C&RT to receive some extra government funding

[Momac]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/iconic-canals-to-be-better-protected-with-65-million-investment#:~:text=England's and Wales' iconic canals,it continues to operate safely.

 

[MtB]

An extra £6.5m the article says. That should cover 25% of fixing the Llangollen breach!

 

 

[Tonka]

3 times on here now

[agg221]

1 hour ago, Tonka said:

3 times on here now

Maybe they'll get £19.5M.

 

Alec

[Alan de Enfield]

England’s and Wales’ iconic canals will be better set up for the future with an additional £6.5 million government funding to help build long-term resilience across the network and ensure it continues to operate safely.

 

 

Every penny helps, but that is a very small part of the £220 million that C&RT told DEFRA they urgently needed following an assessement of priority work needed.

 

(Note it includes high risk embankments and culverts)

 

 

[Momac]

Every little helps .

Maybe its a good sign that the need for extra funding is recognised. Lets hope this proves to be just a start.

 

[LEO]

Wow, That might cover part of the cost of piling Wilstone Reservoir.........

[Orwellian]

"This investment will help future-proof the Canal & River Trust’s network, ensuring it is better equipped to withstand the challenges of climate change while continuing to operate safely and reliably for the public".

 

If this is a one-off additional grant, which is what it sounds like, it will do no such thing. Pathetic. 

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

"This investment will help future-proof the Canal & River Trust’s network, ensuring it is better equipped to withstand the challenges of climate change while continuing to operate safely and reliably for the public".

 

If this is a one-off additional grant, which is what it sounds like, it will do no such thing. Pathetic. 

True, according to their own figures they'd need another £213.5M for that... 😉

[Momac]

2 hours ago, Orwellian said:

"This investment will help future-proof the Canal & River Trust’s network, ensuring it is better equipped to withstand the challenges of climate change while continuing to operate safely and reliably for the public".

 

If this is a one-off additional grant, which is what it sounds like, it will do no such thing. Pathetic. 

 

 

This funding certainly will help. Although I do agree its a modest sum I think the need for additional funding has certainly been understood by government.

We don't know what may be going on behind the scenes.with regard to future funding.

But I doubt very much that  C&RT are going to be given £200M in a single payment.

[IanD]

3 hours ago, Momac said:

 

 

This funding certainly will help. Although I do agree its a modest sum I think the need for additional funding has certainly been understood by government.

We don't know what may be going on behind the scenes.with regard to future funding.

But I doubt very much that  C&RT are going to be given £200M in a single payment.

Of course they're not, that wasn't the point, it was that £6.5M sounds a lot and of course will help but it's a drop in the bucket (about 3%) compared to what is needed to get the canals back into proper shape.

[Alan de Enfield]

10 hours ago, IanD said:

Of course they're not, that wasn't the point, it was that £6.5M sounds a lot and of course will help but it's a drop in the bucket (about 3%) compared to what is needed to get the canals back into proper shape.

 

The £220m is nothing to do with 'getting the canals back into proper shape' ie - catching up on the backlog of maintenance - it is simply to do improving their future resilience due to extreme weather events on major features, that would have a serious affect on the system if they were to fail (Reservoirs, Embankments, culverts  and tunnels).

 

The backlog of dredging, lock leakage, crumbling banks etc were not included in the figure requested.

[IanD]

40 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The £220m is nothing to do with 'getting the canals back into proper shape' ie - catching up on the backlog of maintenance - it is simply to do improving their future resilience due to extreme weather events on major features, that would have a serious affect on the system if they were to fail (Reservoirs, Embankments, culverts  and tunnels).

 

The backlog of dredging, lock leakage, crumbling banks etc were not included in the figure requested.

My error, I thought that's what you were referring to.

 

Given that the maintenance backlog was estimated at £100M before CART was formed (around 2000?) and inflation since then is 120%, that also happens to come out at £220M, hence the misunderstanding -- but either way, the same figures apply... 😞 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

59 minutes ago, IanD said:

My error, I thought that's what you were referring to.

 

Given that the maintenance backlog was estimated at £100M before CART was formed (around 2000?) and inflation since then is 120%, that also happens to come out at £220M, hence the misunderstanding -- but either way, the same figures apply... 😞 

Some confusion exists here.

 

BW gave the backlog in maintenance as £200m in 2007.

[Orwellian]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

My error, I thought that's what you were referring to.

 

Given that the maintenance backlog was estimated at £100M before CART was formed (around 2000?) and inflation since then is 120%, that also happens to come out at £220M, hence the misunderstanding -- but either way, the same figures apply... 😞 

CRT took over from BW in July 2012.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

42 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

CRT took over from BW in July 2012.

Took 2000 to be the date of the backlog estimate rather than the date CRT was formed. Either way, it is difficult to see where 120% inflation comes from ...

[IanD]

52 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Took 2000 to be the date of the backlog estimate rather than the date CRT was formed. Either way, it is difficult to see where 120% inflation comes from ...

