Acknowledgements & executive summary

Acknowledgments

This report could not have been completed without considerable help from others. We are grateful to the many individual boaters, other waterways users and representative groups who responded to our survey, especially to those who subsequently met with us; to Devonshires Solicitors LLP who provided pro bono facilities for our meetings; to Simon Salem who helped us with information about overseas jurisdictions and aspects of Trust history; to Radojka Miljevic from Campbell Tickell who performed the crucial role of critical friend in helping us to finalise the report; and to Trust executives and other staff who responded to our requests for information – in particular to Tom Deards and Poppy Welburn who have provided information and administrative support. Our conclusions and recommendations are, of course, our own.

About the Commission

The Commission has been chaired by Andrew Cowan, a former senior partner at Devonshires law firm. The other members were Penelope Barber, one of the elected boating representatives on the Trust’s Council, and trustee Sir Chris Kelly, a former senior civil servant and former boat owner.

Executive summary

The Canal & River Trust is a charity whose main function is the stewardship of around 2,000 miles of canals and other waterways in England and Wales. As part of that stewardship, the Trust issues licences giving permission to boats and other craft to use its waterways, subject to certain terms and conditions. We have been asked to review, independently of the Trust, the fitness for purpose of the licensing system in the light of widespread dissatisfaction with the way it currently operates and to make recommendations for change where we consider that to be beneficial.

The Trust is right in our view to believe that its licensing arrangements need reform. The system is not in danger of immediate collapse. It works reasonably well for many. But we are in no doubt that it is operating sub-optimally. It copes poorly with the way in which many licence holders wish to use their boats. It is a material cause of poor relationships between the Trust and many of its licence holders. Its legal basis is fragmented, unclear in important respects and leaves much for interpretation. The requirements which the legislation, as interpreted by the Trust, imposes on boaters are complex to understand and difficult and expensive to enforce; and the way in which the Trust enforces compliance is widely regarded as both too robust in some respects and too weak in others. Without change, this situation is likely to deteriorate further.

There is no simple solution. To be effective, reform requires action on several related fronts. This report makes 36 recommendations with the aims of fitting the licensing system better to current and potential future circumstances, making it fairer, easier and less costly for the Trust to operate and enforce and contributing to an increase in its perceived legitimacy. We have four main conclusions.

Boat movement

First, if it is to be effective in providing open access to its waterways, the Trust needs to create a clearer and simpler boat movement obligation to replace its current interpretation of the legal requirement of bona fide navigation. Whatever its original validity, the concept of bona fide navigation does not now reflect many boaters’ actual lifestyles; and it does not focus sufficiently on outcomes which fit the Trust’s charitable objects.

The part of the requirement which obliges licence holders to change their moorings at least every 14 days, other than when on validated home moorings, should remain. We regard this as an essential part of keeping the waterways open. We have been impressed by the extent of support for the 14-day principle among most of those with whom we have engaged.

The Trust does, however, need to devise a simpler, clearer definition of what boaters must do at the end of the 14 days. The new requirement should be focused on what is needed to support efficient and effective stewardship of the waterways, particularly in ensuring fair access. The objective should be to find an appropriate balance between operational and access requirements and the needs of boaters and other users of the waterways and towpaths, and of adjoining communities and businesses. It should also be as straightforward as possible to manage and enforce.

We appreciate that designing a new movement requirement will not be straightforward. It will require both a shift in mindset and meaningful consultation; and it will need to be accompanied by effective methods of enforcement.

The new movement requirement should be accompanied by steps to restore confidence that anyone wishing to navigate through popular areas like London or the west end of the Kennet and Avon Canal can do so with a reasonable expectation of being able to moor, though not necessarily in the exact place they would prefer.

Enforcement powers

Second, the Trust at present operates with one hand tied behind its back in enforcing compliance with its licence terms and conditions because of limitations in its powers and the absence of appropriate graduated sanctions. It has few or no tools to respond proportionately to minor breaches of licence conditions; and it faces constraints on effective use of some of the powers it does have. These limitations reduce the effectiveness of its compliance work and contribute to higher costs – costs which are ultimately met through licence fees. Changing the movement requirement will have limited impact if the Trust still lacks adequate powers to enforce it.

