Jump to content

DEFRA to assess performance of C&RT.


Featured Posts

1 minute ago, Orwellian said:

You're not going to stop are you?

Well, not today, 'i'm just warming up :)

  • Happy 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

CRT already report their own performance. Asking them to tick boxes on a questionnaire now would be akin to asking them to mark their own homework.

Which they do anyway, by making their own questionnaire annually to match the data.

23 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

You really do talk complete rubbish.

Alright, perhaps you are not a .Bot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

What on earth are you talking about, have you been on the Gin again ?

 

 

 

No surprises - It is not unexpected - the DEFRA grant is dependent upon C&RT meeting their targets.

 

If C&RT cannot convince the auditors that they have achieved their KPI's then the future grant is at risk.

 

GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS AND CANAL & RIVER TRUST

 

9.3

Notwithstanding the regular content and cycle of Review Meetings, in the financial year 2021/22 a review will take place to consider whether, and if so, the extent to which there is a case to continue to support by Grant the public benefits (including, but not by way of limitation, provision of land drainage, flood mitigation and other public safety benefits) provided by the waterways under CRT’s stewardship beyond the end of the Grant Period. The 2021/22 Review shall take into account, among other matters, CRT’s performance of its obligations arising under the Grant Agreement. Defra shall issue a report setting out the conclusions of this review with regard to continued support of CRT by Grant beyond the term of this Grant Agreement on or before 1 July 2022

LadyG’s post is more engaging makes far more sense to me than this .... 

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Beo said:

..................... makes far more sense to me than this .... 

 

 

Summary :

 

C&RT have been receiving a grant from the Government of around £50 million per annum.

To keep the grant C&RT have to achieve several targets each year.

C&RT self monitor their achievements.

2021 was set as the year when DEFRA would review C&RTs claims.

If C&RT have not, in reality, achieved the targets, and have been 'fiddling the figures' the Grant will not continue.

If C&RT are as good as they say then further grant aid may be considered.

 

You will note from the KPI's that keeping the navigation open is not a requirement, but tow-path improvements is - says a lot ?

 

KPI's to be measured and must show a year on year improvement :

 

Network stewardship score (public benefit)

No of accidents / incidents

Percentage of assets in class D & E (poor to unusable)

No of towpath visitors

No of towpath closures

Percentage of towpaths in class A to C (exellent to good)

Flood management

SSSI maintenance

No of volunter days

 

One of the interesting 'numbers' that C&RT report (which is not a KPI) is 'No of days the navigation is closed'

The numbers were actually far worse but C&RT have changed the reporting method and criteria to exclude things that are not within their control.

 

Number of days of unplanned navigation closures within our control (individual instances over 48hrs)

 

2017/18 = 490 

2018/19 = 649

2018/19 plan = 450

 

The towpaths may be improving but the condition of the waterways is getting far worse (as we all know)

 

Another set of interesting figures is 'Boater satisfaction' with the waterways :

 

Boating customer satisfaction

2017/18 = 70%

2018/19 = 61%

2018/19 target = 72%

 

Edited by Alan de Enfield
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LadyG said:

I expect that BW  British Waterways still exists in a filing cabint in Whitehall, just like Winscale, renamed Sellafield when it also became an embarassment after nuclear cockups were revealed.

Fear not, British Waterways is still alive and well.  It operates only in Scotland where it is known under its trading name of "Scottish Canals".

See: 

 

British Waterways Annual Report & Accounts 2019/2020
Accounts presented to the Scottish Parliament pursuant to section 24 (3) of the Transport Act 1962 as amended by The British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012, article 2(2) and paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 and article 5(1) and paragraph 3 of Schedule 4.
The Annual Report which is required to be presented to the Scottish Parliament pursuant to section 27 (8c) of the Transport Act 1962 as amended by The British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012, paragraph 17(5) of Schedule 2 will be published separately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I may put in a bid for this contract. I'm putting a team of auditors together I'm going to ask Victor from NBW, Alan Richards from the Floater and Tony Dunkley to look at CaRT's  performance in the legal aspects and welfare. Anyone wishing to join us should be equally impartial and preferably not a cyclist.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LadyG said:

I expect that BW  British Waterways still exists in a filing cabint in Whitehall, just like Winscale, renamed Sellafield when it also became an embarassment after nuclear cockups were revealed.