No it's not, that's the government's inflation figure from 2000 to 2025.

Edited February 6 by IanD

[Allan(nb Albert)]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

No it's not, that's the government's inflation figure from 2000 to 2025.

Both ONS and BoE suggest less than 100% CPI inflation. Perhaps you would like to give a link and the figures you are using.

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Both ONS and BoE suggest less than 100% CPI inflation. Perhaps you would like to give a link and the figures you are using.

Honestly, this is like two bald men arguing over a comb when the problem is they've got no hair... 😉 

 

The figure is certainly somewhere north of £200M however you work it out, and £6.5M is a drop in the ocean in comparison -- that was the point, not the exact figure, which is pointless anyway since they're all guesstimates... 😉 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Honestly, this is like two bald men arguing over a comb when the problem is they've got no hair... 😉 

 

The figure is certainly somewhere north of £200M however you work it out, and £6.5M is a drop in the ocean in comparison -- that was the point, not the exact figure, which is pointless anyway since they're all guesstimates... 😉 

It is quite easy.

 

• BW's maintenance backlog was not £100m in 2000 as you claimed (it was over £300m)
• Inflation from 2000 to date is not 120% as you claimed (it is less than 100%)
• The £220m quoted by AdeE is not CRT's maintenance backlog as you claimed.
• I am not bald as you inferred.
• I am not arguing with you, I am correcting you ...

The above aside, I am wondering why we have not seen a press release from CRT on this £6.5m windfall.

[Orwellian]

2 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The above aside, I am wondering why we have not seen a press release from CRT on this £6.5m windfall.

Good question Allan I've been wondering that too.

[Tonka]

I bet they use ian_d 's inflation figures when they announce management pay rises 

[Hand Weaver]

My understanding is that this £6.5m is basically the inflation linked uplift that wasn't paid due to the Grant bring frozen?

 

Yes it's a small amount but, credit to Campbell Robb for managing to get this payment but the important thing is, it makes the government actually acknowledge there is a funding shortfall going forwards.

[IanD]

On 07/02/2026 at 08:32, Tonka said:

I bet they use ian_d 's inflation figures when they announce management pay rises 

Not *my* figures -- if you disagree, might I suggest you provide your own? 😉 

 

https://www.officialdata.org/uk/inflation/2000?endYear=2025&amount=1

 

"This means that prices in 2025 are 2.16 times as high as average prices since 2000, according to the Office for National Statistics composite price index." 

 

Edited February 9 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Hand Weaver said:

My understanding is that this £6.5m is basically the inflation linked uplift that wasn't paid due to the Grant bring frozen?

 

 

Was that when their grant was frozen dues to them making fraudulent claims re the KPIs and changing the accounts package once it had been signed off by the board ?

 

There was no obligation on government to provide funding after 2027 but there was  a commitment to carry out a review of CRT's performance and make an announcement by 1 July 2022. This was delayed whilst further enquiries were made into statements made in the accounts.

 

Following an FOI by Allen Richards

 

 

CRT's 2019/20 Annual Report was used as the baseline for Defra's investigation into CRT's performance carried out last year. The report was fairly upbeat with only 3 KPI's being worse than the previous year. One of those had a detailed explanation, the other two did not. It is suggested that CRT falsified its Annual Report in an attempt to influence the outcome of the investigation.

CRT falsified it Annual Report AFTER -

• approval by its board of trustees, for the chair, Allan Leighton to sign it on their behalf
• board instructions given to the legal and governance director (and company secretary), Tom Deards to file at Companies House and Charity Commission
• chief executive, Richard Parry telling the board that he would arrange to publish on CRT's website
• Richard Parry quoting a KPI at CRT's APM (later falsified)
• a formal vote by CRT's Council of Members to 'receive' the approved report
• publication of the approved report on CRT's website
• filing of the approved report at Companies House

Having done the above, CRT falsified the report to alter two KPIs where performance was down on the previous year. As Defra would have already been aware of one of the KPI's, Tom Deards sought Defra comments for a letter to be sent from CRT's chair to the Secretary of State (the letter was a requirement under the grant agreement). He failed to tell Defra that the annual report had already been approved and it was being falsified. He failed to tell Defra that a second KPI was also being altered. Meeting minutes confirm that Defra commented and the letter was sent.

Richard Parry had the approved Annual Report removed from CRT's website and replaced by the falsified report.

Tom Deards had the falsified Annual Report filed with the Charity Commission. 

CRT did not file the falsified Annual Report with Companies House (doing so would draw attention)

Following a complaint to the Charity Commission, Tom Deards, on behalf of the trustees, admitted that CRT had altered the report and named Richard Parry, Allan Leighton and deputy chair Jenny Abramsky as responsible (Deards failed to mention his own role and why he failed to report the falsification to his board, as was his duty).

The falsified reports on CRT's website and the Charity Commission have been reverted to the board approved reports. An information request has determined that no record exists of the board approving the changes made even retrospectively.

Allan Leighton will not serve his full term of office but will stand down at the next AGM.