| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Residential Boat Owners
1.28 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate, partly because it is of intrinsic importance to many of my constituents, and because when I first came into the House in 1997, this was the subject of the first Adjournment debate that I initiated. I have had 40 since then, but the subject has a certain sentimental appeal and, more than that, it is possible to say that although the problem about which I am concerned—security of tenure—has not been solved, there has been at least a growing awareness of the issue.
When I first raised the subject, in connection with a dispute involving residential boat owners and the Port of London Authority, and the underpinning problem of lack of security of tenure, it was clear that the Government were not aware that there was an issue, and correspondingly, they did not respond sympathetically.
Recently, the issue has made it on to the map, and there has been a Government consultation paper, “Security of Tenure for Residential Boats”, to which I am sure the Minister will refer, which accepts in many ways at least the fundamentals of the argument. It sets out the issues involved very fairly, and there has been a subsequent consultation.
Frankly, I am disappointed that the Government have not gone as far in response to the consultation as I think they should have done on the issue of security of tenure, but, none the less, there is clearly an awareness of the problem and a willingness to do something about it.
Perhaps I might locate this general issue in my constituency. I have the names and addresses of approximately 150 residential boats, housing about 250 adults, in the Twickenham constituency. They are scattered along the Thames on the Middlesex bank from Isleworth opposite Kew gardens, along the Twickenham bank through Hampton Court, right across the south of Hampton. There are five main communities, the largest being Taggs island, and such exotic places as Swan island, Burgoyne quay, Thistlewaite marina and others. There are probably 100 smaller moorings that I have not captured in those figures. My guess is that there are some 250 residential boats in my constituency, and possibly 400 people who are directly affected.
Of course, Britain is a country of boats. An estimate is that there are some 450,000 boats in the UK, but only a small proportion are used for residential purposes. There are disputes as to how big the population is. The Government’s paper cites a figure of some 10,000 to 15,000 based on statistics that they acquired through one of the regulatory agencies. The Residential Boat Owners Association, with which I have discussed the issue, thinks that there are about 15,000 residential boat owners.
The British Marine Federation—the industry, if I can use that term—uses a much smaller number. It says that about 2,000 are recognised, but of course that is part of the problem. Many boats are not recognised because their tenure is not secure. Their owners operate in a grey economy. Indeed, the fact that the official estimate is so low palpably illustrates the problem.
British Waterways, which deals mainly with canals, came up with a figure of 6,000, but that did not include the boats in the Port of London Authority, which governs the waterway up to Teddington lock in my constituency. To give a rough idea of the magnitude involved, there are probably about 10,000 boats.
The population is diverse. On the Twickenham stretch, we have what some people call floating palaces—very well upholstered boats—but there are many that provide modest and low-cost accommodation. There are different types of tenancy arrangement—leases, licences and renting arrangements—and two navigation bodies: the Port of London Authority for the tidal waters below Teddington lock and the Environment Agency for those above it. My constituency does not have canals, which are covered by British Waterways, nor does it have Crown Estate properties. Four different navigation authorities are involved, so this is not a simple issue.
To give more of a human flavour, I have come to know many of the boat owners. It is increasingly apparent that what 10 years ago was primarily a lifestyle choice is now becoming an important form of tenure for people on low incomes who are trying to get established in an expensive part of London. I went to one quay recently where the majority of residents are young professionals. There are teachers and social workers who are unable to afford commercial rents in south-west London. As providing a £250,000 mortgage on a salary of £25,000 is absolutely hopeless, they got together a bank loan and some savings to buy a boat. That is the only kind of home they can afford.
The Government acknowledge in their White Paper that residential boats are becoming a small but significant—I believe that that is the phrase the housing Minister used—part of the housing market. The Mayor of London has also taken up the issue, because he recognises that it is important.
That was brought home to me some time ago when a boat sank. The owners survived, but lost all their possessions. Because their boat sank, they became homeless, which was quite a problem for the local authority, which had not previously realised that people who live on boats have homes and could therefore become homeless. It fought the homelessness claim, but eventually the couple were rehoused.