Slight addition  "just like Calder Hall which became Windscale after nuclear cockups".

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Orwellian said:

Thanks for the unnecessary explanation.

So you knew the history, so why ask the question, unless of course you are working undercover. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LadyG said:

So you knew the history, so why ask the question, unless of course you are working undercover. 

It was a rhetorical question because BW has got nothing to do with this topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Again you are quoting rubbish, the money raised did not cover the additional costs.

 

"Remember" that from 2012 to 2018 the chuggers and 'charitable giving' / donations has COST C&RT £5.5 million more than it has raised.

Had they made no efforts to raise income they would have had £5.5 million more to spend on Directors bonus's and Blue-Signs.

 

The figures are all in the annual Financial Accounts.

Let Machiavelli speak: the idea of getting public donations as a means of keeping the canals in operation was a daft idea from the outset but it was a political idea so CaRT were required to give it a go, despite all the indication that it would never achieve anything much. In a way, the first ten years of the Grant Agreement has been a pilot study, sorting out what works and what does not as a basis for setting the next decade's model (let the politicians loose and there will be other pipe dreams to deal with!) The interesting point will be to see what the consultants have to say bot continuing with Friends in the future and, if so, what its aims might be. 

 

One of the important things about charitable fund raising in any area is to be aware that it is a transaction - folk donate in return for something, usually a sense that they are helping someone in need. If the two sides don't match in donors perception then money will not be forthcoming. It is also a very difficult area in which to predict success. What would have backed a scheme to raise millions by sponsoring a pensioner to walk a few metres up and down his back yard! My problem with Friends is that it does not set out such a balanced transaction - what do Friends get for their donation - they are unlikely to feel boaters to be needy class. If, instead, there could be some benefit from being a Friends - such as the free parking for NT Members - then there might be more success. But I have not seen any proposals along those lines. As it stands the hard bit is o establish why the maintenance of the canals is not a government responsibility (which it actually is for the most part) Arguably, closing the canals to boat traffic would be a net loss as the ongoing water management cost would still have to be met, but without any income from boaters, directly from licences or indirectly from marinas.

 

On the other hand, the Volunteer scheme was rubbished by many at the outset and it did have severe teething problems. The early hopes that volunteers could just about run the system were quickly shown to be false, especially in a H&S conscious age that requires all sorts of training and qualification before even putting on the boots. However, given the freedom to adapt in the light of practical experience, roles which are suitable for volunteers were sorted out and methods of working established that gained widespread, but perhaps not quite universal, support and offer meaningful help to boaters whilst at the same time giving a significant number of people something worth getting out of bed for. I have talked to many who have found the role a lifeline - the hardest bit has been reining in some of the poorer examples! Those who keep to the scheme do a worthwhile job, in my opinion, The main weakness - and, to be fair, it is true of other volunteer schemes - is that volunteer effort cannot be guaranteed day to day and so the users and organisers have to have robust systems to cope with non-provision. In the case of boaters, this amounts to accepting they have to DIY if there is no-one to help - just like it used to be! In other areas that I have known about, the use of volunteer drivers for hospital appointments, or day care, does not so happily cope with non-provision.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

It was a rhetorical question because BW has got nothing to do with this topic.

Not entirely true: understanding the history of how we got to where we are today always helps to avoid making the same mistakes repeatedlyy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I think I may put in a bid for this contract. I'm putting a team of auditors together I'm going to ask Victor from NBW, Alan Richards from the Floater and Tony Dunkley to look at CaRT's  performance in the legal aspects and welfare. Anyone wishing to join us should be equally impartial and preferably not a cyclist.

That shows a total disregard for the human rights of the individual cyclist, Piers Morgan has been sacked for less. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Let Machiavelli speak: the idea of getting public donations as a means of keeping the canals in operation was a daft idea from the outset but it was a political idea so CaRT were required to give it a go, despite all the indication that it would never achieve anything much. In a way, the first ten years of the Grant Agreement has been a pilot study, sorting out what works and what does not as a basis for setting the next decade's model (let the politicians loose and there will be other pipe dreams to deal with!) The interesting point will be to see what the consultants have to say bot continuing with Friends in the future and, if so, what its aims might be. 

 

One of the important things about charitable fund raising in any area is to be aware that it is a transaction - folk donate in return for something, usually a sense that they are helping someone in need. If the two sides don't match in donors perception then money will not be forthcoming. It is also a very difficult area in which to predict success. What would have backed a scheme to raise millions by sponsoring a pensioner to walk a few metres up and down his back yard! My problem with Friends is that it does not set out such a balanced transaction - what do Friends get for their donation - they are unlikely to feel boaters to be needy class. If, instead, there could be some benefit from being a Friends - such as the free parking for NT Members - then there might be more success. But I have not seen any proposals along those lines. As it stands the hard bit is o establish why the maintenance of the canals is not a government responsibility (which it actually is for the most part) Arguably, closing the canals to boat traffic would be a net loss as the ongoing water management cost would still have to be met, but without any income from boaters, directly from licences or indirectly from marinas.

 

On the other hand, the Volunteer scheme was rubbished by many at the outset and it did have severe teething problems. The early hopes that volunteers could just about run the system were quickly shown to be false, especially in a H&S conscious age that requires all sorts of training and qualification before even putting on the boots. However, given the freedom to adapt in the light of practical experience, roles which are suitable for volunteers were sorted out and methods of working established that gained widespread, but perhaps not quite universal, support and offer meaningful help to boaters whilst at the same time giving a significant number of people something worth getting out of bed for. I have talked to many who have found the role a lifeline - the hardest bit has been reining in some of the poorer examples! Those who keep to the scheme do a worthwhile job, in my opinion, The main weakness - and, to be fair, it is true of other volunteer schemes - is that volunteer effort cannot be guaranteed day to day and so the users and organisers have to have robust systems to cope with non-provision. In the case of boaters, this amounts to accepting they have to DIY if there is no-one to help - just like it used to be! In other areas that I have known about, the use of volunteer drivers for hospital appointments, or day care, does not so happily cope with non-provision.

 

 

Not entirely true: understanding the history of how we got to where we are today always helps to avoid making the same mistakes repeatedlyy.

That's not entirely true either. Always? I think not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LadyG said:

That shows a total disregard for the human rights of the individual cyclist, Piers Morgan has been sacked for less. 

Your tender will not be accepted unless you can co-opt a member of the peerage, an Old Etonian and / or an Old Harrovian. Also you need an office in Central London. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Was he sacked or did he flounce ?

I think it was his best career move yet, he's not as daft as Megan, well who is? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LadyG said:

I expect that BW  British Waterways still exists in a filing cabint in Whitehall, just like Winscale, renamed Sellafield when it also became an embarassment after nuclear cockups were revealed.

BW exists, and trades as Scottish Canals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Orwellian said:

That's not entirely true either. Always? I think not.

Failure to avoid the repetition is 'proof' of a lack of understanding of the history!

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Failure to avoid the repetition is 'proof' of a lack of understanding of the history!

Again I think not. It could arise from a different interpretation whether deliberate or otherwise. But don't get me wrong I do agree that un understanding of history is essential to understanding the present if not a guarantee that society always learns from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, LadyG said:

I was once an employed person, doing work for the Scottish Executive, we were audited by the EEC, who funded it, they came on a regular basis, spot checks, no consultancy, just auditors who knew what they were looking for, we would not have allowed any 'consultants' to look at our database, it was confidential.

You can't have random people crawling all over your paperwork.

Now there's an oxymoron if ever there was.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.