C&RT License Survey

[LadyG]

2 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

The problem is that current and ex government departments don't and never have done efficiency savings, they cut costs which is a very different thing, it balances the books in the short term while building up problems for the future.

 

 

The most obvious failure of CRT senior management and directors is being stupid enough to take the job on in the first place. 

If you were offered a job at £100K pa plus benefits would you walk away?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

The problem is that current and ex government departments don't and never have done efficiency savings, they cut costs which is a very different thing, it balances the books in the short term while building up problems for the future.

 

Well in my personal experience in the NHS that is not correct.

[Barneyp]

11 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 So basically what are the pros and cons of the EA taking over C&RT waters?

Pros and cons from CRT's point of view or the government's/EA's.

 

Main pro for the government/EA is it is one less thing to fund.

 

For CRT on a basic level it depends what is the income from licenses and other sources compared to the cost of maintenance. The devil will be in the detail as to who is responsible for what if CRT are the navigation authority while EA still have responsibility for the rivers as drainage channels and for flood protection.

 

On a wider level would becoming responsible for the EA navigations help CRT to fundraise as a charity? 

4 minutes ago, LadyG said:

If you were offered a job at £100K pa plus benefits would you walk away?

If you are capable of getting offered a job at £100k plus then you should be capable of finding a job that is doable that pays the same or similar.

If the only £100k plus job you can get is for CRT you either have a very unique set of skills or you are being bribed to take an undoable job.

 

I have turned down an internal promotion because I didn't feel I could do the new job properly, I could have done it to a standard that meant I wouldn't get fired.

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, LadyG said:

If you were offered a job at £100K pa plus benefits would you walk away?

 

Definitely.

 

I don't think I could afford the pay cut.

[Momac]

50 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 

 

But how about taking on some larger rivers in order rob the water?

 

And how would that  water be moved ?        

[Barneyp]

13 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Well in my personal experience in the NHS that is not correct.

There are widespread examples across the public sector of short term cost cutting / failure to invest that leads to longer term problems that cost more to put right than the original saving, this includes the NHS.

 

I do accept that there are some genuine efficency savings that can or have been made, but I don't believe that CRT could save more than a few percent at most of their annual budget this way, which would lead to them still being very underfunded.

[Arthur Marshall]

3 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

There are widespread examples across the public sector of short term cost cutting / failure to invest that leads to longer term problems that cost more to put right than the original saving, this includes the NHS.

 

I do accept that there are some genuine efficency savings that can or have been made, but I don't believe that CRT could save more than a few percent at most of their annual budget this way, which would lead to them still being very underfunded.

Underfunded for what? They're looking after a national park, the bulk of whose users are emphatically not boaters. They'd be better off with no functioning navigation at all.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

6 minutes ago, MartynG said:

And how would that  water be moved ?        

Pumped?

 

I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking. 
 

How are they extracting from the Usk?

I assumed pumping. 

They’re pumping from the Goyt to the Peak Forrest aren’t they?

 

Dunno just asking. 
I don’t know what costs are involved or what the practicalities are. 
But water has been shifted for centuries one way or another via pumping. 
 

🤷‍♀️

[Barneyp]

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Underfunded for what? They're looking after a national park, the bulk of whose users are emphatically not boaters. They'd be better off with no functioning navigation at all.

 

I thought they had a legal obligation to maintain the navigation.

And if they stop maintaining the canals as a navigation they will be less appealing to a huge junk of the non boaters. - not just the lack of boats to gongoozle, but the canals will either dry out or become stagnant ditches.

3 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Pumped?

 

I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking. 
 

How are they extracting from the Usk?

I assumed pumping. 

They’re pumping from the Goyt to the Peak Forrest aren’t they?

 

Dunno just asking. 
I don’t know what costs are involved or what the practicalities are. 
But water has been shifted for centuries one way or another via pumping. 
 

🤷‍♀️

You can only take so much water before you start to cause problems further down stream. And if the river isn't near the canal the pumping becomes hugely expensive.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

There are widespread examples across the public sector of short term cost cutting / failure to invest that leads to longer term problems that cost more to put right than the original saving, this includes the NHS.

 

I do accept that there are some genuine efficency savings that can or have been made, but I don't believe that CRT could save more than a few percent at most of their annual budget this way, which would lead to them still being very underfunded.

 

I didnt suggest that savings would be massive or even anywhere near make up the forthcoming potential shortfall.

 

If you have read that into my post you are mistaken.

[Momac]

 

 

32 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Pumped?

 

I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking. 
 

How are they extracting from the Usk?

I assumed pumping. 

They’re pumping from the Goyt to the Peak Forrest aren’t they?

