Antisocial Behaviour on Canals and Rivers: Bath

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Our waterways in Bath are the envy of the country. Across England and Wales, more than 30,000 boats are licensed to navigate our canals and rivers, and Bath stands out as a particular hotspot. Many boaters choose to make Bath their home, whether moored permanently or passing through as part of a longer journey. The Kennet and Avon canal flows gracefully through our world heritage city, shaping our landscape and connecting our community through nature. We value every one of our boaters in Bath, especially our live-aboard boating communities, many of whom work locally, raise families and care deeply about the waterways.

Riverside businesses contribute so much to our local economy, and they create welcoming spaces enjoyed by people across the city. We have a shared responsibility to keep these places safe, clean and accessible to everyone. Rising rents, a lack of social housing and the increased cost of living mean that living on the water is a more affordable option for many. There are more boats on our canals than during the peak of the industrial revolution, with a quarter of those estimated to be live-aboard residential vessels. A study by Promarine Finance found that three quarters of live-aboard owners have never owned a home, with 90% of them citing the cost of living as a factor.

In Bath, boaters and residents of houses along our waterways have co-existed peacefully for decades as neighbours and friends, but it is not just residents who make use of our canals and waterways. People from all over Bath and beyond come to see the beautiful scenery and nature that the canal provides. The towpath also serves as an important active travel route for walkers and cyclists. These areas must be protected for boaters, local residents and visitors alike.

That brings me to the purpose of this debate. In recent years, residents along the Kennet and Avon canal have experienced persistent and at times dangerous antisocial behaviour on the part of a small minority of individuals. Our canals are residential areas, but all too often families and individuals have been subjected to loud music late into the night, bonfires, and acts of vandalism that make it impossible for them to enjoy their homes in peace.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady mentions vandalism. I have tabled a private Member’s Bill on water safety, which covers a range of issues, in memory of a young lad who lived in Yorkshire and who passed away from drowning in a reservoir. I promised, in the name of Sam, that I would do something about vandalism by making it a named criminal offence for anyone to vandalise water safety equipment. The risk, in terms of the penalty, would be much higher, and would therefore prevent such vandalism from taking place. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is something we should fight to do, in honour of Sam and for his dad, Simon Haycock?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

Let me first express my condolences to the family of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent who drowned so tragically. Such tragedies demonstrate that antisocial behaviour often constitutes thoughtless vandalism. People do not understand what they are doing. We need to make people think about what they do, and legislation may be necessary to enforce that. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue as a particular concern, and I will of course welcome and support his Bill. Good luck to it.

Constituents have written to me with deeply worrying accounts of drug and alcohol misuse, public urination, and towpaths obstructed by furniture and dumped rubbish. That can also be a massive hazard. As I have just said, people often do not think when they do these things, so unfortunately we sometimes have to use the law to encourage the right behaviour. No resident or visitor to Bath should ever feel unsafe on our canals, and the behaviour that I have described is completely unacceptable. Even more troubling are reports of human waste being emptied directly into the canal, black bags of excrement left beside towpaths, and diesel and oil spills polluting the water. There are also serious concerns about boats remaining in short-stay mooring zones for months— sometimes for over a year—alongside abandoned vessels blocking locks and essential services, and preventing hire boats from being navigated safely. All those problems are caused by people being thoughtless, so it is important for the right measures to be in place to keep people safe.

My constituents—and, I am sure, many others throughout the country—are rightly frustrated by the ongoing failure to enforce rules governing our canals. These problems are well known, but no one seems to be able to fix them. A key reason for that is the fragmented enforcement landscape. The Canal & River Trust is responsible for managing most of the canals in England and Wales. Its remit covers everything from boat licensing and mooring rules to obstruction and navigation, but it is attempting to enforce its statutory responsibilities within a framework that is fundamentally flawed. It was established as a charity in 2012 to take over from British Waterways, the statutory body that had previously managed our canal network. While the trust would still receive a Government grant, the idea was that any shortfalls would be made up by its various commercial ventures, much the same arrangement that applies to the National Trust. However, the Canal & River Trust and the National Trust are very different. The latter has commercial properties, thousands of paying members and huge tourism revenues, while the former has a property portfolio that is costly to maintain, and only a small amount of income from the rents paid by boaters. No other charity has as its primary responsibility the upkeep of so much critical infrastructure. As a result, we now have a charity tasked with enforcement powers but without the legal clarity or the practical capacity to use them effectively.

However, resources alone are not the core issue. I have met representatives of the Canal & River Trust on numerous occasions, including a candid discussion about these issues just a few days ago. They are clear that the principal barrier they face is the outdated legal framework governing our waterways. The British Waterways Act 1995 provides only limited powers; crucially, it fails to give the trust the powers it needs to manage boats effectively and fairly. Take the rule governing boats without a permanent mooring: the law states that such boats must not remain

“continuously in any one place for more than 14 days”,

yet it offers no definition of what “one place” means or of how far a boat must move to comply. It is left to the Canal & River Trust to interpret the legislation, leading to regular disputes that take up valuable time and resources. I urge the Minister to take this issue back to her Department, and to engage with the Canal & River Trust on improving that part of the legislation.

The trust’s powers to deal with unlicensed boats are also severely limited. Even where powers exist, enforcement can take two or three years, or longer if challenged, rendering them largely ineffective. It is currently very difficult to remove abandoned boats. First, the Canal & River Trust must establish whom the boat belongs to. Even then, removal can cost around £8,000 per boat—money that the trust often does not get back. Safeguards must remain in place, particularly for the people who live on these boats—boaters should have the right to contest any decision of this nature—but our waterways are shared public assets. Residents and responsible boaters alike are rightly frustrated at having to wait years for action to be taken against persistent antisocial behaviour or unlicensed vessels.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Wera Hobhouse]

Of course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before the hon. Lady takes the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, let me say that I am looking forward to hearing his knowledge of the canals and rivers in Bath.