The case underlined the fact that if those 250 families, or whatever the number is, had to be rehoused in some other way, that would bring considerable pressure to bear on social housing in the area. Residential boat ownership provides an important social function as well as an economic one.
The people who live on residential boats have a big problem that is preventing that sector of the housing market from expanding: lack of security. It is recognised—the Government acknowledge this in the White Paper—that this is the last segment of the housing market to enjoy no security of tenure. Park homes and mobile homes are now covered, and Travellers are protected, but this segment enjoys no security. The practical implication is that residents are exposed to the risk of summary eviction. Of course, eviction must follow the course of law, and there are contractual arrangements of varying quality, but many residents are subject to eviction at short notice. I have something of a quarrel with how the Government have dealt with that.
In the White Paper, the Government appear to have bought the argument from people in the industry who provide moorings that existing law—the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999—is largely sufficient to provide security. The people with whom I have discussed that, at federation and individual boat-owner level, argue that it is completely inadequate.
I do not know whether the Government are keeping up with the case law, but we had a recent case in my area where four boat owners were evicted. The case went to Kingston county court and the judge took the view that although he was highly sympathetic to the individuals concerned and felt that they had not been properly treated, the law providing security of tenure was sufficiently weak that he could not, under the law, protect their position. He allowed the eviction to proceed.
I note that in some of the literature there is a certain sarcastic tone in some of the industrial side’s contribution to the debate, questioning whether boat owners have ever had such problems with the law. I can cite a specific case, and I am sure that there are many others. That lack of security and the exposure to the risk of eviction create secondary problems, as boat owners are often exposed to arbitrary, large and sometimes capricious increases in rent. I have seen cases where the rent was increased by 200 or 300 per cent. and the occupiers had little power to resist it.
The problems do not simply relate to the companies that provide the moorings, which argue that they are often intermediaries against the navigation authorities. The Environment Agency and the Port of London Authority have a mandate from the Government to pursue sound finance, increase their income and reduce Government subsidy, and one way they do that is by trying to squeeze a bit more rent out of people who have moorings, which often manifests itself in large rent increases.
The practical problem for boat owners is that they have little bargaining power when such demands are made. Boat owners do not have a forum within which they can negotiate. Many of them feel harassed. When I tried to get a bit of publicity for the issue, I was struck by how many were reluctant to appear in local newspaper pictures. They did not want to be identified and were afraid that in some way their landlord, or the owner of the mooring, might take action against them. They did not necessary think that they would, but there was apprehension as well as lack of security and of the ability to stick up for themselves, which was rather worrying.
A further consequence of the lack of security is that there is no pressure on the operators to improve their facilities. On one quay in my constituency, there is one toilet and shower between 17 boats. That is not quite as disastrous as it might appear, since there are chemical toilets on the boats, but none the less the provision is poor and the boat owners have little leverage or bargaining power with which to strengthen their position.
Perhaps the
most fundamental point is that expanding the sector is very difficult.
If people are going to invest in a boat, we are talking about quite
large sums of money. They would like to get a
mortgage, but they cannot because they are on short-term lease or
letting arrangements. In any event, banks will not provide a
conventional mortgage-type arrangement, so it is very difficult for
people who want to move into the sector to do
so.
I recognise that there is another side to the story. I have read the submissions of British Waterways and the British Marine Federation, which speak for the owners of the moorings. They have a case, which we need to understand. The commercial side of the business is saying that if security of tenure is given, the provision of commercial moorings will be inhibited. The owners have a choice. They can, in certain circumstances, provide residential or recreational boating facilities. If they are going to have a lot of hassle from the residential boat owners, they will simply switch.
If the Government succumbed to the pressure for security of tenure, all they would do is reduce supply. Basic economics suggest that we cannot disregard that argument. However, the conclusion that I would draw is that any action to improve security of tenure must be accompanied by planning provision—in other words, to safeguard moorings for residential boat ownership—otherwise it will operate in the way that the pessimists predict.
