Section 5: Licence conditions

136. We referred earlier to the relative ease of obtaining a boat licence. We made recommendations in the previous section which would have the effect of increasing the grounds on which the Trust could refuse to issue a licence. In this section we consider possible shortcomings in two of the requirements for licence applications: insurance cover and boat safety certificates, particularly as they relate to the sunken boat issue discussed earlier. Insurance certificates: proof of cover
137. As explained earlier, boaters are required to provide proof of third-party insurance cover when applying for a new licence or renewal of an existing one. They are also supposed to provide details of their new cover if the existing policy runs out before the end of the licence period.
138. We understand that in practice insurance details are currently largely taken on trust. There is no requirement for actual documents to be produced; and the Trust only checks a limited number by random sampling. So, a boater without insurance who gives a genuine insurer’s name and invents a plausible reference number is unlikely to be found out.
139. We believe this to be a weakness in the system. We understand that in pre-Trust days insurers were able to provide a standard Confirmation of Cover document which could be passed on to the British Waterways Board. We do not know why this arrangement was terminated; and we have not investigated the practical and resource implications of reviving it. In principle, however, particularly given technological developments since British Waterways ceased to exist, we think there is a case for the Trust to investigate restoring an obligation on licence applicants to provide proof of insurance cover, either by production of a certificate or insurer-issued Confirmation of Cover document or by some form of information exchange between the Trust and insurance companies. We recommend that 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.

Insurance certificates: recovery of wreck

140. The fact that the insurance cover required for boat certification is only third-party is consistent with a focus on protecting others. There is no obligation for licence holders to have cover for other insurable events, including the cost of recovery if a boat sinks – known in insurance terms as “recovery of wreck” – though we have been told that some policies do include this and that having such cover is a common condition in mooring agreements. Where cover does exist, it is only the policyholder who can claim unless other arrangements have been made. If the policyholder fails to make a claim, the Trust cannot act in their place. It would have to proceed against the insured person for payment of any costs it incurs in dealing with the boat.
141. The changes to the Trust’s powers we recommend earlier, together with the creation of a central register of title, ought to help the Trust deal more quickly with sunken or otherwise abandoned boats. But there would still be the issue of cost recovery.
142. This cost should clearly fall on the boat’s owner, not on the Trust. One obvious way of making that more likely would be to make the issue of a licence dependent on insurance cover that includes recovery of wreck. One broker has told us that, for boats in good condition, the additional cost ought to be minimal. Some insurers might, however, insist on a prior survey, particularly for boats over 25 years old; and cover might be refused altogether for boats which are poorly maintained.
143. Boats in poor condition may be less likely to be licensed. For the owners of these boats, insisting on recovery of wreck insurance cover as a licence condition would therefore make no practical difference. Moreover, a requirement of this kind could have the perverse effect of increasing the number of unlicensed boats. On the other hand, boats that are not in a sound condition should not in principle be allowed on the waterways in the first place, any more than an unsound car should be allowed on the roads; and as the cost of enforcement is ultimately borne by all licence holders, there is a communality of interest in dealing with the issue.
144. We do not have sufficient information about the likely cost of cover to form a clear opinion about where the balance of advantage lies. We believe, however, that both on grounds of principle and in the interests of safety the Trust should look at the tradeoffs.
145. For owners of boats in poor condition who find it difficult or impossible to take out recovery of wreck cover, an alternative way of incentivising boaters not to abandon their boats might be a requirement for the payment of a deposit, refundable on removal of the boat from the waterways or the owner selling the boat. To be effective as a deterrent, the size of the deposit would not necessarily have to be the same size as the Trust’s average costs of recovery. That would be beyond the means of many. But it would still need to be a meaningful amount. We recommend that 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.

