Introduction & methodology

Section 1: Introduction

The Commission was set up to: “Consider options for potential changes to the Trust’s approach to boat licensing, to identify and evaluate alternative models for how to regulate the use of the canal network for boating that reflects the changes to its use over the past 30 years and the likely range of future uses”.
Our full terms of reference are in Annex 1 with a letter from the Commission to the Trust explaining how we intended to interpret them.
The representations we have received, and the responses to our own survey (see later), leave us in no doubt that there are issues with the current licensing system which need to be addressed. Symptoms of sub-optimal operation include:

i. Low levels of boater satisfaction. The causes of low satisfaction are not limited to the licensing system. They also include, for example, unhappiness about the condition of the network, linked to investment being directed to reservoirs and other critical infrastructure rather than to general maintenance, lock gate repairs and dredging. The licensing arrangements and their perceived value for money appear, however, to be an important factor. There is a significant discrepancy between what many boaters expect in return for their licence fee payments and what is perceived as being delivered by the Trust. There was a sharp fall in overall boater satisfaction in 2024 following an announcement of licence fee increases (see Figure 1 overleaf). This fall was reversed in 2025, possibly as licence holders become more used to the increases, possibly also because of the announcement of the Trust’s Better Boating Plan.1 But the level of satisfaction remains well below what it was as recently as eight years ago and below the level to which the Trust should aspire.2
ii. Poor relations between the Trust and many boaters have led to a situation where even actions by the Trust intended to be helpful can be viewed with suspicion. Some resistance to the exercise of authority may be inevitable from a proportion of boaters who have chosen to live off grid; and vulnerable boaters may have experiences which make them wary of authority or may find complexity confusing. It is our impression, however, that the present situation goes well beyond that.

1 The Trust’s Better Boating Plan was created at about the same time as the Commission was set up and is intended to address some of the non-licence-related causes of low levels of boater satisfaction revealed by the 2024 Boater Survey. 2 The Trust has recently set a target of 75 per cent boater satisfaction by 2028.

iii. Capacity issues in some areas causing difficulties in mooring. These issues are made worse by a shortage of residential moorings with planning permission and challenges with obtaining permission for new moorings and new facilities like waste disposal and water points. Availability of land is also a constraint, either on the towpath side or on the offside where very little land is currently owned by the Trust. The impact is felt by licence holders and hirers cruising through these areas as well as by those wishing to moor there more permanently.
iv. Large numbers of unlicensed boats. Some level of licence evasion is probably inevitable. But the extent and cost of non-compliance should be a source of serious concern. Other things being equal, continuing increases in licence fees above the rate of inflation could be expected to make matters worse.
v. Challenges in identifying boats. Large numbers of boats do not display their index (registration) number and are thus not easily identifiable.
vi. Movement requirements for boaters with or without home moorings which involve complex determinants of distance and pattern, based on the Trust’s interpretation of the legislation. These requirements are highly resented by many of those subject to them. They are also difficult and expensive to enforce, and less than fully effective in securing desired outcomes.
vii. Related to this, high levels of enforcement activity. The Trust has told us that at the time of writing it had 5,725 open enforcement cases. This means that around one in six of all licence holders are the subject of current enforcement action. So large a number of enforcement cases cannot be healthy. It is also very expensive. The cost ultimately has to be recouped through the licence fee.
viii. A widely held perception that enforcement is applied ineffectively and inconsistently, accompanied by frustration on the Trust’s part about its limited ability to take prompt action before an issue becomes significant.
ix. Significant numbers of abandoned and/or sinking or sunken boats whose removal is both costly and time-consuming.
x. Difficulties for liveaboard boaters without home moorings and a fixed address in accessing resources like health care and financial services like bank accounts. We have been told that using the land address of a family member or other contact can be problematic, for example in obtaining car insurance, and can result in long periods between delivery and actual receipt of post.

We have found considerable agreement about the main factors underlying these issues:

i. A fragmented legislative base which is difficult to follow, which leaves important issues undefined and which, as interpreted by the Trust, is ill-suited to the way a significant number of liveaboard boaters wish to lead their lives.
ii. The complexity and contestability of the guidance documents setting out the Trust’s movement requirements, related to the lack of clear definition in the legislation.
iii. Enforcement powers which rightly reflect the Human Rights and Equality Acts, particularly where a boat is someone’s home, but which are deficient in several important respects which are unrelated to this legislation and which hinder efficient and speedy application.
iv. The spillover of the housing crisis onto the waterways system in areas of high residential demand, resulting in living on board being perceived by some as a form of low-cost housing, as housing of last resort, or as a route into future home ownership.

We also note that the licensing arrangements are not designed to incentivise full use of the network. The charitable objects of the Trust relate to the promotion of the waterways for navigation and other purposes. We believe this should be interpreted as applying to the whole network. The implication is that the licensing arrangements should encourage use of the whole network.
Any reform of the system must address these interlocking issues, while taking into account the wide range of characteristics and potential needs among the Trust’s licence holders, with significant levels of reported disability and ageing and hence numbers of vulnerable boaters.3

It became apparent at the beginning of our work that some stakeholders believed the Commission was created to give legitimacy to a set of changes which the Trust has already decided, and which are intended to penalise and/or marginalise liveaboard boaters.
If we thought that to be the case, none of us would have accepted appointment.
We do not believe that the Commission would have been set up in the absence of a strong sense among the Board of the Trust and its Executive that it has not always got things right in the past, that change is necessary and that a fresh look at the issues was necessary. We have not been discouraged from pursuing any lines of thought. We have encountered willingness by the Trust to engage openly with us; and we have found widespread recognition in the Trust that liveaboard boaters are an important group of waterways users whose interests need to be respected and supported and that they are an integral part of waterways life, contributing to the safety, security and wellbeing of the network.
There have also been inaccurate suggestions in social media that we would be focusing on the level of licence fees. It was not within our remit to revisit decisions about fee levels. We have, however, inevitably needed to try to understand the fee structure. We have made some recommendations intended to simplify and update it.