My final comments—I will try to draw to a conclusion rather quickly—turn to the Government’s proposals and the reactions to them. The Government have offered four options, from the status quo to full security of tenure, with two intermediate possibilities that involve what effectively amounts to self-regulation through best practice or model agreements—variants of the same general idea.
The argument for security is provided by residential boat owners, who believe that they should have treatment consistent with that of other forms of house tenure. They believe that they need the security to invest and because they need to be protected from harassment and a weak bargaining position.
Very striking in the Government’s summary of their consultation is the fact that the debate has become worryingly polarised. Of the 77 residential boat owners who were consulted, 72 opted for the fourth option, security of tenure. Every single one of the residential boat owners that I have consulted came to the same conclusion, which is that without security of tenure, they can do little. On the other hand, on the commercial side, there was complete polarisation too. I think that only one of the 39 respondents thought security of tenure acceptable.
There is a schism between the different sides of the industry, which is worrying if we want to achieve consensus. I can understand why the Government are attracted by the two voluntary regulatory options—the second and third ones. I think that the Government wish to proceed that way. Since the Minister appears to be moving in the direction of model agreements and best practice, perhaps she will tell us how that will be disseminated.
We are dealing with a fragmented activity, which takes place all over the country and involves small moorings. If the process is to be initiated by the Government, how will they spread it? Are they going to take responsibility? How will they ensure that, beyond purely token initiatives, best practice will spread?
I have two final points. One of the positive things to come out of the Government’s exercise is the recognition that we are dealing with a wider problem than merely security of tenure. I read of two Government initiatives in the White Paper and welcome them. First is the acknowledgement that we are not simply dealing with tenure arrangements, but that there is also a shortage of moorings. That must be addressed partly through planning.
I would welcome some indication from the Minister that the Government plan to produce planning guidance to encourage local councils—indeed, strengthening their position—to provide residential boat-owning accommodation.
The second, and perhaps in the long term most important, point is that the key players are the quangos, the regulatory bodies and navigation authorities—the Port of London Authority, the Environment Agency and the waterways agency—which, from the tone of their comments, are rather hostile to residential boat owners.
At best, the authorities tolerate the residential boat owners, but they certainly do not see them as an integral part of canal conservation; they regard them as a bit of a nuisance. The Government response says that they intend to write to them, or at least contact them, and discuss with them how they can improve their practices to make residential boat owning a more secure and viable form of living.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is an exercise she intends to undertake and give us some indication of how she intends to do it.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington and Chelsea) (Con)rose—
Mr. Martin Caton (in the Chair): Order. In a half-hour debate, I can call the right hon. and learned Gentleman only with the agreement of both the initiator of the debate and the Minister.
Dr. Cable: I am happy for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to speak.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Angela E. Smith): So am I, but it will eat into my time to respond.
1.45 pm
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington and Chelsea) (Con): I am grateful for being allowed to speak, and I shall be brief because I understand the constraints. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham(Dr. Cable) on raising the matter. I speak because of the interests of the Chelsea Reach Association, which has similar interests to those of the hon. Gentleman.
I want to make two brief points. First, the Government themselves have acknowledged in their document that residential boat owners represent the only tenure type in the United Kingdom without legislative protection. Therefore, the onus has to be on those who would deny legislative protection to explain why that group should be the only one not have it.
The only reason given both in the documents and by the operators themselves is that if legislation were introduced to give security of tenure and other protection, the consequence would be fewer available lettings. That may be true, but it is the argument that landlords have used over the past 100 years to try to prevent protection for tenants.
As the Government—particularly the Labour Government—have never been persuaded by those arguments in the past, I am interested to know why they seem to be so willing to be persuaded by them now. Is there evidence in support of that view or is it an assertion that the Government appear to be endorsing?
The final point—it is on the final page of the Government’s document—is what they say in rejecting legislation at this stage:
“In the longer term...we will only look at implementing legislation if deemed necessary by increasing levels of complaint and no redress.”
