River Thames: Unauthorised Mooring

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Sir Nicholas Dakin.)

19:11:00

No issue in my constituency demonstrates more the inertia and failure of the previous political leadership than the problem of overstayed, wrecked and abandoned boats that have been left to proliferate along the banks of the Thames for the last decade. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to bring this issue to the attention of the House and the Minister. Esher and Walton is a river community. The Thames forms our boundary with London; its waters have brought Vikings to raid Walton and kings to live in Hampton Court, and it is loved by my constituents. We have rowing clubs in Molesey and Walton that generate home-grown Olympians, the Ajax and Viking sea scouts, and wild swimming groups. We have riverside businesses that contribute to our local economy and provide residents and tourists with access to the most famous river in our land. All these activities have been impacted by the sunken, wrecked and abandoned boats, alongside unlicensed overstay boats. They line the entire length of my constituency, from the Dittons through Molesey and down into Walton-on-Thames. There are wrecked vessels, half sunk and rusting, on the banks opposite Hampton Court Palace, visible to the hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit. Next door, there are overstay boats which one constituent described as a “small village”; it is Dickensian. The overstay boats are almost always unregistered. They turn up, moor, and then stay for months, sometimes years. In addition to this impunity, they generate litter and waste. Some boats apparently operate as Airbnbs. Others have erected fences: they have fenced off public land on the towpath, put up “Keep out” and “Private” signs, and intimidated residents. Stretches of land—our riverbank, enjoyed for centuries by my constituents—have become no-go areas characterised by drug use and antisocial behaviour.

I commend the hon. Lady for introducing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand to hear her thoughts on what she hopes to achieve. I represent a constituency that is equally as nice as hers, and I can well understand the desire to stay and take advantage of the lovely locations on the River Thames. However, the people she describes are taking advantage and preventing others from having enjoyment that is meant for all. Does she agree that we must have regulations in place that allow for reasonable enjoyment, without people taking advantage?

The hon. Gentleman makes the main point that I want to make today: I will speak about regulations and who is accountable. One resident told me: “In the past few years, my neighbours and I have been subjected to constant harassment, including threats of physical harm, theft of property, firing of catapults, fly-tipping, dog fouling and antisocial behaviour.” That is profoundly unfair on my constituents. Residents who pay their taxes have lost the river as they know it. Rowing clubs and boat hire and paddle board companies are unable to launch. Residents with boats who want to take them out and moor alongside riverside restaurants and cafés are unable to do so. The Molesey regatta, which has been a fixture of my community since 1867 and in which I declare an interest as an honorary president, has been required to alter the course of its race. In October, a single clean-up of one stretch of riverbank populated by these boats yielded more than 1 tonne of waste. The Environment Agency has failed to get to grips with the situation over a period of years, meaning that the number of such boats in Elmbridge has risen steadily. At the last count, the tally was approaching 250.

In Maidenhead, the local authority and generous individuals have taken matters into their own hands and have been able to get rid of many sunken boats along our stretch of the Thames. The EA has regarded owners of land as being responsible, but lots of riverbank owners are not known—we do not know who lots of the mooring owners are—and that causes significant delays and costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Environment Agency to step up and take responsibly? It should be supporting our community, rather than trying to pass on responsibility to unknown landowners.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my constituency, the sense of frustration and disappointment with the Environment Agency is palpable. When a highly visible problem goes unaddressed year after year, as it has for a decade, and when a situation is allowed to deteriorate, it creates a deep sense of disappointment and frustration, and it undermines the faith that people have in the Government to deal with the things that affect people’s day-to-day lives.

