Government CRT funding statement

[Midnight]

6 minutes ago, Tuggy said:

As some of you may know, especially those of you with an interest in canals and rivers, DEFRA finally, after much dithering and delay, published their so called report into the future funding of the Canal & River Trust, the charity set up to take over looking after 2,000 miles of canals and rivers from the then Government run British Waterways.

The report, albeit far too brief, explains that the current funding model for C&RT offers good value for money but despite this, as with nearly everything in public life, their grant will be reduced by around £400million between now and 2037 in real terms, allowing for inflation.

The report can be read here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/canal-river-trust-grant-review/report-on-review-of-the-grant-agreement-between-defra-and-the-canal-river-trust

 

It doesn’t take long to read!

 

Did Government want to listen??

 

One thing C&RT have done very well is to open up the waterways to people who do more than own a boat or go fishing. Their push since 2018 as a well being charity maybe didn’t bring in the funds they hoped but, in my opinion, the network has become a lot more accessible for all.

However, there is far more than simply 2000 miles of canals and rivers, there are the reservoirs and they offer a huge liability to the trust, who remembers Tod book and that’s on going. There are plenty more. Just think of all the structures.

 

Anyone who is involved with the inland waterways now will have to admit that the reduction in funding and resultant budgets is already self evident. Cash spent on towpath and vegetation management is now ineffective, the number of closures and break downs is on the increase, close it – don’t fix it! And the system, especially here in the North West is close to breaking point. What will the effect be on reduced funding even further?
Like it or not, the Government have to vie the waterways network as national infrastructure and maintain it as such. Take the River Weaver, close to my heart, its Cheshire’s largest drain and can’t be simply ignored.

 

For me, the clearest comparison is the Network Rail/ Railtrack story. While Railtrack didn’t spend what they should have done while paying dividends to shareholders, CRT find themselves in a similar position with a reduced grant instead of dividends to pay.

The late Tom Rolt, David Hutchings and other great canal restorers and campaigners worked tirelessly to restore abandoned canals and structures for future use and public benefit. Just a few years of under investment or freeze on maintenance spending could see all that work undone and we would be back again with a network as it was in the 1950’s.

This excellent interview with a reinvigorated C&RT’s CEO, Richard Parry, is excellent and discusses all the options open to CRT, realistic or not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpSudyrlNmA

 

This decision has to be reviewed and over turned.

C&RT have set up a page encouraging you to write to your local MP about the decision.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/donate/our-campaigns/keep-canals-alive

 

Some may argue that C&RT have had it easy, being shielded from Government cuts that have effected local councils and public services since 2008, but just a few years of under investment will set the rot to work for many years to come.

#keepcanalsalive

 

 

Tuggy from C&RT's first post?
The network was always accessible. C&RT spent loads of money marketing it but obviously Therasa Coffey wasn't impressed. Maybe they should have focussed on maintenance and the economic benefits like holiday hires, the multiplier effect on canal towns and on overseas tourism as mentioned in Cruising the Cut 304 video - Mr Parry seems to dodge that one).

Welcome Tuggy!

[IanD]

50 minutes ago, Tuggy said:

As some of you may know, especially those of you with an interest in canals and rivers, DEFRA finally, after much dithering and delay, published their so called report into the future funding of the Canal & River Trust, the charity set up to take over looking after 2,000 miles of canals and rivers from the then Government run British Waterways.

The report, albeit far too brief, explains that the current funding model for C&RT offers good value for money but despite this, as with nearly everything in public life, their grant will be reduced by around £400million between now and 2037 in real terms, allowing for inflation.

The report can be read here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/canal-river-trust-grant-review/report-on-review-of-the-grant-agreement-between-defra-and-the-canal-river-trust

 

It doesn’t take long to read!

 

Did Government want to listen??

 

One thing C&RT have done very well is to open up the waterways to people who do more than own a boat or go fishing. Their push since 2018 as a well being charity maybe didn’t bring in the funds they hoped but, in my opinion, the network has become a lot more accessible for all.