The responses to the Government’s own consultative document—72 residents opting for option 4 and a small number going in any other direction—show that there is real concern that is not being addressed. If that response is not considered sufficient, it would be helpful if the Minister said what type of complaint is required in response.
I conclude by saying that this is an important matter. Not just Twickenham and Chelsea, but many other parts of the country, have a similar interest. I hope that the Government do not feel themselves too committed to refusing the legislative route at this early stage.
1.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Angela E. Smith): I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for raising the matter in debate and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea(Sir Malcolm Rifkind) for making his comments. I will do my best in the time available to respond to the points that have been made.
I understand that the hon. Member for Twickenham has raised these issues on a number of occasions, and he said in his second such Adjournment debate that he remembered the first fondly. I thank him for his comments, and say that his points and the issue are taken seriously. The Government’s response has moved along in line with responses that he and others have made on this matter.
Some of us might recall that the issue of security of tenure for the boat owners was raised during the passage of the Housing Act 2004, as well as before that in relation to a number of matters, which the hon. Gentleman’s questions and debates on the matter show.
At that time, the problem centred around harassment and terms of contract. There were other issues that also concerned boat owners, and some of those are outlined in the document that we spoke about during the consultation. As a result of those issues being raised, and following an undertaking given in another place during the 2004 Act’s progression through Parliament, the Government undertook to investigate those matters further.
There was a considerable correspondence from all sides, which helped to inform our consideration. The consultation, which the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea referred to, proceeded following discussion with stakeholders.
A full public consultation was published in November and, as has been said by Opposition Members, we have posed four options to address the problems identified. They range from maintaining the status quo to introducing legislation. I have to correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who says that the Government have ruled out the legislative option. That is not true. That is kept under review, and I will come on to it in a moment. It is important that we look at the matter in the round. Security of tenure would be a significant step, and one that the Government could consider in line with other options.
We received 135 responses to the consultation exercise, including many from the constituency of the hon. Member for Twickenham. As he said, and as was expected, there was no overall consensus on the way forward. Indeed, he referred to the issue becoming increasingly polarised. There was little common ground between responses from residents and those from mooring operators.
The response did show helpfully a number of similar contractual disagreements between residential boat owners and the mooring operators. They indicated to the Department that the situation was further complicated because not all parties were sure of the role played by the navigation authorities—the hon. Gentleman referred to them—in enforcing controls. I can confirm that we will be making contact with the navigation authorities to discuss that matter.
The responses suggested also that although contractual problems are not widespread, there does need to be far better communication between the parties concerned. There is a misunderstanding of the rights and responsibilities of each party.
The hon. Gentleman was a bit dismissive of some current legislation. Perhaps it is worth touching on some of it. He said that the Government have “bought” the argument that existing legislation is sufficient. That question was asked in the consultation document. It is unfair to say that the Government “bought” the argument. When posing questions and asking for responses, the Government must consider all arguments put to them.
The occupants of residential boats have the benefit of protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. I appreciate that that Act does not cover all the areas about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. However, under the Act, “acts likely to interfere” with peace or comfort are classified as harassment. That has been raised before, and it is worth noting that that Act covers that concern.
The 1977 Act also covers illegal eviction. If residents believe that they have been harassed or subject to an illegal eviction, they should contact their local authority for help, guidance and assistance. The Department might be able to improve contact with local authorities to assist.
In addition, the Office of Fair Trading, local trading standards departments and other regulators are responsible for enforcing consumer protection legislation, in particular the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Those apply to written agreements, and either party can go to court if they feel that unfair terms exist so as to rectify the situation.
Consultation raised some general concerns about the working of the OFT and protection from eviction legislation, but no evidence was produced to show that they are not working in regard to residential boat owners. The hon. Gentleman gave specific examples. If he lets me have them, I shall pass them on to my colleague in another place, who will look at the issues raised.
From the consultation, it seems to us that many residents are not aware of the existence of relevant legislation or of the involvement of the OFT. We need to consider whether the problem is with the existing legislation or with its implementation and residents’ understanding of what is available to them.