I recognise the frustrations and problems that my hon. Friend is having getting the relevant supervisory authorities to pay heed. In Brecon, we have a similar issue: the canal might run dry following Welsh Water’s decision to start charging the Canal & River Trust for the water it extracts, yet none of the relevant authorities have responded to our request for a meeting. Does my hon. Friend agree that in instances like that, it would be helpful for the Minister whose Department is implicated to pay attention? They should come to Brecon and help us to find a solution.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I would like the Minister to come to Esher and Walton first, although I appreciate his desire for her to visit his constituency as well. My predecessor in Esher and Walton, a previous Deputy Prime Minister, brought the former Environment Secretary to see the problem for herself. They committed to the permanent removal of these boats, but nothing happened: yet another broken Conservative promise. Either my predecessor was uninterested or he was ineffective. Like many, I had hope that the new Government would bring change. I wrote to the newly appointed Secretary of State and the chief executive of the Environment Agency as soon as I was elected, asking for action. At that point, there were 180 boats. I was pleased with the Minister’s reply, which acknowledged that the EA, as the navigation authority along the non-tidal Thames, was committed to managing the situation and to delivering a detailed action plan laying out clear steps for enforcement. I was assured that EA officials wished to regain the trust of the community. As a result of that letter, the EA towed away two of the largest and longest staying boats during an enforcement day—hooray! Elmbridge borough council housing department joined the operation and modelled a joined-up approach with the police and the Environment Agency to respond to any homelessness issues. My local council is ready and willing to play its part, but it is frustrated that the EA is not playing its part. The enforcement success in the autumn should have marked the beginning of renewed energy and action, with a long-term plan to finally get to grips with the problem. Instead, it was followed up with almost nothing, and the situation has since deteriorated. That is despite months and months of advocacy and regular meetings with the EA, in which I have heard again and again about its intention to clear the boats. It has consistently overpromised and underdelivered. I was promised a survey of abandoned vessels before comprehensive removals and a long-term strategic enforcement plan as a prelude to making progress in the spring. Well, it is spring now, but both documents were endlessly delayed. Last month, the EA finally produced the survey, but it was presented so confusingly that the council found it almost useless, and I am now told that the EA cannot resource any of it. When the plan came, it was manifestly insufficient. In today’s letter, the Minister referenced that document—the Thames waterways compliance and enforcement plan for Elmbridge—which I have read. It runs for 10 pages and makes one minor mention of taking action to reduce the number of unauthorised and unregistered boats, which should have been the central focus. As one of its tactical objectives, the plan promises to develop a clear and tactical plan. We have yet another promise, but no plan. All in all, the document marked a dramatic roll- back of previous ambitions. It has an almost complete lack of measurable targets, metrics and accountability mechanisms. In other words, there is no way to assess the progress of the EA in delivering outcomes against agreed objectives or on key concerns, such as the number of boats removed, the number of registration offences or the rubbish cleared. In fact, at our last meeting, the area manager suggested that the problem had become so big that it was too expensive to fix.

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way—rivers have two banks, and we share one of them. I congratulate Spelthorne borough council, the EA and the police on doing such a good job on the Spelthorne side. I offer my support to the hon. Member in her endeavour to make her side of the river better. If we can give any assistance, we will of course do so.

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour. I would love to work with him, the Environment Agency, our relevant borough councils and the police in order to fix this problem.

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in such an important debate. I entirely share her frustrations about progress with these boats. This issue affects many of my constituents not just in Weybridge, but across my constituency. I am sure that she will come on to this point. Given the nature of rivers, does she agree that a positive step forward would be working with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) and the Minister to try to get a group together so that rather than pushing the boats on, we can tackle the issue once and for all?

I thank the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for that point. I have no intention at all of pushing the boats down to his constituency: I want them gone. There can be nothing more powerful for our constituents than us working across parties in order to fix this problem. The BBC picked up on this story this morning. The EA gave a statement to BBC Radio Surrey in which it claimed to be taking “firm, lawful and proportionate action”. That is manifestly not the case: the action is not firm or proportionate. It also said that the current situation highlights the need for a “more sustainable, systemic response” and pledged a “longer-term approach”. This is the same hot air that we have heard for years and years, waffling on about the need for long-term plans while the situation deteriorates. All in all, this is a sad indictment of the poverty of ambition, application and competence in a body charged by taxpayers with protecting our waterways. Indeed, it is hard to overstate the disappointment of my constituents at the seeming inability of the Environment Agency to deliver results, even against objectives that it or the Secretary of State has set. This is the endless cycle: the most basic promises made to residents, the council or me are jettisoned after months of prevarication; the goals that remain are without measurement or accountability. I worry from the Minister’s letter to me this afternoon that, regrettably, nothing will change, apart from her very kind ask of the Environment Agency to review its enforcement approach and her commitment to strengthening the EA’s approach. I am keen to hear how she intends to follow up on those points. I was deeply frustrated that much of the letter repeated what I, my residents and the council have being hearing from the EA for months and years: promises of new plans and more joined-up working, and recognition of past disappointments and the need for change. The Environment Agency says that it wants to regain the trust of my constituents. That trust is at rock bottom. What is needed now is far greater oversight—ministerial if necessary —and accountability against specific and deliverable goals. I recently attended a public meeting with residents of Hurst Park and Molesey on a Friday night that was packed to the rafters with constituents deeply upset and justifiably angry with the situation. The essence of what people call broken Britain is the sense that the public realm is incapable of solving problems, even the most egregious and obvious ones—those that people and businesses see and feel every single day. The Prime Minister and members of the Government have spoken repeatedly about the need to rebuild trust in the state, rebuild its capacity, and show the people that systems can work and achieve things. Something that my residents and I have found particularly frustrating is the difficulty of attaching any accountability at all to anyone at any point, despite failure after failure. A failure to act deprives these people who I am privileged to represent—those who play by the rules and pay for public services—of the land, peace and natural beauty that they have always enjoyed. I ask the Minister to give this matter her personal attention, and to work with me to solve it as a matter of priority. I would like her to work with me to show the people of Esher and Walton that good politics makes things better. Boats listed by the Environment Agency as wrecked or abandoned can, and should, be cleared immediately. Doing so quickly and forcefully, rather than piecemeal, removes one of the permanent risks of those boats—namely, that a change in river conditions could dislodge vessels and transform them into immediate hazards. Clearing overstayed boats requires taking legal steps, and it is vital that this work is consistently and properly resourced. Taking a start-and-stop approach is not an option, because many enforcement mechanisms unlocked by serving initial notices on boats must be completed within a certain period of time. Letting opportunities disappear sets everything back to square one. The local police and the local council are ready and eager to help, and have put resources aside to do their part. As such, will the Minister commit personally to driving forward meaningful action on this issue through the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; to providing the necessary energy and resources; and to giving me a point of contact with officials in her department to co-ordinate our work? Will she also commit to meeting me, either in this place or in my constituency—where the problem can be seen and believed—to discuss the progress that we can make together? The problem of overstayed and sunken boats should not be intractable; everyone can see the problem, and the solution is obvious. It is time to show that collectively, we can deliver.

