Jump to content

DEFRA reneges on Autumn future funding decision


Featured Posts

39 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Friedrich had it 'right' when he said ..............................................

 

 

Dont want to hear the truth.jpg

 

I really wish people would stop putting words into other people's mouths -- especially someone who does this repeatedly, and who argues with every post I make because I sometimes dare to disagree with his superior opinions... 😉

 

I don't think I've made "an expensive mistake", I'm perfectly happy with the choices I've made, and after all's said and done it's only money, just like that I gave to my kids to help buy their first houses.

 

I sincerely hope the canals won't deteriorate but if they do due to lack of funding then that's life, it won't stop me continuing to enjoy them -- unlike Alan, who left the canals because he doesn't like them any more.

 

And who in spite of this continuously reminds people on CWDF about how he was right to do this and how they're all going to hell in a handbasket -- so if they don't get worse that's *his* illusions destroyed then... 😉

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

See the source image

No, you're just being a tw*t. Since you're not on them, why don't you go and moan about the canals on a yottie forum, or maybe a caravanning one? 😉

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

No, you're just being a tw*t. Since you're not on them, why don't you go and moan about the canals on a yottie forum, or maybe a caravanning one? 😉

 

Er why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, IanD said:

 

I really wish people would stop putting words into other people's mouths -- especially someone who does this repeatedly, and who argues with every post I make because I sometimes dare to disagree with his superior opinions... 😉

 


Pot / kettle?

 

  • Greenie 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Midnight said:


Pot / kettle?

 

Goose/gander... 😉

 

Or you could go back over Alan's posts and see how many there are where he starts personal sniping, usually directed at a few people (including me) he persistently disagrees with. And if he does it to me, I'm going to snipe back, because otherwise bullying wins... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within the last hour or so -
 

Quote

 

Michael Fabricant has initiated a debate in the House of Commons on the future of Britain’s canals and waterways.  He is chairman of the Waterways All Party Parliamentary Group and the debate will be opened by Michael at 9.30am on Tuesday 22nd November.

“The Canal and River Trust are responsible for 2,000 miles of canals and rivers as well as infrastructure including 71 reservoirs and over 2,700 listed buildings.  Much of these are over 200 years old and have to be maintained to preserve their safe operation” says Michael. “Regardless of whether you are a boater or just like walking along canal towpaths and enjoying the wildlife, our canal system is the envy of the world. Nine million people live within a 10-15 minute walk from an inland waterway and 83 per cent of them agree that these waterways are important to their area.

8A7BAEDF-B661-492F-9A43-ADF2D9FA43AE-102

“But funding for these waterways is under threat.  The Trust’s fifteen year grant expires in March 2027 and the grant is overdue for renewal.  I shall be asking ministers to confirm the future of our waterways and towpaths.  We cannot allow them to fall into disrepair.”

 

 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Within the last hour or so -
 

 

Apart from the list of members, this says that the IWA acts as the group's secretariat:

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/221019/waterways.htm

 

Registers of Interests > Register of All-Party Parliamentary Groups

Register Of All-Party Parliamentary Groups [as at 19 October 2022] Waterways

Title

All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Waterways

Purpose

To consider matters relating to navigable (and formerly navigable) rivers, canals, estuaries and lakes in the UK, including the potential social, economic and cultural impact of the regeneration of those waterways and extension of the system.

Category

Subject Group

Officers

Role

Name

Party

Chair & Registered Contact

Michael Fabricant

Conservative

Vice Chair

Simon Baynes

Conservative

Vice Chair

John Cryer

Labour

Vice Chair

Bill Esterson

Labour

Vice Chair

Mark Garnier

Conservative

Vice Chair

Jason McCartney

Conservative

Vice Chair

Craig Williams

Conservative

Vice Chair

Karl McCartney

Conservative

Vice Chair

Jo Gideon

Conservative

Vice Chair

Mr Gagan Mohindra

Conservative

Vice Chair

Baroness Randerson

Liberal Democrat

Vice Chair

Lord Bradshaw

Liberal Democrat

Vice Chair

Lord German

Liberal Democrat

Contact Details

Registered Contact:

Michael Fabricant MP, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. Tel: 020 7219 5022.

