Antisocial Behaviour on Canals and Rivers: Bath

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Breast Cancer: Younger Women

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to continue to raise awareness, but I am pointing out that even when young women are aware and go to a doctor, the doctor says, “Don’t worry about it.” However, I agree that we need to continue to make sure that women examine their breasts and are aware of the risks of breast cancer, even when they are young.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I spoke to the hon. Lady yesterday. This is a massive issue for me and my constituents back home, and they bring it to my attention all the time. It was great to attend the Breast Cancer Now “Wear It Pink” event last month to raise awareness of the most common cancer in the UK. Studies have suggested that breast cancer among younger women has a more aggressive pathophysiology, correlating to poorer outcomes compared with those for breast tumours in older patients. Does the hon. Lady agree that consideration must be given to lowering the age requirement for breast screening to ensure quicker intervention for younger women?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I will come to that later in my speech, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are here to make the case for earlier screening programmes for younger women, because it is becoming such an issue—the rates are increasing. It is because of Lucy’s struggle to get a diagnosis that she felt the need to speak up on behalf of the countless young people who would not question decisions made by medical professionals.