However, there is far more than simply 2000 miles of canals and rivers, there are the reservoirs and they offer a huge liability to the trust, who remembers Tod book and that’s on going. There are plenty more. Just think of all the structures.

 

Anyone who is involved with the inland waterways now will have to admit that the reduction in funding and resultant budgets is already self evident. Cash spent on towpath and vegetation management is now ineffective, the number of closures and break downs is on the increase, close it – don’t fix it! And the system, especially here in the North West is close to breaking point. What will the effect be on reduced funding even further?
Like it or not, the Government have to vie the waterways network as national infrastructure and maintain it as such. Take the River Weaver, close to my heart, its Cheshire’s largest drain and can’t be simply ignored.

 

For me, the clearest comparison is the Network Rail/ Railtrack story. While Railtrack didn’t spend what they should have done while paying dividends to shareholders, CRT find themselves in a similar position with a reduced grant instead of dividends to pay.

The late Tom Rolt, David Hutchings and other great canal restorers and campaigners worked tirelessly to restore abandoned canals and structures for future use and public benefit. Just a few years of under investment or freeze on maintenance spending could see all that work undone and we would be back again with a network as it was in the 1950’s.

This excellent interview with a reinvigorated C&RT’s CEO, Richard Parry, is excellent and discusses all the options open to CRT, realistic or not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpSudyrlNmA

 

This decision has to be reviewed and over turned.

C&RT have set up a page encouraging you to write to your local MP about the decision.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/donate/our-campaigns/keep-canals-alive

 

Some may argue that C&RT have had it easy, being shielded from Government cuts that have effected local councils and public services since 2008, but just a few years of under investment will set the rot to work for many years to come.

#keepcanalsalive

 

 

And one paragraph says it all:

 

"From the review, we have concluded that the C&RT 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 C&RT was created, we should go further in moving them into a position of reduced reliance on government funding."

 

First sentence -- canals are good for the nation as a whole and deliver benefits which exceed the subsidy cost (see details elsewhere).

 

Second line -- but for policy/ideological reasons and against the evidence, we are going to reduce the subsidy.

 

Why am I not surprised? See lots of other government decisions made for ideological reasons and against the evidence -- Sure Start, two-child benefit limit, prison/rehab, drug policy, taxation, coal/oil, insulation/heat pumps...

 

Evidence-based policymaking -- nah, let's not bother, let's do what the Party (and the Daily Wail) want... 😞

[Tonka]

Just copied this comment from the Daily Post article stating that North Wales will lose its stream in the sky

 

TH

ThePickledLiver12 HRS AGO

So this "charity" is funded to the tune of 600 MILLION of taxpayer money? And rather than take to the media showing how they've pared costs to the bone and are excellent value, we instead get a form of emotional blackmail about closing the most honeypot sites... Wonder if they could look at closing a rat-infested feeder in Brum instead? Or would the meeja not be interested in that one?

A quick look at their 2019/20 figures show several C-grade execs on 250k a year. An "investment portfolio" valued at nearly 1 Billion (yes, Billion) with an officer on 250k to run it (and presumably a team too) and 200million a year of income which roughly matched their 200million expenditure.

That expenditure included 44 million on "raising funds"....

Seems to me this "Trust" is nothing more than a jobs 'n' wealth 'n' OBE collecting circle, with a side interest in canals to give it an air of legitimacy.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

12 hours ago, IanD said:

 

 

Is that the boat Ricky was building as a technology demonstrator for "the guvmint"?

 It’s a Louis & Joshua build, Finesse we’re doing the Tech stuff before going back to Thorne, I believe the engine/hydrogen system is Barrus developed. I imagine the hydrogen tanks will be in the angled fore cabin as the 4x that were delivered in a frame were big canisters and there’s quite a bit of ventilation on there. Here’s another photo of it.

