Government CRT funding statement

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

.

I thought it had with some commenting that it had been recorded some time ago.

I can't see how you could date the recording if he is standing in front of a screen. Yes the hair moves as if it is windy but that is pretty easy to sort out. 

 

 

[Midnight]

2 hours ago, lampini said:

Indeed, this sort of info is all available on t’internet for those with eyes to see  - also needs the will to read it!

Wasn't there a thread on here a few years ago listing the so called qualifications of those in mid/upper management?

 

You don't need to look them up, just look at the standard of maintenance these lightweights oversee. 

[Ronaldo47]

13 hours ago, lampini said:

I was going to say - on the Ashby if de-watered they’d barely increase the headroom by 6 inches 😂

Indeed: on our first visit some 40 years ago, we got to the end of the Ashby with no problems. On our last visit, just before Covid, we gave up half way due to our painfully sluggish progress that would have left time tight for returning to the hire base had we pressed on to the end. We winded with some difficulty at a marked winding hole with the assistance of the boat's barge pole.  We did check the weed hatch regularly, but nothing was fouling the prop.

[Tonka]

Get companies to sponsor locks,bridges and lengths of towpath like they do at roundabouts

[lampini]

5 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

Indeed: on our first visit some 40 years ago, we got to the end of the Ashby with no problems. On our last visit, just before Covid, we gave up half way due to our painfully sluggish progress that would have left time tight for returning to the hire base had we pressed on to the end. We winded with some difficulty at a marked winding hole with the assistance of the boat's barge pole.  We did check the weed hatch regularly, but nothing was fouling the prop.

It can be a right slog to be sure; although actually right now it’s at its best cos of all the wet stuff coming from the sky! I recon we’re nearly on-wire, as it were..

As our cruising area is pretty restricted right now due to family stuff, we do see it as our duty to visit the very end at least once per year; also - the top 5 miles are lovely 😊 

we were once accompanied by a kingfisher for a couple of miles, flitting between trees.. 

[Heartland]

If they close the waterways will they shut down the cycle paths, I wonder?

 

The decision for reduction in funding has been published in the New Civil Engineer

The Canal & River Trust is a charity that looks after England and Wales’ 200 year old waterways, which is part funded by the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra).

The budget cut is the outcome of a Defra review into the grant agreement it has with the Canal & River Trust. In revealing its report, Defra stated: “From the review, we have concluded that the Canal & River Trust grant has so far demonstrated value for money and future government funding will continue to deliver significant public benefits. However, consistent with the policy intention when Canal & River Trust was created, we should go further in moving them into a position of reduced reliance on government funding.

“Therefore, subject to certain conditions being met, Defra will provide over £400M of ongoing funding for the Canal & River Trust from 2027 to 2037.”

Canal & River Trust says the cuts will see it lose almost half of its funding for this period – amounting to more than £300M in real terms.

It said the planned shortfall comes as the costs of maintaining historic canals are increasing due to climate change, with drought and extreme events impacting 250-year-old infrastructure.

Canal & Rivers Trust chief executive Richard Parry said the cuts will have a “potentially devastating impact” on the trust’s ability to safeguard 3,200km of waterways and associated heritage of locks, reservoirs, bridges, tunnels, aqueducts and embankments.

He added that the downscaling could undo one of “the nation’s greatest heritage regeneration stories”.

“The government has confirmed the value and importance of the nation’s canals and their vital role in our health and wellbeing, for wildlife and nature, and in supporting jobs and the UK economy. Yet, at the same time, they have announced a funding decision which puts the very future of canals at grave risk,” Parry said.

The trust said it had ambitious plans for continued growth in income from donations, investments and other funding streams and was also growing volunteer numbers to help with its work.  “However, even taking these into account, the decision by the government leaves a substantial funding shortfall which puts decades of restoration and recovery of these much-loved historic waterways at risk".

It was continuing to develop other sources of income, “considerably reducing the share of our funds from the government when compared with the former publicly-owned British Waterways, now less than 25% of its total income".

However it said that even after taking into account plans to increase its commercial and charitable income and to grow volunteering, “the scale of the reduction in government funding would mean deep cuts to canal maintenance and repair, leading ultimately to canal closures".

