This is a human rights issue concerning the right of individuals to live aboard a vessel permanently without being treated less fairly than other individuals.

Most live-aboard cruisers manage to sustain their lifestyle by living within a fairly restricted set of financial circumstances. Some are on a state retirement or disability pension, others have managed to save up enough money in the course of their working lives to get an annual income and others work, either ashore or aboard, via the Internet.

Having invested in the vessel aboard which they live, most cruisers have committed the bulk of their capital to this choice of abode. By living at anchor, without having to make payment for it, wherever they go, live-aboard cruisers can manage to live within their means.

One of the factors affecting this choice for most live-aboard sailors was the existence, since at least 1650, of safe havens where one might freely anchor, all over Europe (and, indeed, the world) at no cost and for as long as the immigration laws of the country involved (where applicable) allowed. Gradually, but with increasing rapidity, changes are being made to the situation.

Having to pay high anchorage or mooring fees everywhere would put many live-aboard cruisers in a position of having to abandon this lifestyle and return to their countries of origin where they would then probably have to ask for financial help from their governments, including housing.

Most second-hand boats would not sell for enough to enable the owner to move ashore at his, or her, own expense, if they can be sold at all. In a recession this is even more true. Being unable to sell the vessel or keep it anywhere, the cruiser will have to abandon the vessel somehow and go home or stay aboard and starve or turn to ways of finding the money to pay for anchoring or cruising in whatever manner is possible. This may include having to turn to crime for some.

The live-aboard cruisers who would be eligible for a Free Sea pass would be those who have no other residence and have been living aboard at least two years, for example. In the event that the individual moved ashore, the pass would be surrendered.

In a sense, this is akin to giving 'grandfather's' rights to lorry drivers already working in that profession when the HGV (Heavy Good Vehicle) Licence was created. It was accepted that it would be unjust to expect existing lorry drivers to re-learn their trade.

Whilst it may be acceptable to charge holiday sailors, charter yachts and corporate recreation vessels high prices for  use of a buoy or to anchor, and restrict their stay to a few days, it is not fair practice to apply these sanctions to people whose home is the sea.

This is not an attempt to 'save' money or get something we did not already have. Most live-aboard sailors live within a strict budget and could not be expected to have factored in these charges that have only recently begun to come into existence.

Incidentally, MEPs might like to take this opportunity to consider using the Free Sea Pass idea to additionally legitimise live-aboard sailor's addresses as being their vessels. Currently, a boat is considered as 'no fixed abode' by most authorities, in a pejorative manner, in spite of modern communications (mobile telephones and the Internet, for example) making it quite easy to contact the vast majority of live-aboard sailors, wherever they may be. No fixed abode is usually intended to signify that an individual has no home, which is not true of those who live aboard a boat.