 

Dunno just asking. 
I don’t know what costs are involved or what the practicalities are. 
But water has been shifted for centuries one way or another via pumping. 
 

🤷‍♀️

Well C&RT are  already responsible for the Tidal Trent which is filled with water each tide, twice a day 

C&RT pump water to to up the Fossdyke at Torksey. C&RT also pump from the Trent into the Chesterfield  Canal.

So C&RT already have access to one of the main Rivers in England.

But pumping river water  over long distances is not viable

But pumping over long distances isn't feasible .

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

13 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

 

Well C&RT are  already responsible for the Tidal Trent which is filled with water each tide, twice a day 

C&RT pump water to to up the Fossdyke at Torksey. C&RT also pump from the Trent into the Chesterfield  Canal.

So C&RT already have access to one of the main Rivers in England.

But pumping river water  over long distances is not viable

But pumping over long distances isn't feasible .

 

In some cases it is done then?

I wasn’t imagining it being done over long distances.

 

but then I have no idea what long distances are regards pumping water from one source to another,

 

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Goliath

[peterboat]

11 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

 

Well C&RT are  already responsible for the Tidal Trent which is filled with water each tide, twice a day 

C&RT pump water to to up the Fossdyke at Torksey. C&RT also pump from the Trent into the Chesterfield  Canal.

So C&RT already have access to one of the main Rivers in England.

But pumping river water  over long distances is not viable

But pumping over long distances isn't feasible .

 

They pump from the Don into the Sheffield canal, its unreliable and expensive 

[Momac]

3 minutes ago, Goliath said:

In some cases it is done then?

I wasn’t imagining it being done over long distances.

 

Yes .

If the distances are short pumping is possible. But would still be a big investment.

 

 

[Francis Herne]

Also from the Severn into Gloucester Docks to fill the G&S - which has been an issue recently because with the river so low last summer the docks filled up with silt.

 

I believe a lot of that water is taken from the other end of the canal at Sharpness to supply Bristol's tap water after treatment.

[George and Dragon]

2 hours ago, M_JG said:

 

Well in my personal experience in the NHS that is not correct.

 

In my personal experience of working in the NHS it would have been better not to have a reorganisation every two years. I have absolutely no idea how much money that wasted but the effect on staff morale was cumulative.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, George and Dragon said:

 

In my personal experience of working in the NHS it would have been better not to have a reorganisation every two years. I have absolutely no idea how much money that wasted but the effect on staff morale was cumulative.

 

Indeed.

 

But I got involved in some interesting cost efficiency projects.

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, Barneyp said:

The most obvious failure of CRT senior management and directors is being stupid enough to take the job on in the first place. 

 

No, their biggest mistake was writing a business plan based on figures they said they would achieve and expenses they said they meet with no idea how to actually do it. The Govenment got KPMG to audit the business plan (prior to handing the BW assets to C&RT) and KPMG confirmed that if the expenditure came in as planned and the costs were controlled as expected then, apart from 2012 & 2013 the business plan showed that C&RT would be viable.

 

C&RT have massaged and falsified the figures ever since, the chickens are now coming home to roost.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Ianws]

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

No, their biggest mistake was writing a business plan based on figures they said they would achieve and expenses they said they meet with no idea how to actually do it. The Govenment got KPMG to audit the business plan (prior to handing the BW assets to C&RT) and KPMG confirmed that if the expenditure came in as planned and the costs were controlled as expected then, apart from 2013 & 2014 the business plan showed that C&RT would be viable.

 

C&RT have massaged and falsified the figures ever since, the chickens are now coming home to roost.

Also in the news today.

 

KPMG has settled a £1.3bn lawsuit brought by Carillion’s liquidators, who claimed the auditor was negligent and missed serious red flags in the outsourcing firm’s accounts ahead of its disastrous collapse in 2018.

[Alan de Enfield]

20 minutes ago, Ianws said:

Also in the news today.

 

KPMG has settled a £1.3bn lawsuit brought by Carillion’s liquidators, who claimed the auditor was negligent and missed serious red flags in the outsourcing firm’s accounts ahead of its disastrous collapse in 2018.

 

 

The difference being that KPMG was auditing a business plan which BW wrote based on certain factors. KPMG said that they cannot comment on the validity of the business plan and have only used the figures given to them, and based on those figures, the business is viable.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I think that KPMG were not very pleased that BW/CRT wanted to publish its report -
 

Quote

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE: TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ABOVE REPORT

A report prepared by KPMG LLP (KPMG) solely for British Waterways Board and Canal & River Trust is available for reading and can be viewed here.  The KPMG report has been prepared on a confidential basis in accordance with terms of engagement agreed by British Waterways Board and Canal & River Trust with KPMG.  Readers are not permitted to copy, reproduce or disclose the whole or any part of the KPMG report unless required to do so by law or by a competent regulatory authority.
 