The trust said it was “issuing a stark warning” that the reduction in grant funding would “threaten the future of the nation’s historic canals, leading to their decline and to the eventual closure of some parts of the network".

According to Defra, its review considered both whether the grant funding has provided value for money, and whether there is an ongoing requirement for government intervention to fund Canal & River Trust.

The £400M to be provided by Defra from 2027 to 2037 consists of a fixed grant funding commitment which embeds a 5% a year downward taper over 10 years (starting from £50M and ending at £31.5Mn in nominal terms). Defra confirmed there would be a review of the funding after five years, in 2032, at which point the KPIs will be reviewed.

A Defra spokesperson said: “Since it was first created in 2012, we have been very clear that the trust would have to increasingly move towards alternative sources of funding. To date we have awarded it £550M funding and are supporting the trust with a further £590M between now and 2037 – a significant sum of money and a sign of the importance that we place on our canals. We have been discussing this with the charity for some time and have been offering support on how it can increase income from other sources, as per the original objective of the grant funding.”

 

 

The last paragraph is of interest- how has CRT moved towards alternate funding apart from giving priority to the cyclist, canoes, ecologists, and paddle boarders?

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

The irritating and inconvenient truth is that cyclists, canoeists, ecologists and paddleboardists have one thing in common. No need for canal locks to be working. 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if ecologists would be full of glee if a water channel was maintained and flora and fauna allowed to take over. 

 

 

It could be a very nice environment in a number of different ways. 

 

Canals with managed water supplies (locks can be weirs) and no great big heavy boats clotting the place. 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

9 minutes ago, Heartland said:

....

A Defra spokesperson said: “Since it was first created in 2012, we have been very clear that the trust would have to increasingly move towards alternative sources of funding. To date we have awarded it £550M funding and are supporting the trust with a further £590M between now and 2037 – a significant sum of money and a sign of the importance that we place on our canals. We have been discussing this with the charity for some time and have been offering support on how it can increase income from other sources, as per the original objective of the grant funding.”

 

 

The last paragraph is of interest- how has CRT moved towards alternate funding apart from giving priority to the cyclist, canoes, ecologists, and paddle boarders?

Defra are refering to development of charitable giving as per the Memorandum of Understanding Annex 8.1 which CRT signed -

 

Quote

Annex 8: Defra objectives for funding under the Grant Agreement.

1.
To reduce dependence on Government Grant and to foster increasing selfsufficiency, by providing access to new charitable income streams and stimulating new efficiencies. Over time, to increase overall funding available for the waterways. A prerequisite for this is to support the viability of CRT –especially in its early days - and so minimise the risk that Government has to intervene to take responsibility for the waterways from CRT.

Charitable giving was CRT's only new income stream. All the others were inherited from BW.

 

[Orwellian]

1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Quote

Charitable giving was CRT's only new income stream. All the others were inherited from BW.

And isn't the case that it has always run at a loss?

[LadyG]

On 10/07/2023 at 15:40, DShK said:

I'm going to go against the doom and gloom and say this seems like, in the face of everything, a more positive outcome than could have been faced. There is still funding. It could have been zero. That would have been much worse. And considering the turbulent place the country is in, it seems a fairly good outcome.

If there had been no funding the CRT would have to hand the waterways back to the UK Government.

Which scenario may recur sone time in the future .

[David Mack]

13 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Defra are refering to development of charitable giving as per the Memorandum of Understanding Annex 8.1 which CRT signed -

And I read elsewhere that charitable giving is down across all areas of charity activity.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

15 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

And isn't the case that it has always run at a loss?

Yes. 

 

5 minutes ago, David Mack said:

And I read elsewhere that charitable giving is down across all areas of charity activity.

Yes and CRT is not immune from this with the number of Friends in decline.

[Orwellian]

32 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Charitable giving was CRT's only new income stream. All the others were inherited from BW.

To be fair Allan CRT were able to invest in property without the previous BW restriction that it had to be 'waterway related' and to invest in non property assets. Whether this resulted in an improved performance is arguable. The value of the property portfolio has doubled since 2012 though.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

11 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

To be fair Allan CRT were able to invest in property without the previous BW restriction that it had to be 'waterway related' and to invest in non property assets. Whether this resulted in an improved performance is arguable. The value of the property portfolio has doubled since 2012 though.

Although not a new income stream you are quite right.

