Jump to content

DEFRA reneges on Autumn future funding decision


Featured Posts

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? 

It is worth saying that, two years ago, when the grant review was starting, Defra were keen to defer the process. CRT refused on the basis that the sooner they knew the long term financial position, the sooner they could start planning for the future.

Yes a deferment could have a negative impact. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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.

With regard to badgering MPs - As far as I am aware, NABO are the only organisation who have asked membership to write and that was a few months ago. There are some comments on the result of this on NABO's website

NABO has taken action in response to the article. Not sure about IWA or any other organisation.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the grant actually stops in 2027, you might as well sell your boat. There is no way the system can survive without taxpayer funding, and everyone surely knows it. Even in its original heyday, the later canals made a loss. They are a national resource, and so funding will continue, at least for the majority of its users, which are,  of course, pedestrians, cyclists and fishermen.

The Four Counties ring and the Llangollen will stay open for the tourist trade. You can wave goodbye to most of the rest. Anything that's creaking under the strain, or costs a load in maintenance will close to navigation, especially if it's barely used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

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.

No, I reckon not.

And we know the DEFRA grant is strictly to be used for non profit making too. 
 

But CRT do have commercial ventures (and have their eyes on EA waters).

So I’m just wondering could a deferment have a knock on effect on other aspects of CRTs business. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours 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.

NABO certainly is. Maybe become a member and then you would know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I think you misunderstand how this decision will be made.

The TOR requires that government shares the draft review with CRT in a timely manner incorporating reasonable time for discussion and feedback, in advance of a new settlement (even a zero settlement). If DEFRA delays the review, as seems to be the case, then DEFRA will have to also defer the implementation date for the new settlement, which will most likely mean the current funding regime is extended for as long as the review is delayed. The alternative is that CRT's government funding just stops without CRT having had time to prepare the transition to the new funding situation. And that will surely oblige the CRT Board to hand back the keys to government as they will be unable to meet their obligations. And that's the last thing government wants!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

The TOR requires that government shares the draft review with CRT in a timely manner incorporating reasonable time for discussion and feedback, in advance of a new settlement (even a zero settlement). If DEFRA delays the review, as seems to be the case, then DEFRA will have to also defer the implementation date for the new settlement, which will most likely mean the current funding regime is extended for as long as the review is delayed. The alternative is that CRT's government funding just stops without CRT having had time to prepare the transition to the new funding situation. And that will surely oblige the CRT Board to hand back the keys to government as they will be unable to meet their obligations. And that's the last thing government wants!

There does not appear to be any mechanism to return the keys ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Hmm. Well there is a mechanism for the Secretary of State to take the keys back, but maybe there isn't for the trust to hand them back...

The SoS can replace CRT as sole trustee of the Waterway Infrastructure Trust but this would be more akin to giving the keys to someone else rather than taking them back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, wandering snail said:

NABO certainly is. Maybe become a member and then you would know.

 

I might do when I own a boat, but the problem remains that there isn't one strong voice speaking for *all* the parties who want to see the canals continue as a functioning network, including not just private boat owners (who NABO represents) but hire boat operators (now BMIB, was APCO), the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities (AINA) who "provide, for the first time ever, a single voice on waterway management issues.  The broad purpose of AINA is to facilitate the management, maintenance and development of inland waterways as an economic, social and environmental resource.", the IWA who seem to represent "waterway-lovers", then there's the much-maligned NBTA who mainly seem to represents CMers -- and I'm sure there are more I've missed.

 

It's very difficult for a fragmented set of small organisations with disparate (or overlapping, or conflicting...) members or purposes to get any kind of traction with government because they're all small (each only represents a fraction of the stakeholders) and speak with different voices (and want separate meetings with ministers, if they can ever get that high) and have different individual things that they focus on (the NABO website even says "NABO was formed in 1991, by a group of boat owners who felt that none of the existing organisations adequately put forward their views to the waterway authorities."), when in reality they all want the same thing -- a properly financed, maintained and functioning canal network.

 

Sadly I can't see this situation changing, because each has their own particular objectives (see NABO comment above) and organisation and is unlikely to want to give that (or control of what they do) up in any kind of merger or become part of an umbrella super-canal-organisation -- but that's probably what is needed to get any attention (and action) from the government or public... 😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lady C said:

The government talk to the RYA and seem to view them as covering all leisure boating.

Oops, left them off. Now we have NABO, BMIB, AINA, IWA, NBTA, AWCC, RYA -- who of course mainly *don't* represent canal users -- and possibly more.