Limitations in its enforcement powers are not only a frustration to the Trust. They also contribute to widespread perceptions that the Trust is not acting robustly to address obvious breaches of licence conditions, even though it may be working hard to do so. If otherwise compliant boaters perceive rules being broken with no apparent comeback, they are less likely to remain compliant themselves and more likely to lose confidence in the Trust’s competence.

Any extension of the Trust’s enforcement powers is bound to create concerns that the powers will be used capriciously or unfairly. We have therefore been careful to confine our recommendations to areas where we believe the case for change to be strong and clearly in the interests of boaters as a whole, other waterways users, and the wider public.

It is essential that new powers are accompanied by appropriate, proportionate safeguards, allowing Trust decisions to be challenged.

We have also been conscious that the best enforcement powers are those that do not need to be used. The licensing system should ideally be designed to promote a culture of compliance, with knowledge of the existence of effective enforcement powers being there as an additional encouragement, to be used only sparingly when no effective alternative exists. Perceptions of the legitimacy of the system are a key underpinning to a culture of this kind.

Compliance might also be improved if a new movement requirement had the effect of freeing up some of the Trust’s resources to focus more on issues like deliberate nonpayment of licence fees, boats moored in unsafe or inappropriate locations or sunken, sinking or abandoned boats – especially if enforcement activities are concentrated on the more heavily used areas of the waterways network.

The Trust’s relationship with boaters

Third, while arguably not within our terms of reference, we find it worrying that the Trust’s relationship with many boaters is often characterised by distrust and suspicion – one cause of which is the perception some boaters have of the Trust’s attitude to those living on boats, particularly in urban areas where housing costs are high. It is not our role to allocate fault. The situation has a long history. It is, however, damaging both to the Trust’s reputation and to its ability to operate effectively, including in relation to fundraising.

The Trust is not and should not be a housing charity, nor a statutory housing provider. To take on housing responsibilities would be outside both its charitable objects and its core competencies. But that does not mean it can disregard the needs of those living on boats on its waterways. It is our impression that the Trust has not yet fully thought through its approach to liveaboard boaters. We recommend that it should take the opportunity of our recommended reforms to the system to attempt a fundamental reset of its relations with them. That will depend on changes in approach by all parties. It will also require explicit recognition of licensing not just as a mechanism for control and revenue raising but also as part of a contract between the Trust as owner of the waterways and those who use and live on them. An important part of any reset will be an emphasis on consultation and listening to the responses.

One of the reasons for believing that an improved relationship is important is our earlier point – that the greater the perception of the legitimacy of the way the Trust exercises its stewardship of the waterways, the greater the likely voluntary compliance with its rules and regulations and the less need for enforcement. In this connection we have been struck by a perception among many boaters that their current licence fees represent poor value for money. The Trust is already attempting to respond to some of the reasons for this perception through its Better Boating Plan. We believe its efforts could be reinforced by building on the existing analysis in its Boater Report to provide a clear exposition of the way in which licence fee income is spent for the benefit of waterways users, in terms which make sense to them.

Limited capacity for moorings

Fourth, we are conscious that, with limited exceptions, our recommendations do little to address the network’s capacity to accommodate existing or projected demands for mooring space within some urban areas. They could make the situation worse. We have therefore considered whether the licence system could have a role in reducing congestion. Views about the point at which the degree of congestion in an area becomes intolerable can legitimately differ. The absence of a common agreed standard makes it difficult to judge definitively whether capacity issues have yet reached the point where radical action is necessary. We believe, a consensus should be reached on the meaning of congestion and a way of measuring it; and once this is clarified, the Trust should then explore the possibilities of price differentiation or rationing, or a combination of the two, against the risk of the situation deteriorating. This could perhaps be combined with service enhancements in higher priced areas linking the price to value for money.

Though not part of the licensing system, and therefore outside our terms of reference, we also believe it would be helpful if more residential moorings were available. We have been told by the Trust that efforts to create more residential moorings in congested areas have been largely unsuccessful in the past. We appreciate the difficulties. We think it important nevertheless that the Trust should look at the possibilities again, including reinforcing its efforts to bring about changes in planning guidance. There might also be ways by which, at a cost, it could be possible to enhance non-residential mooring space on some parts of the waterways. We recognise, however, that increases in the supply of mooring spaces could result in an offsetting increase in demand for mooring space.

Other recommendations

We have made other recommendations directed at simplifying the existing system, dealing with the issue of sunken, sinking or otherwise abandoned boats, and addressing historical anomalies.