 

Becoming a charity gave CRT tax advantages, removed government restrictions on borrowing and removed restrictions on the way that the non-operational property portfolio could be used.

 

With regard to improved performance, the expectation was that the non-operational property portfolio contribution would be in line with the projections in the 2011 KPMG report.

 

I have not looked at the figures in detail but guess they are about £15 lower than they should be.

[Heartland]

There remains the concern of canal closures through the funding issue. May be the CRT should look to its own archive at Ellesmere Port to see how the canal has been transformed. This image shows the derelict locks on the Kennet & Avon Canal at Devizes in the 1950. Could this again become a reality?

 

 

[Rob-M]

2 hours ago, Heartland said:

There remains the concern of canal closures through the funding issue. May be the CRT should look to its own archive at Ellesmere Port to see how the canal has been transformed. This image shows the derelict locks on the Kennet & Avon Canal at Devizes in the 1950. Could this again become a reality?

 

 

Caen Hill looked a bit like that in the 70's.

[Tonka]

26 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

Caen Hill looked a bit like that in the 70's.

Caen Hill will make a nice whitewater canoe course next to the start of the canoe Devizes to Westminster race. 

[DandV]

7 hours ago, Tonka said:

Caen Hill will make a nice whitewater canoe course next to the start of the canoe Devizes to Westminster race. 

Very briefly until the canal to Crofton gets drained. 

[JimE]

 

I have read all of the replies with interest. 

Having previously lived on a NB my wife and I were planning to return to the canals to see out our retirement. 

This decision by the Government/DEFRA has made us decide not to return to the water. 

All current boaters will have seen the decline of the canal infrastructure over the years. Whilst this should not be a surprise as the network is hundreds of years old, it demonstrates that the investment needed is simply not there. 

The CRT appear to be in crisis management mode. Many believe this is due to poor leadership, however, I believe if the funding was available the trust would move from crisis mode to planned maintenance. An example of this would be culvert repair. The CRT will admit they react to failure of culverts rather than planned maintenance , this is simply down to lack of funds. 

 

Charity- Relying on charitable donations to fund the canals is fickle at best. When the public have financial worries in their own life the first thing they review is where they spend their money. 

 

Licence fees - licensing costs could and probably will rise. However, they  have to be palatable to the boating community, it could be done by stealth with year on year increases but eventually many will say it’s simply not worth paying. Targeting current boaters who do not pay will make every genuine boater feel better but will not make a dent in the funding shortfall. 

 

Honey pot Moorings - This has already been implemented in some areas. I can see this increasing as a way to get the many towns and villages along the network to contribute to the upkeep of their stretch. In return premiums may be needed to be payed by boaters to moor in these areas. I believe this will lead to a fragmented network with the average boater being forced into the margins, in particular the CC’s. 

 

The Public - For many who use the canal network for recreational purposes the disappearance of boats would be unthinkable, for others (paddleboarding, fishing etc) it would not. 

 

Developing the canal for multiple recreational activities/commuting corridors is already the aim of the CRT. Much is made about that there are more registered boats now than at the height of the working era, but there is one big difference. 

When the canals were use for commercial reasons all of the boats would have been out using the network to maximise profit for the carriers. It was in their interest to keep the system working. Nowadays most of the boats spend most of the year moored or in a Marina with little movement, this can add to maintenance complacency. To my mind if a boat’s not being used to cruise it’s a shame.

 

The Future -  The future is simple, it needs a commitment, a commitment from government. The government need to be persuaded that the canals are an important/vital assett for many of the reasons contained within this thread. Unfortunately the current government is in crisis management.  Sadly I do not believe a change in government will result in a turn in fortune for the canals. Privatisation seems to be the name of the game for modern politics. If investors are found to part with money to fund the canals they will want their pound of flesh. This will be to the detriment of the average boater. 

With the creation of the CRT the government effectively offloaded their responsibility for the network. The CRT were handed a poisoned chalice, this was the start of the managed decline. 

Without a perceived need for the network from government there will be no more money. 
 

The Public - As has been mentioned throughout this thread the public need to convince the government of this need, how this is to be achieved I don’t know. 

We live in a world of navel gazing with with the majority of people living their life through the narrow view of their social media. 

Put a video of  the plight of the canals against one of a cat dancing on YouTube and which will receive the most views. 