Following a request by British Waterways Board and Canal & River Trust, KPMG has exceptionally agreed to the posting of its confidential report on this website, on the basis set out in this Notice to enable readers to verify that a report on the matters discussed has been commissioned by British Waterways Board and Canal & River Trust and issued by KPMG, subject to the remaining paragraphs of this Notice, to which readers' attention is drawn.

 

KPMG wishes readers to be aware that KPMG's work for British Waterways Board and Canal & River Trust was designed to meet the agreed requirements of British Waterways Board and Canal & River Trust determined by British Waterways Board's and Canal & River Trust's needs at the relevant time.  The KPMG report should not be regarded as suitable to be used or relied on by any reader other than British Waterways Board and Canal & River Trust wishing to acquire any rights against KPMG for any purpose or in any context.
 

In consenting to the posting of the KPMG report on this website, KPMG does not accept or assume any responsibility to any readers other than British Waterways Board and Canal & River Trust  in respect of its work for British Waterways Board and Canal & River Trust, the KPMG report, or any judgments, conclusions, opinions, findings or recommendations that KPMG may have formed or made and, to the fullest extent permitted by law, KPMG will accept no liability in respect of any such matters to readers other than British Waterways Board and Canal & River Trust.   Should any readers other than British Waterways and Canal & River Trust choose to rely on the KPMG report, they will do so at their own risk.

 

 

[Midnight]

11 hours ago, Barneyp said:

Pros and cons from CRT's point of view or the government's/EA's.

Main pro for the government/EA is it is one less thing to fund.

For CRT on a basic level it depends what is the income from licenses and other sources compared to the cost of maintenance. The devil will be in the detail as to who is responsible for what if CRT are the navigation authority while EA still have responsibility for the rivers as drainage channels and for flood protection.

On a wider level would becoming responsible for the EA navigations help CRT to fundraise as a charity? 

 I was more thinking from boaters point of view and if the government kicked C&RT into touch and handed the whole thing to the EA - pros and cons?

[Barneyp]

13 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 I was more thinking from boaters point of view and if the government kicked C&RT into touch and handed the whole thing to the EA - pros and cons?

There maybe some advantage to boaters if CRT and EA waters had the same navigation authority, it may make licensing simpler, and there would be possible efficiency savings which could be used to increase the maintenance budget.

But I don't think the changes would make that much difference overall, except perhaps to the colour of the signs.

[Arthur Marshall]

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

No, their biggest mistake was writing a business plan based on figures they said they would achieve and expenses they said they meet with no idea how to actually do it. The Govenment got KPMG to audit the business plan (prior to handing the BW assets to C&RT) and KPMG confirmed that if the expenditure came in as planned and the costs were controlled as expected then, apart from 2012 & 2013 the business plan showed that C&RT would be viable.

 

C&RT have massaged and falsified the figures ever since, the chickens are now coming home to roost.

KPMG and all "auditors" are basically employed to massage any figures provided to rhem to give their employers the answers and report they want. In effect  a seller's survey. You wouldn't trust it as a buyer, you'd do your own. The concept that auditors are some kind of objective, disinterested organisation is a fantasy, useful to some. They're just consultants, and the bigger ones are just the most successful at faking the results.

If the figures were real, you wouldn't need them, any more than if you wanted your tax return to be accurate, you wouldn't need an accountant.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

KPMG and all "auditors" are basically employed to massage any figures provided to rhem to give their employers the answers and report they want. In effect  a seller's survey. You wouldn't trust it as a buyer, you'd do your own. The concept that auditors are some kind of objective, disinterested organisation is a fantasy, useful to some. They're just consultants, and the bigger ones are just the most successful at faking the results.

If the figures were real, you wouldn't need them, any more than if you wanted your tax return to be accurate, you wouldn't need an accountant.

I think you're misunderstanding what the job of auditors is...

 

They can't be expected to have a deep understanding of the business of everyone they audit -- for example if they audit CART's business plan which has an expected charity income of £10M a year from donors and the public and expenditure in new locks of £30M a year (just examples), they certify that the books add up using these figures.

 

It's not their job to decide whether these figures are reasonable and likely to happen in real life, just that the books balance. It's the job of the board of directors and management to generate the figures, and it should be the job of the shareholders to dispute them if they don't make sense -- but in reality this check rarely happens.

 

This is a weak process and it's why so many companies with pink elephant business plans crash and burn, because nobody robustly challenges what turn out to be over-optimistic assumptions, they just believe the people who are putting them forward.

 

This is what happened when CART was formed, and now the canals are suffering the consequences... 😞