14 hours ago, IanD said:

Didn't think I'd get that far in a day, thought Keadby to Dunham was more likely. But it's a lot of river all the way up to Sawley, and I prefer canals... 😉

You won’t not in Oct, you’ll do Keadby to Torksey, obviously tide times and day light will be a factor that time of year.

Edited July 18, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

 It’s a Louis & Joshua build, Finesse we’re doing the Tech stuff before going back to Thorne, I believe the engine/hydrogen system is Barrus developed. I imagine the hydrogen tanks will be in the angled fore cabin as the 4x that were delivered in a frame were big canisters and there’s quite a bit of ventilation on there. Here’s another photo of it.

 

You won’t not in Oct, you’ll do Keadby to Torksey, obviously tide times and day light will be a factor that time of year.

 

I know Ricky is sceptical about how such a boat would work in real life -- which is to say, probably like the previous one which IIRC was last seen forlornly moored unmoving at Huddersfield -- but so long as the development is funded that's not his problem.

 

Trip should be early September not October, Keadby to Dunham VM looked doable but if tides don't work out Torksey is about an hour earlier, as you suggest.

 

Still keeping this as a last-resort option in case all three Pennine routes are closed -- it's the longest route in distance/time and also the least scenic for what is intended to be a holiday as well as a boat delivery trip... 😉

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Tuggy said:

As some of you may know, especially those of you with an interest in canals and rivers, DEFRA finally, after much dithering and delay, published their so called report into the future funding of the Canal & River Trust, the charity set up to take over looking after 2,000 miles of canals and rivers from the then Government run British Waterways.

The report, albeit far too brief, explains that the current funding model for C&RT offers good value for money but despite this, as with nearly everything in public life, their grant will be reduced by around £400million between now and 2037 in real terms, allowing for inflation.

The report can be read here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/canal-river-trust-grant-review/report-on-review-of-the-grant-agreement-between-defra-and-the-canal-river-trust

 

It doesn’t take long to read!

 

Did Government want to listen??

 

One thing C&RT have done very well is to open up the waterways to people who do more than own a boat or go fishing. Their push since 2018 as a well being charity maybe didn’t bring in the funds they hoped but, in my opinion, the network has become a lot more accessible for all.

However, there is far more than simply 2000 miles of canals and rivers, there are the reservoirs and they offer a huge liability to the trust, who remembers Tod book and that’s on going. There are plenty more. Just think of all the structures.

 

Anyone who is involved with the inland waterways now will have to admit that the reduction in funding and resultant budgets is already self evident. Cash spent on towpath and vegetation management is now ineffective, the number of closures and break downs is on the increase, close it – don’t fix it! And the system, especially here in the North West is close to breaking point. What will the effect be on reduced funding even further?
Like it or not, the Government have to vie the waterways network as national infrastructure and maintain it as such. Take the River Weaver, close to my heart, its Cheshire’s largest drain and can’t be simply ignored.

 

For me, the clearest comparison is the Network Rail/ Railtrack story. While Railtrack didn’t spend what they should have done while paying dividends to shareholders, CRT find themselves in a similar position with a reduced grant instead of dividends to pay.

The late Tom Rolt, David Hutchings and other great canal restorers and campaigners worked tirelessly to restore abandoned canals and structures for future use and public benefit. Just a few years of under investment or freeze on maintenance spending could see all that work undone and we would be back again with a network as it was in the 1950’s.

This excellent interview with a reinvigorated C&RT’s CEO, Richard Parry, is excellent and discusses all the options open to CRT, realistic or not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpSudyrlNmA

 

This decision has to be reviewed and over turned.

C&RT have set up a page encouraging you to write to your local MP about the decision.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/donate/our-campaigns/keep-canals-alive

 

Some may argue that C&RT have had it easy, being shielded from Government cuts that have effected local councils and public services since 2008, but just a few years of under investment will set the rot to work for many years to come.

#keepcanalsalive

 

With regard to dithering and delay, it may be that the government funding offer has been on the table for many months but not agreed by CRT who have been doing an Oliver Twist.

