How's it going?

[Boatone]

Must confess I have not visited here for a while but I hope you won't mind a couple of questions from the big river.

Now that the C&RT have been running the show for a while I would be interested to know how you guys think the changeover is going. I know its early days but do you perceive a change for the better ?

I've also seen recently that it is claimed officially that licence evasion has been reduced to around 4% but have heard from individual canal users that they are very sceptical about this. Any comment?

 

Why am I interested? Because the government is still intent on transferring management of the EA navigations to the C&RT in 2015 and, frankly, we know next to s*d all about how such a transfer of navigation responsibilities might take place. Not least, we still need to know what "navigation" in this context actually means and which current responsibilities might be retained by the EA.

 

Will it be out of the frying pan and into the fire? If nothing else, the creation of the C&RT seems to have given the trust long term confidence in the level of government funding and the opportunity to work with long term budgets as well as freedom to develop new income streams.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Boatone

[sueb]

The EA was always more efficient than the old BW. Decisions were always made swiftly whilst with BW the same things are still being discussed 10 yrs on. Cart have the same staff as BW and I haven't seen any change except less staff and volunteers doing non essential jobs.

Fight this proposal

[alan_fincher]

Whilst it is correct that CRT initially started up with the ex BW workforce, Sues typically negative reply fails to acknowledge an ongoing weeding oot of some of the old guard, or some appointments of newcomers that are a breath of fresh air.

 

Nor does she mention that CRT will be pegging licence increases to inflation, whereas EA continue with greater than inflation increases.

 

Even the regular BW CRT knockers don't tend to challenge the 4% licence evasion figure. It seems to sound about right to me.

ALSO

 

The CEO is changing, and many seem to rate the incoming man far mote highly than the outgoing one.

[Boaty Jo]

The EA was always more efficient than the old BW. Decisions were always made swiftly whilst with BW the same things are still being discussed 10 yrs on. Cart have the same staff as BW and I haven't seen any change except less staff and volunteers doing non essential jobs.

Fight this proposal

 

Do you have any definitive examples?

[Naughty Cal]

You come to prod the vipers nest Boatone?

[Boatone]

You come to prod the vipers nest Boatone?

Not at all. Others are taking the view that we should oppose the transfer at all costs but I would prefer to form an opinion based on facts rather than emotion. The EA are stonewalling my efforts to get information regarding what is meant by "the navigation" and how the current EA responsibilities might be divided up - I suspect that they don't know and are still trying to make their minds up !

We also don't know what the government grant of additional monies to the C&RT might be if the transfer does take place, nor do we know what safeguards might be put in place to ensure that such funding is applied to the river rather than being absorbed into the general C&RT pot.

Does the C&RT actually want the additional responsibility? As a trust they will need to ensure that accepting the rivers into their portfolio does not place their existing duties at risk.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Boatone

[sueb]

Cart are still having the same consultations on continuous cruising and mooring that were happening 10 or more years ago. EA haven't had these for years as they were resolved at the time. I do hope the new CEO makes a difference as it is the whole mind set that is wrong.

I am very positive about the EA and if it goes down the charity route I hope it is a separate one. I was at the parliamentary enquiry when the amalgamation was last discussed and Glenys Dunwoody wasn't impressed with the BW spin. EA quietly put their case and won.

[carlt]

Cart are still having the same consultations on continuous cruising and mooring that were happening 10 or more years ago. EA haven't had these for years as they were resolved at the time.

The BW consultations tended to be with "user groups" who had their own, very fixed agendas.

 

CRT (I'm still not sure why you persist with the acronym that is not their choice, other than to sneer, Soobee) on the other hand do seem to be engaging more with actual users rather than the minority "associations" that represent nobody but their members.

 

There seems to be more action on the ground, too, though not all of it change for the good.

 

EA's problems are very different to BW/CRT's and the mooring issues are not really their responsibility, as they don't actually own much of the bank.

 

Riparian and common law rights associated with natural waterways, whilst presenting their own set of complications, offer EA a certain amount of detachment that is not available to CRT with their whooly owned man-made waterways.

 

I do share your concerns, regarding an amalgamation, but I think EA would struggle far more with managing CRT's canals than CRT would if they took on the rivers (minus the drainage/flood/irrigation issues of course).

[Boatone]

"Cart are still having the same consultations on continuous cruising and mooring that were happening 10 or more years ago. EA haven't had these for years as they were resolved at the time."

Sorry, but you are sadly misinformed about this. The problems persist today and moorings are a far more serious issue for the river.