The implementation of our recommendations

Some of our recommendations will inevitably have resource implications which will be unwelcome to the Trust. We would not have made them if we did not believe them to be justified. Appropriately targeted investment of resources can sometimes produce offsetting savings in the longer term.

Our recommendations are addressed to the Trust because it is the Trust which commissioned us. But in putting them forward we have tried to take account of the views and interests of a wide range of stakeholders. We hope that everyone will see them as a coherent package and that it will be accepted that some elements which some may find less attractive are justified as a necessary accompaniment to other elements which are more appealing.

We are conscious that some of our recommendations require changes in legislation before they can be implemented. Legislation can, however, take some time. It should not be used as a reason for inaction on progressing other recommendations which do not depend on new legislation. Our understanding is that many of our recommendations can, and should, be implemented without legislative change. In cases where there is a doubt about the Commission report on the future of licensing with a strict interpretation of what current law permits, the Trust could conduct a risk assessment of likely challenge before acting.

Our terms of reference invite us to consider the appropriate legislative vehicle for reform. We have not responded to that invitation. We regard it as an issue on which the Trust needs to take formal legal advice.

If legislative time were available to deal with Trust-related issues, there is a strong case for using it additionally to consolidate the complex mix of statute under which the Trust operates.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are as follows:

Movement requirements

1. The requirement for boaters without home moorings and other boaters when cruising to change their moorings at least every 14 days, or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances (for example to allow for unplanned navigation stoppages), should be retained (paragraph 44).
2. The Trust should interpret 14 days as inclusive (paragraph 45).
3. After careful consultation with licence holders and others about the different options, the Trust should define a new, clearer movement requirement to replace the concept of bona fide navigation. The new requirement should be directed at finding an appropriate balance between the efficient and effective management of the waterways, including fair access, boater needs and the impact on others whose interests might be affected, and on encouraging the use of all the waterways (paragraph 52). Annex 5 illustrates one possible way of doing this.
4. The Trust should cease to use the term “continuous cruiser” to describe leisure licence holders without home moorings and substitute a more accurate description (paragraph 54).

Demand management

5. The Trust should begin an open discussion about the meaning and measurement of the term “congestion” and about the desirability and practicality of introducing price differentials and/or rationing the issue of licences or other ways of addressing capacity issues in congested areas (paragraph 71).
6. The Trust should seek to include the power to introduce price differentiation and/or rationing on a contingent basis in any legislation which is put to Parliament to implement our recommendations (paragraph 72).
7. If the Trust decides to introduce differentiated licence fees and/or rationing in congested areas, it should do so as part of a considered package, possibly including ring-fencing the additional revenue in whole or in part to improve services in those areas (paragraph 73).
8. The Rivers Only discount should be ended on all Trust rivers. The change should be phased over a period of three years to ease the financial impact on those affected (paragraph 77).
9. Any waterways where the Trust is the responsible navigation authority but where it currently has no power to issue licences should be brought within the scope of the licensing provisions (paragraph 78).

Licence enforcement 10.

10. The Trust should consult on appropriate safeguards to prevent any new or existing enforcement powers in relation to the licensing system being used capriciously (paragraph 83).
11. The Trust should be more active in using its existing legal powers to move to another place any boats moored dangerously or selfishly (paragraph 88).
12. The statutory notice periods before the Trust can remove non-residential sunk, sinking or abandoned boats from its waterways should be removed, subject to payment of appropriate compensation if the Trust is mistaken in its belief that the boat has been abandoned (paragraph 105).
13. The Trust should consult widely on (i) the case for granting it the power to use reasonable force as a last resort when removing a boat subject to a Court order and (ii) the safeguards which would have to be in place if the power were granted. Boat removal should only happen after all reasonable steps have been taken to avoid it becoming necessary (paragraph 113).
14. The Trust should have the civil power to levy fines on licence holders in response to breaches of its licence terms and conditions and on towpath users in response to behaviours detrimental to others, like fly tipping. In cases involving boaters, if a fine remains unpaid for over 21 days, the Trust should have the power to tow a boat away until both the initial debt and the cost of towing and storage are paid (paragraph 117).
15. The Trust should review its initial approach to licence holders it believes may have breached their licence conditions in minor ways without causing a nuisance to make it more customer-friendly and positive (paragraph 124).
16. The Trust should review and regularly check the robustness of its arrangements for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the information it uses before issuing overstay or other notices (paragraph 127).