 

By going public with the government offer, Coffey is forcing CRT's hand. Due to the ONS classification, failure to accept will lead HM Treasury to treat CRT as a company rather than a charity for tax purposes and make CRT subject to government rules on its investments.

 

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

With regard to dithering and delay, it may be that the government funding offer has been on the table for many months but not agreed by CRT who have been doing an Oliver Twist.

 

By going public with the government offer, Coffey is forcing CRT's hand. Due to the ONS classification, failure to accept will lead HM Treasury to treat CRT as a company rather than a charity for tax purposes and make CRT subject to government rules on its investments.

 

 

I don't think anyone would blame CART for "doing an Oliver Twist", assuming you mean "asking for the grant not to be reduced", given that CART know full well what effect this will have.

 

If the government do that (company, rules on investments) what does this mean to CART -- what's different about the investment rules, and more to the point who owns the company?

 

Doesn't that effectively move the canals back onto the government books, when getting them off it was the whole point of the charity/trust thing?

Edited July 18, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

Is this where Canal and River Trading CIC come into play? 

 

(speculation I have no idea)

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08069602/officers

[Orwellian]

43 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

By going public with the government offer, Coffey is forcing CRT's hand. Due to the ONS classification, failure to accept will lead HM Treasury to treat CRT as a company rather than a charity for tax purposes and make CRT subject to government rules on its investments.

Does this mean that ONS are still classifying CRT as a public non financial corporation? I had assumed the delay in announcing the post 2027 grant was because they were waiting until the status had been resolved by reducing the degree of government control and leaving CRT as a charity outside the public sector.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Does this mean that ONS are still classifying CRT as a public non financial corporation? I had assumed the delay in announcing the post 2027 grant was because they were waiting until the status had been resolved by reducing the degree of government control and leaving CRT as a charity outside the public sector.

The current situation is unchanged. The ONS classification remains and CRT have been operating under a derogation from HM Treasury which allows them to be taxed as a charity rather than company. However, the derogation ran out at the end of March. 

 

HM Treasury, has indicated that it wants to see demonstrable progress in sorting the matter out or they will start to tax CRT according to its classification.

 

Rather than altering the current documents to sort out the ONS situation and altering them again later for an extention of grant, the "offer" announced by Defra is a replacement agreement with new terms which will significantly reduce government control.

[Orwellian]

5 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The current situation is unchanged. The ONS classification remains and CRT have been operating under a derogation from HM Treasury which allows them to be taxed as a charity rather than company. However, the derogation ran out at the end of March. 

 

HM Treasury, has indicated that it wants to see demonstrable progress in sorting the matter out or they will start to tax CRT according to its classification.

 

Rather than altering the current documents to sort out the ONS situation and altering them again later for an extention of grant, the "offer" announced by Defra is a replacement agreement with new terms which will significantly reduce government control.

Thanks Allan that's interesting. Lot's of Government pressure on CRT to accept their 'offer'.

[wandering snail]

3 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The current situation is unchanged. The ONS classification remains and CRT have been operating under a derogation from HM Treasury which allows them to be taxed as a charity rather than company. However, the derogation ran out at the end of March. 

 

HM Treasury, has indicated that it wants to see demonstrable progress in sorting the matter out or they will start to tax CRT according to its classification.

 

Rather than altering the current documents to sort out the ONS situation and altering them again later for an extention of grant, the "offer" announced by Defra is a replacement agreement with new terms which will significantly reduce government control.

CRT has stated that the situation was resolved by removing Defra as a 'B' member of the Trust. Does this make any difference to their tax position?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

55 minutes ago, wandering snail said:

CRT has stated that the situation was resolved by removing Defra as a 'B' member of the Trust. Does this make any difference to their tax position?

The 'B' member is the SoS, Coffey, not Defra. She can not be removed from CRT's governing document as 'B' member unless she first resigns.

 

CRT's tax position will not alter until such time as ONS decides to publish a reclassification. To date, this has not been done.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, wandering snail said:

CRT has stated that the situation was resolved by removing Defra as a 'B' member of the Trust. Does this make any difference to their tax position?