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the hon. Lady before the debate, and I explained why it is so important that I support her. In the middle of Newtownards, my major town, we have a massive canal—it has been there since the year 1—so I understand some of the things that the hon. Lady refers to. I asked her about antisocial behaviour, which is what I want to focus on. In Newtownards, the canal has long been a focus of antisocial behaviour, particularly as the local park is right beside it. Does she agree that although it is wonderful that our local team of street pastors actively address the issue of antisocial behaviour, it is about partnership? The partnership between street pastors, the police and communities helps to address antisocial behaviour. I always try to be helpful in any debate.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Gentleman did talk to me before the debate, and I was happy to take his intervention. Bath is an example of the challenges that exist everywhere. We are here to discuss those, but also to point to the partnerships that are essential if we are to resolve the issues, so I thank him for his contribution. Yes, we need to work in partnerships.

The Canal & River Trust stands ready to act, but it needs clearer and stronger legal powers to do so. Perhaps the most baffling thing of all is that the trust has no powers to issue fines or even to refuse a licence. The solution is straightforward: the law should be strengthened to clarify exactly what is required of boaters and to equip the trust with proportionate, enforceable powers, balanced by appropriate safeguards to ensure that those powers are used fairly.

The Canal & River Trust is very keen to engage constructively with all parties on this issue, particularly in hotspots such as Bath, but another major obstacle is the range of stakeholders involved. While the Canal & River Trust manages day-to-day canal operations, the Environment Agency is responsible for pollution and environmental protection, local authorities oversee byelaws relating to littering and antisocial behaviour, and the police retain responsibility for criminal offences. It is easy to see how issues such as dumping, vandalism and the burning of inappropriate fuels fall between those overlapping remits. As the saying goes, when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible, which is why all too often these issues remain unresolved.

Matters are further complicated by restrictive interpretations of the GDPR, which restricts information sharing between agencies. Each body recognises the problem, but none can resolve it alone. I intend to bring together the Canal & River Trust, the police, the Environment Agency and the local authority to improve local co-ordination and enforcement, but let me make it clear that, although better collaboration is essential, this alone is not enough. To genuinely improve enforcement on our waterways—and I echo the calls of the Canal & River Trust in this regard—we must see meaningful reform of the law.

To conclude, Bath is certainly a hotspot for boaters, but this is a nationwide problem. “The Future of Licensing” report, published in October 2025, highlights insufficient powers, chronic under-resourcing and unsustainable enforcement arrangements as just some of the issues facing the Canal & River Trust. My constituents are tired of waiting for action. They want clear accountability for antisocial behaviour on our waterways, proper funding for enforcement services, faster and proportionate powers where behaviour is dangerous or polluting, and better multi-agency co-ordination between the Canal & River Trust, councils, police and the Environment Agency. If we are serious about fixing this, we must give those responsible the clear authority and resources they need—the authority to regulate, enforce and act—so that our canals and rivers are not sources of frustration and conflict, but safe and well-managed spaces that work for residents, boaters and the wider community alike.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing the debate and thank her for raising this important issue. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his insightful intervention about the canals in Northern Ireland.

May I, through my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), send my sympathies to the parents of the little boy who died in Doncaster? His tragic story is a reminder that a senseless act of vandalism, or what looks and feels like fun in the moment, can have absolutely devastating consequences. It is also a reminder of the need for those responsible for reservoirs and towpaths to have in place a regime that makes sure the safety equipment is always there and properly maintained.

I share the concerns of hon. Members and the public about these serious matters. We have heard about significant nuisance to local people and communities that can also involve damage to property, physical threats and even assault. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the cost of living crisis is at the heart of this, because people have been priced out of houses in the gorgeous city of Bath, where there are many second homeowners and Airbnbs. I enjoyed a weekend there with my husband to celebrate our wedding anniversary, and it is lovely—we can feel that it is a very special place—but it may be very hard for people to afford local housing in her city.

The Government are committed to tackling this type of antisocial behaviour. We are proposing a range of measures in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently in Committee in the other place. Those new powers include a new respect order to ban adult offenders from engaging in specified activities, and increasing the maximum fixed penalty for breaches of a public spaces protection order or a community protection notice, from £100 to £500.

As the hon. Member said, and as I know from cycling up and down canal towpaths—slowly, and always dinging my bell twice when behind pedestrians—people living on the waterways are a deterrent against the types of antisocial behaviour that the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. The natural surveillance of the people living on the boats means there is a huge disincentive to engage in criminal behaviour close to them.

As the hon. Member for Bath said, the Canal & River Trust is the responsible authority for the Kennet and Avon canal and the River Avon in Bath. It is aware of the problems and the concerns raised locally. It does not have policing powers, but it is responsible for the safe management both of its land and of waterways. It has policies governing unacceptable behaviour and site management, and those set out the expected conduct and outline when the trust can intervene or escalate issues.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The Minister has mentioned before that more powers will be given to the police, but often the main problem is that the police say, “We don’t have the resources to police the canal all the time,” while ultimately it is the Canal & River Trust that looks after canals, rivers and towpaths. There must be more that the Canal & River Trust can do about antisocial behaviour.

[Mary Creagh]

If the hon. Lady were to convene a regular set of meetings—say, quarterly—on this with the police, the local council and the CRT, I have found that the steady drumbeat of local accountability is very effective in bringing these partners together to tackle these issues, alongside the community of users and canal dwellers.