19:27:00

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) on securing this important debate, and welcome the contributions from the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) as well. In an Adjournment debate, it is very nice to see cross-party working on an issue of local importance. [Interruption.] I also thank the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds).

The Minister will have heard the points we have made about the lack of supervisory authorities. Will she write to the Welsh Minister responsible and ask him to look into the case of the Brecon canal?

Order. The hon. Gentleman is very quick on his feet. I call the Minister.

Obviously, water is a devolved matter. I do not want to get into an issue for which power is devolved, or I would be instructing a Welsh Minister about what they should or should not be doing. I encourage the hon. Member to write back to the Welsh Minister, and maybe copy in the Secretary of State for Wales. That might be one way forward, rather than a Minister in this place being seen to tell a Minister in a different Government what they should or should not be doing. That would be stretching the confines of this debate, to which I will now return. We have heard much this evening about the benefits that our rivers and canals bring to so many people in our constituencies—benefits that have been very eloquently articulated by hon. Members. We have heard about the Vikings, about Olympians and about how important waterways are to everyone in our areas. I was pleased to hear about the enforcement success in the autumn, but obviously disappointed to hear that progress has not been what it should have been. I will come on to that issue later. Our inland waterways are an asset to our country. They are important to our national heritage and provide many public benefits—people live on them, enjoy being by them and use them for leisure and recreation, as well as their historical value. They form an important part of our natural environment by providing green corridors along which biodiversity can flourish, as well as contributing to the growth of local economies, such as through domestic tourism. We have heard quite a lot about that this evening. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton has eloquently spoken of the beauty and tranquillity of the river in her constituency, and it is indeed one of our most majestic rivers as it winds its way along. Our navigation authorities have an important role to play into the future, and I pay tribute to them all as they maintain our waterways for the benefit of all users. I pay tribute to their staff, who deal with many varied situations on a daily basis, sometimes in difficult circumstances. Those authorities will help to ensure that a significant element of our nation’s key infrastructure is resilient to climate change, and they will help us to meet our net zero targets through sustainable transport and energy generation. They will also contribute to water security through flood mitigation measures and water transfers. The hon. Member has spoken in detail about overstayed boats in Elmbridge and about boats that are illegally moored or derelict, abandoned or sunk. She has drawn particular attention to the adverse impacts that that is having on the use and enjoyment of the river by other waterway users, including those walking along the Thames path. I was concerned to hear accounts of antisocial behaviour and abuse directed at people trying to enjoy the riverways. She has also described her interactions with the Environment Agency as the navigation authority for the non-tidal River Thames and with other local authorities in the area in seeking to find a satisfactory resolution. I was pleased to hear the comments about the willingness of the local council and the police to work together on this issue. I recognise the seriousness of the issues in Elmbridge and neighbouring constituencies, the understandable strength of feeling locally and the need for co-ordinated action to address them. I assure the hon. Member that the Environment Agency, which I have spoken to, also understands that and is looking to develop specific actions towards resolutions. I note the point she made about it having a deliverable plan and being seen to be taking action. In fairness, let me mention the wider context in which the Environment Agency is working when it comes to enforcement. Any enforcement has to be within the law and careful and proportionate. It has discretionary landowner powers, not statutory duties, creating limitations for action on private land and where enforcement would cause disproportionate harm.