Methodology

We determined at the outset that we would approach our task openly and transparently4 and engage with as many individual stakeholders and representative organisations as possible. We did not want to assume that we understood all the issues, or that we or the Trust had a monopoly of ideas about the best way of addressing them.
To that end, we began our work with an online survey asking questions about what individuals or representative groups with an interest in the inland waterways thought about the current system of boat licences, what they believed to be the issues, whom those issues affected, and what ought to be done about them. The survey had over 4,600 responses. We followed up with a series of meetings with representative bodies and others, chosen either because of their responses to the survey or because we expected them to have relevant things to say. To encourage open discussion, we told participants that we would keep the meetings confidential, but that they were free to publicise them, if they wished.
The survey was conducted on our behalf by Campbell Tickell. Their report summarising the survey responses has been published on the Trust’s website5. It was not intended as a piece of quantitative research. It was a qualitative exercise to give as many people as possible an early opportunity to contribute to our work. The responses were not therefore weighted in the way those to a structured survey would have been. As a result, we understood that the responses may not be representative of the complete population of stakeholders and need to be interpreted accordingly. Nor was the survey intended to be a formal consultation of the kind required when significant changes in policy are in prospect. That should come at a later stage, if the Trust decides to implement our recommendations.
The survey responses show a level of concern across all categories of respondents about the current licensing system. These concerns are generally consistent with other information available to the Trust, for example through its boater surveys. The four main themes are as follows:

i. Many respondents feel the current model to be unfair. Criticisms include that it does not sufficiently reflect the diversity of waterways users, does not represent good value for money, is increasingly unaffordable for some licence holders, and poses a threat to liveaboard boaters’ way of life. In addition, it was suggested that it creates divisions and tensions between different groups of licence holders and between waterways users who are required to have a licence and participants in activities where no licence is required.
ii. Many respondents expressed a lack of confidence in the Trust’s approach to compliance. On the one hand, the Trust is perceived to be overly focused on enforcement and aggressive in tone. On the other, it is criticised for an apparent lack of action against unlicensed or incorrectly licensed boats and/or boats overstaying on moorings.
iii. Many respondents raised operational issues which contribute to their sense that licence holders do not get value for money in return for their licence fees.
iv. Several respondents raised issues about the effect of demand for housing on the Trust’s operations, the role the Trust could play in relation to crime and anti-social behaviour on the waterways and towpaths, and about other issues, not all of which are within our remit.

We have looked briefly at whether there are any lessons to be learnt from other navigation authorities and other jurisdictions like France and the Netherlands, particularly in relation to issues of congestion. In both countries (unlike in London) the inner-city waterways system has a significant commercial character which is reflected in its usage and dimensions. Also in contrast to London, boats on the waterways in both Paris and Amsterdam6 are either required to have a home mooring or to occupy short-term moorings and then move or face being towed away; with higher licence fees applying to mooring in Paris than on other parts of the French canal system. 7 Neither city has anything equivalent to the large population in London and some other urban areas of boaters without home moorings living on their boats. 8 In the UK, the privately owned Bridgewater Canal9 and Scottish canals10 all require home moorings as a condition of licences being issued.

Legal framework

The legislative framework governing the Trust’s licensing system is complex and fragmented. Much of it dates from before the Trust was set up as a charity. We have been asked to assume that changes in it may be possible. The Trust has told us that, if the case is strong enough, it would be prepared to make representations to HM Government for legislative change, while recognising that there is no guarantee that its representations would be successful.
The view that the complexity of the existing framework leaves a lot to be desired has been noted in the High Court :“236. Lastly, I would not wish to leave this long judgement without expressing my concern about the present disparate and complex nature of the legislation that I have had to consider. It is, of course, a matter for the BWB; I appreciate that the process would be time consuming and expensive, and disputes such as this may be few and far between, which may make it difficult to justify in terms of cost; but I share the hope of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, in reviewing the Bill that ultimately became the 1995 Act, that consideration be given to bringing forward clearer consolidated legislation in due course to clarify and set out in more accessible form the extent of BWB’s powers and the circumstances in which they may be exercised”.11

Data

Our objective has been to make sure any conclusions we reach are based on evidence. Annex 2 describes the main data sources on which we have relied. In some cases we have found that, partly because of the voluntary way in which it is collected, information is incomplete and/or potentially unreliable. It also sometimes conflicts with what we have been told by people with lived experience. In these cases we have had to use our judgement. Up to date information about the condition and use of the waterways is, and will continue to be, important for the Trust in monitoring the effectiveness of its stewardship and deciding future policy. We recommend that 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.

2 The Trust has recently set a target of 75 per cent boater satisfaction by 2028

3 Canal & River Trust Census Survey 2022

4 Copies of the minutes of our meetings are available

5 Campbell Tickell findings

6 Unlike London, both these cities still have significant freight traffic.

7 Bulletin official des actes

8 See for example: Apply boat vignette Safe boating Boat towed or removed

10 Bridgewater canal licensing

10 Scottish Canals licensing and mooring

11 Justice Hilyard. Moore v British Waterways (High Court 2011)