 

"I am very positive about the EA and if it goes down the charity route I hope it is a separate one."

No chance. IMHO. It was clearly stated by government that their intention would be to transfer the EA navigations to the C&RT following the spending review and practicalities resolved.

 

Whilst I appreciate the engagement, I am really looking for reports of experience to date and confidence amongst canal users regarding how well the transfer was managed and whether you think it will ultimately turn out to be a better way than it was under BW.

 

In particular, funding has always been the real issue and I am looking for evidence that the freedom now enjoyed by C&RT to identify new sources of revenue is actually working, or at least showing promise in the fullness of time.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Boatone

[churchward]

Not at all. Others are taking the view that we should oppose the transfer at all costs but I would prefer to form an opinion based on facts rather than emotion. The EA are stonewalling my efforts to get information regarding what is meant by "the navigation" and how the current EA responsibilities might be divided up - I suspect that they don't know and are still trying to make their minds up !

We also don't know what the government grant of additional monies to the C&RT might be if the transfer does take place, nor do we know what safeguards might be put in place to ensure that such funding is applied to the river rather than being absorbed into the general C&RT pot.

Does the C&RT actually want the additional responsibility? As a trust they will need to ensure that accepting the rivers into their portfolio does not place their existing duties at risk.

That is true and any addition to the portfolio will need to come with a sufficient increase in funding.

 

It has to be remembered that CRT already manage some rivers not just canals.

 

The biggest question for me in taking EA waters into CRT are the flood control responsibilities.

 

Personally I hope the merger happens I think a single inland waterway authority is a good thing.

[carlt]

 

Personally I hope the merger happens I think a single inland waterway authority is a good thing.

There have to be a few more mergers for that to happen

 

Personally I think that the removal of choice, particularly when many boaters are dissatisfied with CRT's performance, is not a good thing.

 

When I decided to vote with my feet and leave BW waters I had a choice of where to move to and have, since then, graced the waterways managed by 4 different authorities all, in my opinion, doing their job better than BW were.

 

I am now considering moving back to CRT waters but would not be too happy at losing such a big bolt-hole as EA, should it all go pear-shaped again.

[Tuscan]

It is too soon to say IMO whether in the last year funding via external sources has increased significantly and indeed whether such increases are being spent on navigational issues. There has certainly been an increase in volunteer activity. Their is certainty of funding but as has been said elsewhere this is still insufficient to clear the maintenance backlog 'twas ever so....

 

Their is a new CEO so hopefully a new brush but the existing management exists substantially as was, it is to be hoped that the CEO's background of the rail industry has not left him with the view of ever increasing fares and ever increasing passengers forever caught in a cycle. I will take him time to make an impact but as with all new CEO's I am sure there will be one.

 

The issue with the EA / CRT link IMO is one of cash , do either of them have the experience to accurately cost and predict the difference between navigation and flood control activities for example previously EA had been able to shift funds from either budget to suit pressures on either one this would no longer be the case. The new CEO may want to increase his empire but I think CRT would be mad to take on the EA responsibilities until it had fully developed as a charity unless the government was prepared to throw so much money at it that it couldn't refuse.

[churchward]

There have to be a few more mergers for that to happen

 

Personally I think that the removal of choice, particularly when many boaters are dissatisfied with CRT's performance, is not a good thing.

 

When I decided to vote with my feet and leave BW waters I had a choice of where to move to and have, since then, graced the waterways managed by 4 different authorities all, in my opinion, doing their job better than BW were.

 

I am now considering moving back to CRT waters but would not be too happy at losing such a big bolt-hole as EA, should it all go pear-shaped again.

Fair point there would be for everything but EA and CRT together would be a huge majority of inland waterways. I still think that if (it's a big if I grant you) a large inland waterway authority is managed and funded correctly there are cost efficiencies to be made over two separate authorities as it is now.

[Boatone]

Well, looks like CRT won't be getting their hands on the EA Navigations yet awhile:

A ministerial statement today confirms that the proposed transfer of the EA Navigations to the Canal and Rivers Trust will be deferred.

Initial scoping work on transfer costs which was undertaken during the New Waterways Charity Project indicates that the transfer of EA navigations is unlikely to be affordable in the current climate. The Government has therefore decided that the Review planned for 2013/14 to consider options for the transfer will be postponed until Defra’s finances improve and there is a realistic prospect of the transfer being affordable and that it can take place on terms which would enable CRT’s Trustees to manage the additional liabilities involved.

You can read the single page statement here:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/c...avigations.pdf

 

I have a feeling this will turn out to be bad news - only time will reveal how bad.