Public Enquiry Point:

Alison Smedley, The Inland Waterways Association, Island House, Moor Road, Chesham HP5 1WA. Tel: 01494 783 453

Email: alison.smedley@waterways.org.uk

Secretariat:

The Inland Waterways Association acts as the group's secretariat. https://www.waterways.org.uk/

Group's Website:

https://www.waterways.org.uk/about-us/all-party-parliamentary-group-for-the-waterways

 

 

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Apart from the list of members, this says that the IWA acts as the group's secretariat:

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/221019/waterways.htm

 

Registers of Interests > Register of All-Party Parliamentary Groups

Register Of All-Party Parliamentary Groups [as at 19 October 2022] Waterways

Title

All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Waterways

Purpose

To consider matters relating to navigable (and formerly navigable) rivers, canals, estuaries and lakes in the UK, including the potential social, economic and cultural impact of the regeneration of those waterways and extension of the system.

Category

Subject Group

Officers

Role

Name

Party

Chair & Registered Contact

Michael Fabricant

Conservative

Vice Chair

Simon Baynes

Conservative

Vice Chair

John Cryer

Labour

Vice Chair

Bill Esterson

Labour

Vice Chair

Mark Garnier

Conservative

Vice Chair

Jason McCartney

Conservative

Vice Chair

Craig Williams

Conservative

Vice Chair

Karl McCartney

Conservative

Vice Chair

Jo Gideon

Conservative

Vice Chair

Mr Gagan Mohindra

Conservative

Vice Chair

Baroness Randerson

Liberal Democrat

Vice Chair

Lord Bradshaw

Liberal Democrat

Vice Chair

Lord German

Liberal Democrat

Contact Details

Registered Contact:

Michael Fabricant MP, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. Tel: 020 7219 5022.

Public Enquiry Point:

Alison Smedley, The Inland Waterways Association, Island House, Moor Road, Chesham HP5 1WA. Tel: 01494 783 453

Email: alison.smedley@waterways.org.uk

Secretariat:

The Inland Waterways Association acts as the group's secretariat. https://www.waterways.org.uk/

Group's Website:

https://www.waterways.org.uk/about-us/all-party-parliamentary-group-for-the-waterways

 

 

Yes, IWA has acted as this group's secretariat for many years. It would appear that this is allowed under the rules that govern APPG's.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this is the gist of what will be said on the news this evening. Looks like the Treasury did not want to comment and the ball was passed to Defra ¨-

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2022-11-15/canals-will-go-to-wreck-and-ruin-over-failure-to-commit-to-funding-upkeep?fbclid=IwAR3pdoKo3RM3Tz-MqQ7DfmuZRg1-5fpDY8QWmpa8ONHWc_tWM4OaMFkFsu8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had thought the government had delayed the announcement until Thursday's 'budget' but delaying it until next year is puzzling. Both CRT and DEFRA have been working to the original timescales so what can be gained by further delays? Not looking good for the future of the waterways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

I had thought the government had delayed the announcement until Thursday's 'budget' but delaying it until next year is puzzling. Both CRT and DEFRA have been working to the original timescales so what can be gained by further delays? Not looking good for the future of the waterways.

... delaying it to next year or the year after that or just never deciding.

We need to remind ourselves that Defra deliberately deleted part of an annoucement made such that it is no longer committed to an announcement date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

... delaying it to next year or the year after that or just never deciding.

We need to remind ourselves that Defra deliberately deleted part of an annoucement made such that it is no longer committed to an announcement date.