The Boat Safety Scheme and Boat Safety Certificates

146. Boat Safety Certificates issued under the Boat Safety Scheme are another necessary part of a licence application. According to its website,53 the scheme’s purpose is “to help reduce the risk of boat fires, explosions, carbon monoxide or pollution from boats harming visitors to the inland waterways, the waterways’ workforce, other waterway users and property on or alongside the waterways”. Certificates are issued by independent inspectors. Boats without gas, electrical, heating or fuel systems are exempt.
147. The state of gas, electrical, heating and fuel systems on a boat are important aspects of protecting the safety of those aboard and, depending on where and how it is moored, of surrounding boats and property. But the scheme does not cover other important aspects of safety. In particular, inspection does not assess the risk of a boat sinking. That would require looking, for example, at stern glands or the existence of a functional bilge pump to deal with rainwater or leakages. It is possible for a sunken boat to be in possession of a current boat safety certificate.
148. We have been told that the main causes of boats sinking are poor boat handling54 or maintenance rather than the presence or absence of things like bilge pumps. We also understand that a complete assessment of the risk of sinking would need to include inspection of hull integrity, requiring a boat to be taken out of the water and examined by a trained surveyor. We think that would be disproportionate. Even so, we believe it a weakness of the boat safety scheme that it does not cover the risk of sinking at all. We recommend that the Trust should amend the Boat Safety Scheme to include proportionate checks which would reduce the risk of sinking.
149. We are aware that the scheme is shared with other navigation authorities and that, although complete uniformity is not legally required, there are considerable advantages for boaters who travel widely in not having to satisfy different safety criteria when entering waterways not looked after by the Trust. We believe, however, that ability to navigate safely and reliably ought to be an important factor for all navigation authorities. Indeed, the standards applicable to, for example, deep or fastflowing waterways ought to be more stringent than for canals.
150. New boat safety certificates are currently required every four years. We have been told by the Trust that it has the power to require a new boat safety certificate if it has evidence that a boat has ceased during this period to meet the required standards, even though an existing certificate is still current. We understand, however, that this power is rarely used. A lot can happen to a boat over a four-year period in terms of deterioration and alterations. We believe there is a strong case on safety grounds for requiring an updated boat safety certificate every time the ownership of a boat changes. We recommend that 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.

Boats in poor condition and a scrappage scheme

151. Our hope is that the combination of a requirement to include recovery of wreck in insurance cover or paying a deposit, the creation of an ownership register and a civil power to levy fines could over time make a significant difference to the number of sunken boats on Trust waterways and reduce costs.
152. One of the reasons for the number of sunken boats is, however, that there appears to be no culture of scrapping boats. We have been told that some boats are allowed by their owners to limp along well after their habitable condition and useful life have come to an end. One solution for this might be for the Trust to pay owners a small amount to have their boat scrapped. There would clearly be a cost. It might, however, save money in the longer term by getting derelict and unsafe boats off the system promptly and be more effective for the Trust than trying to identify financially stretched owners when boats have been abandoned. The boat concerned would have to be licensed to be eligible, providing an additional incentive for licence compliance. We recommend that the Trust should consider the case for a scrappage scheme to encourage the removal from the waterways of derelict or unsafe boats.

Other licence conditions

153. Some respondents have suggested the need for additions to the licence terms and conditions to cover environmental issues. The terms and conditions already include a provision that generators should not be used between 8 pm and 8 am and prohibitions on obstruction of the towpath or its use for storage and on discharging into the water anything other than unpolluted surface water or water from sinks, showers, washing machines and dishwashers. They also include a request to use only phosphate-free detergents. In addition, in some areas boaters may be subject to legal controls on the use of wood or coal for heating. We have not seen in our enquiries a convincing case yet made for significant extensions to these conditions. It is true that the network has a problem with fly tipping, but this in some cases is caused by others accessing the towpath rather than resulting from the actions of boaters. We believe fly tipping could more appropriately be addressed by giving the Trust the same powers as local authorities to levy fines (see earlier).
154. The Trust should always be alert to environmental issues and take positive steps wherever economically possible where this would improve the condition of the waterways or the lives and experience of boaters using them. We have no reason to believe that the Trust is not alive to this. It is rightly proud, for example, of the extent to which its network has achieved green flag status. We hope that it will continue to seek further improvements. While not a part of our terms of reference, we suggest that, if funds could be made available, the Trust could consider investing in start-ups which support these outcomes, perhaps in partnership with other funds like Big Society Capital.

53 https://www.boatsafetyscheme.org

54 We have been told that some hire companies and some insurers offer discounts to holders of recognised helming certificates. It has been suggested to us that the possession of a helming certificate should be made a licence condition. While training in boat handling should clearly be encouraged, we do not think it should be made compulsory.