 

If the government wanted to deliberately use "divide-and-rule" to allow it to do what it wanted with the canals regardless of whether it was in the interests of everyone involved, it could hardly have come up with anything better than this... 😞

Edited by IanD
AWCC added
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, IanD said:

Oops, left them off. Now we have NABO, BMIB, AINA, IWA, NBTA, AWCC, RYA -- who of course mainly *don't* represent canal users -- and possibly more.

 

If the government wanted to deliberately use "divide-and-rule" to allow it to do what it wanted with the canals regardless of whether it was in the interests of everyone involved, it could hardly have come up with anything better than this... 😞

 

 

The RYA has an 'Inland Waterways division' and undertake / overview Inland waterways training, helsman courses etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The RYA has an 'Inland Waterways division' and undertake / overview Inland waterways training, helsman courses etc.

 

I know -- which is why I said "mainly", because the vast majority of RYA members are lumpy water sailors like you... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 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...

DEFRA total spend for current financial year is £5.54 billion so their contract payment to CRT of £52.6 million is just 0.95% of the total.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

DEFRA total spend for current financial year is £5.54 billion so their contract payment to CRT of £52.6 million is just 0.95% of the total.

Suspicion confirmed then, thank you. Do you know how big all the other DEFRA line items are that would be above CRT in cost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If the grant actually stops in 2027, you might as well sell your boat. There is no way the system can survive without taxpayer funding, and everyone surely knows it. Even in its original heyday, the later canals made a loss. They are a national resource, and so funding will continue, at least for the majority of its users, which are,  of course, pedestrians, cyclists and fishermen.

The Four Counties ring and the Llangollen will stay open for the tourist trade. You can wave goodbye to most of the rest. Anything that's creaking under the strain, or costs a load in maintenance will close to navigation, especially if it's barely used.

 

We’re not doomed (yet).

I’m going to remain optimistic because there are more players involved.

This funding feeds a lot of people. 

Kier seem to be doing very well out of CRT for instance, and have entered into some long term contracts that’ll need paying. 

I expect there’ll be someone in government with a vested interest in Kier. 
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 

We’re not doomed (yet).

I’m going to remain optimistic because there are more players involved.

This funding feeds a lot of people. 

Kier seem to be doing very well out of CRT for instance, and have entered into some long term contracts that’ll need paying. 

I expect there’ll be someone in government with a vested interest in Kier. 
 

 

 

I don't really think we're doomed. Like everything else in this slightly odd country, the network will muddle on somehow, shrinking slightly every year as bits fall off or over, or simply run out of water or,  in the case of lock gates,  wood. Inefficiency is not a bad thing, on the whole, much better than the opposite.

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Kier seem to be doing very well out of CRT for instance, and have entered into some long term contracts that’ll need paying. 

Keir have entered into a framework contract with an estimated total value over its several years duration.  But that framework covers a large number of individual works contracts, each of which has to be negotiated and awarded, all of which is subject to the funding being there. Keir have no guaranteed income from the framework, only under the individual contracts set up under it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Keir have entered into a framework contract with an estimated total value over its several years duration.  But that framework covers a large number of individual works contracts, each of which has to be negotiated and awarded, all of which is subject to the funding being there. Keir have no guaranteed income from the framework, only under the individual contracts set up under it.

Yes, I thought that too.

And some of these individual contracts, (such as Todbrook) are worth a good lot of money.


I’m just pondering the idea that if funding stopped, Kier would loose the source of a good earner.

Working on the canals is also great PR for them, I can’t see them wanting to loose out. 

Kier are working on HS2 aren’t they the government’s wonder boys? 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Goliath said:

And some of these individual contracts, (such as Todbrook) are worth a good lot of money.

They all will be since Keir was appointed to a framework for large projects. A couple of smaller contractors have been appointed to CRT's framework for smaller projects.

6 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I’m just pondering the idea that if funding stopped, Kier would loose the source of a good earner.

It's only a good earner if the individual contracts are forthcoming. And the contract make clear there is no guarantee as to the volume of work which may be commissioned under the framework, which is clearly stated as being subject to both funding and the works which CRT identifies as being needed (including responding to unexpected events such as breaches or indeed dam or spillway failure).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Kier are working on HS2 aren’t they the government’s wonder boys? 

You seem to think there is some sort of conspiracy going on here. Keir are a large mainstream contractor, who are inevitably going to bid for large infrastructure contracts, most of which are awarded after a competitive tendering process.

If you think getting on a framework contract is easy money, the you have never tried bidding to get on a framework or managed a contract under one!

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.