DEFRA are already in breach of clause 9.3 of the Grant Agreement by not issuing a report on it's conclusions of the agreed review of it's fundings and I can only assume this has been agreed to by CRT. I don't expect however that CRT will agree to an indefinite delay - or even a long delay - so they will eventually be forced to invoke the dispute resolution in clause 33. I suspect they will think long and hard about this as they will not wish to antagonise the Government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Orwellian said:

DEFRA are already in breach of clause 9.3 of the Grant Agreement by not issuing a report on it's conclusions of the agreed review of it's fundings and I can only assume this has been agreed to by CRT. I don't expect however that CRT will agree to an indefinite delay - or even a long delay - so they will eventually be forced to invoke the dispute resolution in clause 33. I suspect they will think long and hard about this as they will not wish to antagonise the Government.

 

The problem is that C&RT are in breach of the agreement by falsifying the KPI results - my reading is that if DEFRA were forced to make an announcemnet NOW it must be 'NO MORE GRANT', but DEFRA appreciate the need for the Grant not only to be continued but extended past 2027 and are doing C&RT a 'favour' and giving them the opportunity to put their house in order so DEFRA can make the "grant extended" announcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The problem is that C&RT are in breach of the agreement by falsifying the KPI results - my reading is that if DEFRA were forced to make an announcemnet NOW it must be 'NO MORE GRANT', but DEFRA appreciate the need for the Grant not only to be continued but extended past 2027 and are doing C&RT a 'favour' and giving them the opportunity to put their house in order so DEFRA can make the "grant extended" announcement.

If DEFRA considered that CRT had breached the Grant agreement surely they would have invoked the provisions of clause 11 rather than putting themselves in breach? Do you know for certain CRT have breached the agreement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

DEFRA are already in breach of clause 9.3 of the Grant Agreement by not issuing a report on it's conclusions of the agreed review of it's fundings and I can only assume this has been agreed to by CRT. I don't expect however that CRT will agree to an indefinite delay - or even a long delay - so they will eventually be forced to invoke the dispute resolution in clause 33. I suspect they will think long and hard about this as they will not wish to antagonise the Government.

I came to the same conclusion when I looked at this a week ago. CRT can do little about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

If DEFRA considered that CRT had breached the Grant agreement surely they would have invoked the provisions of clause 11 rather than putting themselves in breach? Do you know for certain CRT have breached the agreement?

Quote

 

11.1.2 CRT commits a Material Breach of legal or statutory obligations, including but not limited to charity and company law, audit and financial requirements or Commission requirements;

.

.

11.1.5 CRT wilfully or intentionally provides Defra with any misleading or inaccurate information;

 

The above are the two events of default where CRT breached the grant agreement.

 

11.1.2  - CRT has a legal and statutory duty to file its annual report with the Charity Commission. It filed a falsified report contrary to charity law.

 

11.1.5 - CRT wilfully misled Defra in respect of the alterations made.

 

I don't believe it automatically follows that Defra would take action for breach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orwellian said:

Is that merely your opinion or has DEFRA or any relevant regulatory authority confirmed that those breaches have a occurred?

My opinion but based on a successful complaint to the Charity Commission that it was knowingly allowing a falsified document to be displayed on its website contrary to charity law.

 

Defra have never expressed an opinion either way.

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Orwellian said:

In what way was it successful? Did they for example take any action against CRT for this breach?

They satisfied my complaint by removing the falsified annual report from the Charity Commission website and replacing with the board approved report as already filed at Companies House in accordance with Company Law.

 

A request to find out what action the Commissioner took in respect of my original complaint was refused under the Freedom of Information Act

 

Quote

Section 31(1)(g) states that: 
“Information  which  is  not  exempt  information  by  virtue  of  section  30  is  exempt 
information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice— 
(g)  the  exercise  by  any  public  authority  of  its  functions  for  any  of  the  purposes 
specified in subsection (2)” 
 
Relevant purposes in subsection (2) include: 
• 
ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law;  
• 
ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper;  
• 
ascertaining  whether  circumstances  which  would  justify  regulatory  action  in 
pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise;  
• 
protecting charities against misconduct or mismanagement in their administration. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.