I have had countless meetings with the EA linked with Elmbridge and in trying to deal with this problem, particularly in Desborough cut and Weybridge. Does the Minister think that the EA has sufficient powers in statute to be able to tackle this issue? She just mentioned discretionary powers. Do we need to change the law so that this can be dealt with once and for all?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I am informed by the Environment Agency that it does have the powers, but I want to take that point away and question the EA about that. Is it a question of needing different powers, or are the powers there through the council and perhaps the police working together?

I have brought up those points with the Environment Agency and the council. They appear to have the statutory powers to act. Whether they have the will and resourcing to do it is the sticking point.

I hope to come on to address some of the things that the EA wants to do. Where a boat is a home, especially in cases of potential vulnerability, the Environment Agency needs to work with local housing and safeguarding teams to assess welfare concerns. That is why it is so important—I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments on this—that the council is willing to work together. The question is about whether the powers are available to remove the boat, but if there is a risk of people becoming homeless, the situation becomes more complicated.

I thank the Minister for giving way again. As I described, when the two largest overstayed boats that had occupants were removed, Elmbridge borough council was there providing support for those people. The police were also there. There was no problem with the manoeuvres that took place on that day.

I am really pleased to hear that. I was also pleased when the hon. Lady mentioned that in her speech as an effective example of agencies working together to achieve the same aim. The Environment Agency must use its resources to ensure effective enforcement along the entire 144 mile length of the river—the point has been made about not wanting to move a problem somewhere else—where similar pressures exist, balancing cost and benefit against other priorities. When a removal is necessary, it must be carried out within the safety parameters of the river, and when the river is flowing fast, the removal may be temporarily suspended. I completely accept the point made this evening that the Environment Agency’s progress in taking appropriate action is not as fast as the hon. Lady would like it to be, but it is none the less positive, and looks to the long term rather than a series of short-term measures. The agency has deployed time, staff resources and financial investment in Elmbridge, although, as I have said, I recognise that it has not done so with the speed that the hon. Lady would like. It has used specialist officers, legal teams and contractors, with more than £150,000 spent in 2024-25 on enforcement operations, ongoing legal action and vessel removals in the Elmbridge area. Several derelict or sunken vessels have been removed between Hampton Court and Shepperton, and legal proceedings continue following a court ruling covering part of the Elmbridge bank downstream of Sunbury Lock, which is being appealed against. Trespass notices have been issued where necessary, and advice has been given to boaters on registration, conduct and waste responsibilities—the hon. Lady gave some examples of awful behaviour, including littering— and the Environment Agency has also removed boater waste accumulations from agency and local authority land. On 1 April it published a strategic framework for enforcement throughout the 144 mile stretch of the river, and it tells me that it has developed an Elmbridge-specific compliance and enforcement plan that has been shared with local partners for the purpose of their input. However, in the light of the concerns raised by the hon. Lady and her constituents, and by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), the agency is developing a longer-term land management strategy to reduce reliance on enforcement and create more sustainable outcomes instead. It includes the feasibility of additional lawful mooring agreements for registered boaters, supporting local authority duties for homelessness and housing, and biodiversity enhancements to deter trespass in sensitive areas. The agency will be strengthening collaboration with Elmbridge borough council, Surrey police and community partners on necessary enforcement actions, as well as continuing current enforcement deploy-ments over the coming months. In a wider context, it is certainly true that the legislative landscape surrounding navigation management is complex, and that this is a largely historical legacy. With the changing use of waterways over time, new challenges have emerged in relation to, for instance, residential mooring, and they should be taken into account in the shaping of future regulation and planning. We heard a helpful suggestion about the possibility of Members forming a group to discuss this matter. If such a group were to be convened and if I were to be invited to join it, I would be happy to attend a meeting to discuss what more can be done in this regard. I hope I have reassured the Members who have attended this debate that we as a Government greatly value our inland waterways and the work that the navigation authorities do to bring so many benefits to so many people. I hope I have also reassured them that the Environment Agency is determined to ensure that its approach to enforcement is fair and proportionate, and will deliver tangible, lasting outcomes where the impact is most acute. Question put and agreed to.

19:37:00