 

11 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The 'B' member is the SoS, Coffey, not Defra.

 

 

 

 

Typical C&RT do not even have a grasp of who their 'members' are, what chance they can understand something as complicated as running the waterways.

Maybe it would be a good step forward if C&RT employed someone who could read the agreements which they signed up to in 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mad Harold]

8 hours ago, IanD said:

 

 

Still keeping this as a last-resort option in case all three Pennine routes are closed -- it's the longest route in distance/time and also the least scenic for what is intended to be a holiday as well as a boat delivery trip... 😉

If the last two years are anything to go by, then your only option is the Trent.

I understand your nervousness about the trip, but I am sure there is plenty of sound advice on here from the people who have done it.

[peterboat]

11 hours ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

 It’s a Louis & Joshua build, Finesse we’re doing the Tech stuff before going back to Thorne, I believe the engine/hydrogen system is Barrus developed. I imagine the hydrogen tanks will be in the angled fore cabin as the 4x that were delivered in a frame were big canisters and there’s quite a bit of ventilation on there. Here’s another photo of it.

You won’t not in Oct, you’ll do Keadby to Torksey, obviously tide times and day light will be a factor that time of year.

It is Barrus developed I heard. I got it all secondhand of trip boat Paul so bits might be missing 

[IanD]

3 hours ago, Mad Harold said:

If the last two years are anything to go by, then your only option is the Trent.

I understand your nervousness about the trip, but I am sure there is plenty of sound advice on here from the people who have done it.

I'm not particularly nervous, I'd just prefer to do the other routes if these are open. As you say, plenty of advice on here if I do end up going via the Trent... 🙂

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

10 hours ago, peterboat said:

It is Barrus developed I heard. I got it all secondhand of trip boat Paul so bits might be missing 

Yes here’s a link to their web page with some details:

https://www.barrus.co.uk/divisions/low-zero-emission-projects/fuel-cell/

 

 

[Tonka]

"Duty of care" is the answer. I have heard it banded around a lot lately.

CRT have a Duty of care and because they have allowed more people on the towpath then that has increased the number of people included. 

If a narrowboat is on CRT water and does  not display a licence or name or index number then CRT can not prove it has a safety certificate. Therefore it is deemed to be unsafe and as CRT have a duty of care they can remove the boat to protect the public.

 

I am sure no-one would argue against something that is there for public safety

[Allan(nb Albert)]

13 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

 

 

Typical C&RT do not even have a grasp of who their 'members' are, what chance they can understand something as complicated as running the waterways.

Maybe it would be a good step forward if C&RT employed someone who could read the agreements which they signed up to in 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am pretty sure the director in charge of filing falsified annual reports has read CRT's governing document and understands it.

[peterboat]

48 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

Yes here’s a link to their web page with some details:

https://www.barrus.co.uk/divisions/low-zero-emission-projects/fuel-cell/

 

 

Wonder where they will get their hydrogen from? We have a hydrogen plant in Rotherham, one of the few in the country 

[Orwellian]

1 minute ago, Tonka said:

they have allowed more people on the towpath then that has increased the number of people included. 

CRT have no ability to control access to the towpaths. Many are public footpaths and the funding agreement with Government requires that they provide free and unfettered access for walking and cycling to all their towpaths.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

CRT have no ability to control access to the towpaths. Many are public footpaths and the funding agreement with Government requires that they provide free and unfettered access for walking and cycling to all their towpaths.

 

There is no requirement to provide access (or allow the use) for cyclists.

 

 

Para 2.4.3

 

Thers is no such clause for any other 'mode of transport' (not even wheelchairs or disabled buggies)

 

 

[Orwellian]

My mistake. Thanks for correcting. But my main point stands.

[Tonka]

3 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

My mistake. Thanks for correcting. But my main point stands.

And by removing the locked gates at Little Venice for instance have they not allowed more people to access the towpath.  Let us make it safe by removing the craft that have no safety certificates