The canals have been around for hundreds of years and are only around today due to the hard work of the activists once the canals reached the end of their commercial life. 

A public with a short attention span and a government without a plan or vision will lead I fear to a continued decline of the network. 

 

It saddens me to think this. 

[robtheplod]

 

[Orwellian]

30 minutes ago, JimE said:

The CRT were handed a poisoned chalice, this was the start of the managed decline. 

British Waterways under the leadership of Hales & Evans actively campaigned to be free of the 'contraints' of being in the public sector. They lobbied hard the then coalition government and were ultimately successful. So CRT were not 'handed' the situation in the passive sense they rather snatched the government's hand off. They also signed up to ending the very government financial support they are now saying they need for the waterways to have a viable future.

[magnetman]

37 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

 

6:25

 

I like the immediate denial.

 

 

"Some sort of declassification of the relevant stretch of waterway... As I say we have not thought about it..."

 

Transfer of cruising waterways into remainer waterway status is my guess and I believe this is an available option with secretary of state approval.

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by magnetman

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Orwellian said:

British Waterways under the leadership of Hales & Evans actively campaigned to be free of the 'contraints' of being in the public sector. They lobbied hard the then coalition government and were ultimately successful. So CRT were not 'handed' the situation in the passive sense they rather snatched the government's hand off. They also signed up to ending the very government financial support they are now saying they need for the waterways to have a viable future.

It is a shame that some people still believe that government somehow held BW to ransom and don't accept what actually happened. Hales & Evans were actively promoting less reliance on government grant whilst increasing public benefit 20 years ago!

Here is a copy and paste from from a post I made on this forum in March 2022 -

Quote

BW's publication 'Our plan for the future 2003 -2007' made a case for less grant claiming that it could be largely self-sufficient. This was documented to some extent in 2002/03, 2003/04 and 2004/05 Annual Reports. The following is from the 2004/05 Annual Report -

 

  Quote

Last year in 'Our Plan for the Future 2003-2007' we published a new vision for British Waterways. We said that by 2012 we will have created an expanded, vibrant,
largely self-sufficient waterway network used by twice as many people as in 2002.

Later on BW did an about face with the publication of a KPMG report in 2008. The main takeaways from this £600,000 report were -
 

  Quote

A current funding gap of £29m per year based (i.e at the date of the report BW were underspending on maintenance by £29m)

Modelled on four scenarios and assuming Government funding remained at 2008 levels the funding gap would grow from £29m to between £54m and  £103m over a ten year period.

A further KPMG report in 2012 did a second about face 'proving' that the CRT/Defra funding agreement was viable.

The third about face was CRT's recent appeal direct to the Treasury (rather than Defra) for an extra £220m as posted by Alan de Enfield above. It is probable that £140m of this application was directly due to safety concerns associated with the Toddbrook incident.

 

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Orwellian]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

6:25

 

I like the immediate denial.

 

 

"Some sort of declassification of the relevant stretch of waterway... As I say we have not thought about it..."

 

Transfer of cruising waterways into remainer waterway status is my guess and I believe this is an available option with secretary of state approval.

 

 

 

The original Transport Act 1968 provided for the relevant minister to reclassify a waterway between Commercial, Cruising & the remainder. The British Waterways Transfer Order 2012 which transferred the waterways and statutory functions to CRT added provisions which gave CRT the right to request the minister make such reclassifications and a duty on the minister when making their decision to take into account the financial position of CRT. It looks like both parties were anticipating the very situation we are now seeing.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

33 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

The original Transport Act 1968 provided for the relevant minister to reclassify a waterway between Commercial, Cruising & the remainder. The British Waterways Transfer Order 2012 which transferred the waterways and statutory functions to CRT added provisions which gave CRT the right to request the minister make such reclassifications and a duty on the minister when making their decision to take into account the financial position of CRT. It looks like both parties were anticipating the very situation we are now seeing.

Further evidence  that "both parties were anticipating the very situation we are now seeing" can be found further on in the provisions. The ministers powers under Section 104(a)  take precedence over a courts ability to enforce CRT's maintenance duties.

I take this to mean that, should an attempt be made to get CRT to discharge its duty under the Act, CRT can simply apply to the minister to change its duty, circumventing a court decision.

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by Allan(nb Albert)