I ought to declare a tangential interest, as my brother-in-law is a boat dweller. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for bringing forward this Bill and for how eloquently she raised the issues faced by boat dwellers, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.

I do not think there is any doubt that there are genuine issues that need to be addressed. It is only fair and right that everyone in this country should have access to public services, whether it is medical or having the ability to vote, and so forth. Boat dwellers are a diverse community. For some, living afloat is a lifestyle choice but, for others, as has been mentioned, it is an affordable housing option in an increasingly expensive housing market—and we have discussed the housing crisis many times. Whatever their circumstances, many boat dwellers undoubtedly face practical challenges in accessing services. The principle that people should not be denied access to public services, mainly because they live on a boat, is one I think we can all get behind across the House.

However—and I am sorry that there is a however—sympathy for the object of the Bill is not necessarily the same as support for the legislation before us. This House must ask not only whether a problem exists but whether the proposed solution is proportionate, workable and compatible with existing law. In that context, a number of provisions in this Bill raise concerns.

Clause 2 defines “boat dwellers” as those

“for whom a boat … is their primary residence”.

The term “permanent mooring” in the Bill risks confusion and, in our view, would be better replaced with “residential mooring”. In the case of the Canal & River Trust inland waterways, where a person chooses to make their boat their primary residence, they are required to have either a residential mooring or a continuous cruiser licence and to abide by the conditions of those licences. Where boaters fail to comply with licence conditions or moorings’ anchorage regulations, the relevant authorities must be able to take appropriate enforcement action, but many of the provisions in this Bill would impede their ability to do so.

The Bill also seeks to elevate a boat dweller’s right to secure a home above many existing statutory responsibilities relating to the management of the waterways. In doing so, it risks creating considerable legal uncertainty. The Bill requires authorities to refrain from enforcement action wherever such an action might affect a person’s right to a secure home, yet it provides little clarity on how competing rights and responsibilities are to be balanced in practice. Inevitably, this will risk litigation and uncertainty for both authorities and boat dwellers alike. Nobody wishes to see vulnerable residents lose their homes, whether that is on land or water, but we must consider the wider implications for creditors, navigation authorities and the rule of law. The Bill appears to create protections that go considerably beyond those available to homeowners or tenants on land. This House must be cautious before establishing a category of property that becomes effectively immune from certain forms of law enforcement.

Perhaps the Bill’s most striking provision is that which requires relevant authorities to give greater weight to the rights and interests of boat dwellers than to those of commercial, sporting and leisure users or riparian owners, including homeowners, whenever the rights of boat dwellers may be affected. That is a very far-reaching proposition. Britain’s waterways are shared spaces: they support economic activity, recreation, tourism, environmental purposes and residential use. Good governance requires fair balancing between all legitimate interests. Whatever one’s views on the current enforcement practices, we should recognise that mooring space is a finite resource. Navigation authorities already struggle to enforce these essential regulations, particularly in premium sites. If authorities are deprived of the ability to manage that resource effectively, there is a risk of congestion, tension between different users and unintended consequences for the very communities this Bill seeks to assist.

There are also questions about whether this Bill inadvertently imports concepts from the housing law into circumstances for which they were never designed. In previous debates, as has been mentioned on related matters, concerns were rightly raised about whether concepts such as dwelling house, tenure and residential occupation can simply be transposed into a waterways context.

Finally, I raise the issue of council tax, as the Bill potentially raises a number of issues of when a boat is a home or not. Currently, a boat with a permanent mooring on which you reside is subject to council tax, but not if you do not permanently reside there. If, in effect, all boats have a right of residence, would they all be subject to council tax or second home tax? I do not have the answer, but it is a question that needs answering.

None of this is to dismiss the concerns that have motivated the Bill. We should continue to examine whether barriers to public service can be reduced and whether existing protections are operating fairly. But legislation must be carefully targeted and evidence based. In its current form, the Bill risks upsetting long-established legal frameworks, constraining the legitimate functions of navigation authorities and creating uncertainty for all users of our waterways. For those reasons, while I respect the intentions behind the Bill and we believe that something needs to be done, I remain unconvinced at this stage that it provides the right legislative answer. I look forward to hearing the contribution of the Minister and whether she is able to answer some of those flummoxing questions.