Issue of licences

17. Subject to appropriate safeguards, the Trust should have the ability to refuse to issue or renew licences where (i) there is clear evidence of abusive or threatening behaviour posing a significant, or serious fear of risk to other boaters or users of the waterways or to Trust employees, volunteers or contractors; (ii) there are unpaid debts; or (iii) there is lack of suitable identification of boat ownership (paragraph 97).
18. The Trust should consider the addition of lack of fitness for navigation of the vessel concerned to the statutory grounds for refusal of a licence (paragraph 98).
19. The Trust should develop the existing boat registration system into a publicly available ownership register, with owners being required to provide the information necessary to complete the register at the time they apply for a new licence or for licence renewal. The cost of the register should be met by fees paid by the applicant (paragraph 133).
20. Any party operating a crane, slipway or other facility subject to a contract with the Trust should be required as part of that contract to confirm the existence of a current licence before allowing their facility to be used for launching a vessel on to a Trust waterway (paragraph 135).
21. To incentivise boats being kept in good condition and to inhibit them from being abandoned if they sink or otherwise fall into acute disrepair, the Trust should discuss with the insurance industry and consult with boaters on the practicality of insisting on recovery of wreck insurance cover or some form of deposit scheme as a condition of issuing a licence (paragraph 145).

Maintenance of a licence

22. The Trust should consider whether the blocked account arrangements are working effectively and are fit for purpose, particularly in the way they affect more vulnerable boaters (paragraph 129).
23. 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, particularly in congested areas. Boaters should also be given the right, but not the obligation, to install a Trust-approved tracking device on their boat to provide evidence of compliance (paragraph 131).
24. The Trust should investigate the desirability, practicality and cost-effectiveness of different methods of providing proof of insurance as part of licence applications and renewals, rather than continuing to rely on self-certification. Failure to demonstrate up-to-date insurance when an existing policy expires during the period of a licence should be flagged in the licensing system and followed up. Persistent failure to produce evidence of up-to-date insurance after a warning should initially result in a fine and ultimately the invalidation of a licence (paragraph 139).
25. The Trust should amend the Boat Safety Scheme to include proportionate checks which would reduce the risk of sinking (paragraph 148).
26. A new boat safety certificate should be required within three months of a boat being transferred to a new owner, unless a new certificate has been obtained within a defined period (we suggest three months) leading up to the sale (paragraph 150).

Other recommendations

27. The Trust should consider the case for a scrappage scheme to encourage the removal from the waterways of derelict or unsafe boats (paragraph 152).
28. Houseboat Certificates should be abolished and replaced by standard licences (paragraph 158).
29. The Trust should initiate a discussion with stakeholders about the historic boat assessment criteria and process with a view to ensuring the associated licence fee discount is serving its intended purpose and, if it does, consider whether a larger discount would be appropriate (paragraph 159).
30. All fee discounts and surcharges applied by the Trust should be determined by general principles related to its corporate objectives and charitable objects, should be capable of clear and transparent explanation, and should be reviewed periodically to ensure they remain appropriate (paragraph 160).
31. The Trust should produce a clearer exposition of the uses to which licence fee income is put and from which licence holders benefit in terms which make sense to licence holders, building on the existing analysis in its Boater Report. It should make that analysis widely available (paragraph 162).
32. The Trust should review at least triennially the data it collects so that it is able to provide assurance to its Board, boaters and others about the condition and use of its waterways, including in relation to licences (paragraph 18).

Relationships and communications

33. The Trust should reassess the way it communicates and works with boaters and attempt to improve its relationships with them, particularly with liveaboard boaters (paragraph 170).
34. The Trust should support and provide start-up funding for an independent charity that offers advice and advocacy to liveaboard and other boaters, including assistance with benefit claims (paragraph 174).
35. The Trust should review the tone and content of all its communications and other contacts with boaters and other waterways users to ensure they are in plain English, use consistent terminology and are as customer friendly as possible (paragraph 177).
36. The Trust should make the case to DEFRA for consolidation of the legislation under which the Trust operates (paragraph 178).

Andrew Cowan (Chair), Penelope Barber, Chris Kelly - 31 October 2025