The issue of the number of moorings was also raised in consultation. As has been indicated by the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the demand for existing moorings is high, and there needs to be an increase. It also became clear that new legislation further to control the activities of mooring operators for residential moorings could lead to a short and medium-term reduction in the number of available residential moorings. The majority of mooring operators made it clear that new legislation would make it harder for them effectively to manage their businesses and the surrounding environment.
Along with all the other responses to the consultation, we took note of those concerns because residential moorings constitute only a small part of many operators’ businesses. The concern is that those moorings could be removed or the number reduced, and holiday and pleasure moorings increased. So, there would be reduction in the number of such moorings, even though we need an increase. There is concern that legislation could exacerbate, rather than address, some of the issues before us. We might be able to deal with some of the concerns raised by increasing the number of moorings.
As we have only recently realised this ourselves, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has set up a working party on the issue of moorings. My Department has worked closely with DEFRA on this issue.
There was a consensus over the issue of planning permission for new moorings or marinas, or the continued use of existing sites. The existing planning policy guidance note 3 on housing requires assessments of housing need to underpin local plan policies. PPG3 is clear that local authorities should consider the needs of specific groups, but does not identify them separately. We are currently undertaking extensive reform of the planning system, which will give local authorities the opportunity to take into account community participation at a local level and will mean that the needs of residential boaters can be identified more easily by the authority.
I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to talk to the local authority and residential boat owners in his constituency in order to urge them to engage with their local planning authority. By bringing both sides together, a greater awareness should be created within local authorities of the concerns, demands and needs of residential boat owners.
The responses received highlighted the need for better communication between parties; a clearer understanding of the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved; and the need for an outline of the responsibilities for enforcing authorities. Where do we go from here? Our concern is whether legislation would resolve the issues or create an overall better deal for residential boat owners. I am not 100 per cent. convinced that that is the case at present. Consequently, we have decided that these issues are best addressed not in legislation but in guidance. In our response to the consultation process, published in May, we made a commitment to develop best practice guidance and a model agreement for mooring operators to use.
Together, these will set out our expectations and show mooring operators that our plans are not intended to be detrimental to their business, but that high regard needs to be given to residential boat owners. That is in line with the Government’s better regulation agenda. In addition, we will continue with the ongoing planning reform so that additional suitable moorings can be developed, and we will include the planning aspects of residential houseboats in the best practice guidance.
We have to recognise that those
operating moorings are managing a business. Like all businesses, they
need to set targets for ensuring there are reductions in the number of
complaints; that they improve their performance on resolving disputes;
and that greater importance is attached to resolving matters in a
timely manner. We want to help them achieve that. The next step for us
is to begin work on the best practice
guidance. We have had indications from a number of organisations of
their willingness to be involved in developing that guidance, including
the Swan Island Residents Association based in the hon.
Gentleman’s constituency. A number of organisations have
suggested what should be included in the guidance, and we welcome this
and look forward to working with them and other
stakeholders.
We are now seeking to bring together a working group, including other Departments with an interest in this area, later in the year. I would be happy to keep hon. Members informed of progress. We will be writing to all interested parties in the coming months to set the process in motion and engage with them.
We will be looking for the working group to take a view on the scope of the guidance and ensure that it addresses the needs identified through the consultation. If we can bring together stakeholders to agree the guidance, that will carry far greater weight in the sector and will give boat owners the protection that they need.
I accept that action in this area has been sought for a number of years. We are now making progress, but the priority must be getting the document right. I trust that it will then strike the right balance between protecting houseboat residents and ensuring that mooring operators can run their business in a way that is fair to residents.
I am not able to give a date at present, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is not something that we want to delay. I have asked officials that among the early issues for agreement of the working group should be the scope and framework of the document, and we will place copies in the Library of the House.
The Government are committed to ensuring that what we introduce will provide a more secure footing for the owners of residential boats, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue today.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o’clock.
| Index | Home Page |