Allan(nb Albert)

If anyone is interested in analysing stoppages, there are dumps of old and new databases (CSV format) in response to this FOI request. Alternatively, you analyse the new database using traditional techniques. I think if you read back through this thread you will find a number of people saying CRT has too many employees. What I have done is suggested why they might hold that view.

Quite true, but I am sure they will have considered it alongside all other options for reducing expenditure and increasing income.

The number of staff has risen by 15% but outsourcing suggests that the number should have fallen. The number of executives has risen, each having a department. Initiatives aimed at reducing staff numbers, such as the reduction in Regions from 13 to 12 and then 6 should have resulted in staff reductions but the numbers have gone up. A parallel perception is that, whilst staff numbers have increased, there are less staff to be seen on the frontline. Using the measure of number of unplanned stoppages, last year was the worst year ever. Taking stoppages where a reason of "water resources" or "low water" is given out of the equation then last year was still the worst year ever. Statutory and Charitable duty to maintain the waterways for navigation, Yes, I have been collecting stoppage information on a daily basis for years. In 2012, the stoppage database would show an average of 8 unplanned stoppages active each day. This has climbed year on year and now we are about three times that figure. Last year,however, was exceptional due to water resources and at the worst times we were seeing over 50 stoppages active. Click here for a todays list.

There is a general perception that CRT has too many staff. The promise of a leaner organisation was probably in response to that and a need to cut costs The fact is that staff numbers have increased by 15% and the board of trustees would be failing in its duty if it has not considered cutting numbers to save, say, £10m per year as part of a reorganisation. My personal view of large reorganisations and redundancies (and in particular voluntary schemes) is that they often fail to deliver the expected benefits. With regard to maintaining its waterways for navigation, last year was CRT's worst year ever by a country mile.

I suspect most will be more concerned about growth in staff numbers, particularly after promises of a leaner organisation a couple of years ago.

With regard to staff numbers, some time back I compared 2024/25 staff numbers and costs with 2012/13 figures. Over this 12 year period, CRT has increased staff numbers by 15% (on an Full Time Equivalent basis). This is despite a perception that outsourcing has increased over this time. Staff costs have risen by 50%. Whilst it seems that the executive team is going down from eleven to nine, there is no indication yet that CRT will launch a redundancy program.

1805 according to the Charity Commission.

Deleted as current structure chart already posted.

The eleven strong executive team and direct reports - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/document/IAzKi2aVXU9v6sBSz3jr1g/DojI9zOyEaty2Ftw0nZn7MLBhbZJv79KlfzLRl2pabY/aHR0cHM6Ly9jcnRwcm9kY21zdWtzMDEuYmxvYi5jb3JlLndpbmRvd3MubmV0L2RvY3VtZW50Lw/0189bc31-a2ad-7548-9b44-a80c4129d284.pdf

I agree. For what it's worth, I believe that Richard Parry did not chose to go either.

I understand that Sharman's staff were aware of her departure and rumours started spreading to volunteers so something had to be said in a hurry. No doubt a proper announcement will be made in due course, perhaps with the launch of a new ten year strategy.

Another CRT reorganisation - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U45qw6l0NAI

I have been told that CRT trustee, Sir James Bevan, is to step down following the Channel 4 TV mini series "Dirty Business". Having watched the programs, I can understand why. There is also a petition aiming to strip him of his Knighthood.

Length has always been used as a proxy for ability to pay. The general idea is that the poorer boater is not excluded on price as he/she can afford to buy a shorter boat which is cheaper to licence. Of course, this is not perfect and alternatives have been considered. However, they all seem to have flaws or be open to abuse. Bearing in mind that old commercial toll based systems were often based on weight, I wonder if the general principal of differential charging on some arbitrary measure has just been carried forward. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the Parry/Sharman decision report suggested that CRT's board reject area based charging. No mention was made that it should be rejected due to lack of boaters support. The reason given was that current charging by length is not linear. Shorter boats pay more per metre than longer boats. A move to area based charging would mean that shorter boats would benefit at the expense of longer boats.

Ok, I accept that. It was more than ten years that I took this up with CRT. At the time some charities were starting to suggest that an admission charges could be converted to a donation which would, for example, allow free entry for a year. As a donation it might attract gift aid. The information given by CRT that it was possible might have been incorrect. Alternatively, HMRC might have changed rules to close what they saw as a loophole.