What if C&RT doesnt work - where then?

[BEngo]

I'm a cynic and inclined to fear the worst, while hoping for the best, so I'm with you up to the point where they take it back into public ownership - aren't the government more likely to wash their hands of it? A lot easier than with the railways - especially if they somehow manage in the meantime to do away with statutory rights of navigation.

 

The Bill which enables the Secretary of State to transfer the waterways to CART's control, and give them the powers to run them, doesn't allow for transfer of ownership (so the waterways remain state-owned,) but does allow him to transfer the waterways from CART to another charity. There is no provision for recreating BW. Presumably if (when, in my current view) CART fails and no alternative charity is mug enough to accept the poisoned chalice (again, likely in my view unless there is more money attached than CART were getting) then the waterways would have to be directly managed by a Government Department.

 

N

[cotswoldsman]

Presumably if (when, in my current view) CART fails and no alternative charity is mug enough to accept the poisoned chalice (again, likely in my view unless there is more money attached than CART were getting) then the waterways would have to be directly managed by a Government Department.

 

N

 

So how much more money? A government that is cutting left right and everywhere else is hardly likely to stump up to much more for Waterways. They have committed £390 million if you add to this the £100 million a year from other income (Dodwell's figure) that gives income over 10 years of £1.4 billion.

Yes in an ideal world it would be nice to be funded with unlimited funds by the government for ever but in the real world that is not going to happen.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

So how much more money? A government that is cutting left right and everywhere else is hardly likely to stump up to much more for Waterways. They have committed £390 million if you add to this the £100 million a year from other income (Dodwell's figure) that gives income over 10 years of £1.4 billion.

Yes in an ideal world it would be nice to be funded with unlimited funds by the government for ever but in the real world that is not going to happen.

 

Dodwell's figure is gross, the net figure is much lower.

 

With regard to how much more is needed - we are talking about the funding gap. Robin Evans has told the APPWG that in 2010/11 the funding gap was £39m but BW was also had to use £10m of reserves (in other words it had to sell off assets). Others, myself included put the funding gap higher (IWA - £45m, me - £50m).

 

The funding gap will increase over time as costs will not be balanced by efficiencies and the extra income generated by being a charity.

 

What BW/CART are asking for is £59m a year for ten years - well down on what is actually needed.

[carlt]

What BW/CART are asking for is £59m a year for ten years - well down on what is actually needed.

If BW's current levels of spending are a true representation of what is needed to maintain the waterways.

 

The cost per mile of maintaining the motorway and A road network, in 2009/10 was £32227

 

£59 million will give C&RT £29500 per mile, for their 2000 miles of waterways.

 

It does not (or should not) cost just £3000 per mile more to maintain our major roads infrastructure than a leisure/heritage resource.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

If BW's current levels of spending are a true representation of what is needed to maintain the waterways.

 

The cost per mile of maintaining the motorway and A road network, in 2009/10 was £32227

 

£59 million will give C&RT £29500 per mile, for their 2000 miles of waterways.

 

It does not (or should not) cost just £3000 per mile more to maintain our major roads infrastructure than a leisure/heritage resource.

 

You have rather misunderstood. Try this. In 2010/11, BW spent £92m in maintaining its waterways. