Jump to content

DEFRA reneges on Autumn future funding decision


Featured Posts

While I agree it's disappointing that neither CRT or DEFRA took the trouble to inform the public that the decision has been delayed, I don't think it's fair to accuse DEFRA of kicking the decision into the long grass, since Kwasi and Liz's disastrous attempt to restructure the economy the government has made it clear that all departments are being asked to make for savings and review all spending. CRT and the canals and rivers it is responsible for are unlikely to be classified as essential, so DEFRA is no doubt working out how small a grant it could getaway with.

Edited by Barneyp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

While I agree it's disappointing that neither CRT or DEFRA took the trouble to inform the public that the decision has been delayed, I don't think it's fair to accuse DEFRA of kicking the decision into the long grass, since Kwasi and Liz's disastrous attempt to restructure the economy the government has made it clear that all departments are being asked to make for savings and review all spending. CRT and the canals and rivers it is responsible for are unlikely to be classified as essential, so will be DEFRA is no doubt working out how small a grant it could getaway with.

 

I suspect that the CART grant is such a tiny fraction of DEFRA spending that it's well off the bottom of the page of "big things to look at first", which is probably why it's been delayed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I am wrong, but I think I left the system at the beginning of the end of the system I used for over 30 years. Pleased I am not just moving on there, it does seem funding will be an issue going forward, but hey, maybe not, it may come good in the end.

  • Greenie 2
  • Horror 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I hope I am wrong, but I think I left the system at the beginning of the end of the system I used for over 30 years. Pleased I am not just moving on there, it does seem funding will be an issue going forward, but hey, maybe not, it may come good in the end.

 

 

I think there are quite a few of us that (maybe) more by luck than judgement left at the 'right time'.

The writing was on the wall for us for the future of the canals so we jumped.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think there are quite a few of us that (maybe) more by luck than judgement left at the 'right time'.

The writing was on the wall for us for the future of the canals so we jumped.

 

But still you keep coming back -- to a canal forum! -- and telling everyone again and again how terrible the canals are and how they're going to close down in future, and that you were right to leave when you did... 😞

 

Maybe there should be an "Ex-canallers moaners and whingers" sub-forum for the likes of you and smelly to post in -- which people can ignore if they want to, like the Political sub-forum? 😉

 

(...now waiting expectantly for the usual and sadly predictable response...)

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

But still you keep coming back -- to a canal forum! -- and telling everyone again and again how terrible the canals are and how they're going to close down in future, and that you were right to leave when you did... 😞

 

Maybe there should be an "Ex-canallers moaners and whingers" sub-forum for you and smelly to post in -- which people can ignore if they want to, like the Political sub-forum? 😉

 

(...now waiting expectantly for the usual and sadly predictable response...)

Its pointless responding to a soft lad that has most people on ignore.

57 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Since the start of September there have been three secretaries of state for DEFRA. George Euseless, Ranil Jayawardena (who?) and Thérèse Coffey (yikes). Doubtless they have been told to make cuts. CaRT will be low on their list of priorities.

I think this will be a problem going forward. Luckily for me i was there when it was all good, the last couple of years there were more problems with the system than the first 30, but still a good system. Going forward where will the money come from? Lets hope it all comes good.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I know - but now you've quoted the 'soft lad' all those who have him on ignore will see it.

Ditto for you quoting smelly 😉

 

And just as I predicted he rolls out his stock insults again, showing his Trump-level debating skill... 😞

 

If people want to ignore me then that's up to them, but most sensible posters don't seem to. I certainly don't have "most people" on ignore, just a few choice specimens who reliably vomit extreme views and personal attacks all over the forum and value their opinions higher than facts, instead of discussing things like grown-ups... 🙂

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The system's been going downhill for a while, but as long as the water holds out next year it's still mostly functioning. What spoils it mostly is the behaviour of other boaters, with noise and overcrowding. Luckily, these can generally be avoided, so it's still a fun thing to do for us leisure chaps.

Like me (and probably most of us) it's getting old. It can't last forever as a navigation.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The system's been going downhill for a while, but as long as the water holds out next year it's still mostly functioning. What spoils it mostly is the behaviour of other boaters, with noise and overcrowding. Luckily, these can generally be avoided, so it's still a fun thing to do for us leisure chaps.

Like me (and probably most of us) it's getting old. It can't last forever as a navigation.

 

It can't last forever, but it's already lasted about 250 years, and is simple and built to be maintainable otherwise it wouldn't have lasted this long. It's been going downhill for some time because of lack of maintenance, not any fundamental problem.

 

Keeping it going for the foreseeable future isn't rocket science, it just needs enough money spending on maintenance -- and there's the rub... 😞

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

It can't last forever, but it's already lasted about 250 years, and is simple and built to be maintainable otherwise it wouldn't have lasted this long. It's been going downhill for some time because of lack of maintenance, not any fundamental problem.

 

Keeping it going for the foreseeable future isn't rocket science, it just needs enough money spending on maintenance -- and there's the rub... 😞

Yes, but again like me, the older it gets the more it needs spending on maintenance, the less money there is around and, even more importantly, the less relevant it is. The bulk of the public don't give a toss about the canals, especially when they're struggling to pay their rent and mortgages. Council tax will be going sky high next year too.

The increasing need for maintenance is the fundamental problem.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I think there are quite a few of us that (maybe) more by luck than judgement left at the 'right time'.

The writing was on the wall for us for the future of the canals so we jumped.

 

2 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

I hope I am wrong, but I think I left the system at the beginning of the end of the system I used for over 30 years. Pleased I am not just moving on there, it does seem funding will be an issue going forward, but hey, maybe not, it may come good in the end.

Yes Tim, Alan, its maybe a good time to think of selling the boat and buying the new electric Transit to convert to a campervan?

Having said that the contractors have been down and done a major cutback on the towpath first time in years that it's happened, fingers crossed they have cut the trees down blocking Tinsley flight!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Yes, but again like me, the older it gets the more it needs spending on maintenance, the less money there is around and, even more importantly, the less relevant it is. The bulk of the public don't give a toss about the canals, especially when they're struggling to pay their rent and mortgages. Council tax will be going sky high next year too.

The increasing need for maintenance is the fundamental problem.

 

I don't think that the maintenance cost in real terms should fundamentally need to keep increasing, except because of the increasing backlog of work that hasn't been done -- and that certainly is a problem, because making up the shortfall to get the system back to a decent state needs money, and lots of it.

 

There are parts of the infrastructure like lock gates that have always needed regular replacement (e.g. every 25 years or so), there are parts that deteriorate and need long-term maintenance and always have done like lock walls and reservoirs/dams. But none of this has really changed over the last 150 years or so, except that it used to get done when the canals were commercially valuable for carrying and it doesn't so much now -- in spite of the fact that there are probably more boats on the canal nowadays than there ever were in "the good old days", and far more non-boaters use the canals recreationally.

 

Because spending has been insufficient for many years this shortfall needs to be made up, but this isn't really down to the fact that the system is 250 years old, its the built-up effect of penny-pinching over the last 20 years or more.

 

I do agree completely with your last statement, maintenance and the money to pay for it are the fundamental problem. On one hand the government and CART bang on about the canals being a unique and valuable part of our industrial heritage as well as being great for walkers/cyclists/fishermen/people in general (mentally and physically), but then when it comes to coughing up the money needed to keep them working they're strangely reluctant... 😞

 

It's not an insoluble problem, the amount needed is a drop in the ocean compared to spending on other less obviously beneficial government projects, but the real problem is that there is no "canal champion" inside or outside government -- like Barbara Castle or the IWA were back in the day -- to promote the canals and make the case heard above all the other things clamouring for government money, many of who have much louder voices...

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Yes, but again like me, the older it gets the more it needs spending on maintenance, the less money there is around and, even more importantly, the less relevant it is. The bulk of the public don't give a toss about the canals, especially when they're struggling to pay their rent and mortgages. Council tax will be going sky high next year too.

The increasing need for maintenance is the fundamental problem.

Precisely correct. Its not rocket science that as structures age they need greater maintenence and therefore much more money. A prime recent example being the Menai bridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I predicted this was going to happen a long time ago, DEFRA will want to kick this as far as they can, down the road. It would not surprise me to see it go past the next general election.
Given this activists should be already badgering their MP's about it, however the IWA NABO etc do not appear to be doing so.
As far as DEFRA are concerned they are winning, as inflation is getting rid of the problem, for them, we have effectively lost 18% in real term already, and we have 3 more years of high inflation to cope with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ian Mac said:

I predicted this was going to happen a long time ago, DEFRA will want to kick this as far as they can, down the road. It would not surprise me to see it go past the next general election.
Given this activists should be already badgering their MP's about it, however the IWA NABO etc do not appear to be doing so.
As far as DEFRA are concerned they are winning, as inflation is getting rid of the problem, for them, we have effectively lost 18% in real term already, and we have 3 more years of high inflation to cope with.

 

Considering the falsification of documents it may be a case of 'back-room' discussions telling C&RT "if you want a decision now, then the answer will be NO, we will not be extending the grant, but, if we can delay it a couple of years, and your submissions prove to be not only acceptable, but factually correct, then the answer may be more positive"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I would have thought that the likely outcome of a deferment is that the current level of funding continues for longer than it otherwise would have done. Which is probably good for the canals.

 

But the grant automatically ceases in 2027 unless the 2021/22 review concludes with the recommendation to renew it.

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But the grant automatically ceases in 2027 unless the 2021/22 review concludes with the recommendation to renew it.

That may be so, I understand that. 

I also understand DEFRA can put an immediate stop to the funding if (when) they find any deliberate shenanigans going on with the books/records. 
 

 But could a deferment have a negative impact on CRT’s current fundraising and investment from third parties?

Why would any body invest in an unknown? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Goliath said:

That may be so, I understand that. 

I also understand DEFRA can put an immediate stop to the funding if (when) they find any deliberate shenanigans going on with the books/records. 
 

 But could a deferment have a negative impact on CRT’s current fundraising and investment from third parties?

Why would any body invest in an unknown? 

I don't think anyone invests in CRT in the usual meaning if the word - "put (money) into financial schemes, shares, property, or a commercial venture with the expectation of achieving a profit" If the government were to stop their contract payment there is a possibility that users may decide to give more directly if they value the waterways. I suspect CRT would also have to put up prices for paying users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, IanD said:

 

I suspect that the CART grant is such a tiny fraction of DEFRA spending that it's well off the bottom of the page of "big things to look at first", which is probably why it's been delayed...

I think you misunderstand how this decision will be made.

From the grant review TOR -
 

 

Quote

 

Defra’s report on the conclusions of the grant review will be published on GOV.UK on or before 1 July 2022. The report will set out conclusions with regard to continued support of the Trust by grant beyond the term of the grant agreement. The decisions set out in this report will be made by the Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with Treasury endorsement.

Defra shall share a confidential, interim version of the report and early findings with the Trust in a timely manner before publication, incorporating reasonable time for discussion and feedback into the report delivery timetable.

 

 


If the comment was changed to -

"I suspect that the CART grant is such a tiny fraction of Treasury spending that it's well off the bottom of the page of "big things to look at first", which is probably why it's been delayed..."

- it would be much nearer the mark.

Link to comment
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.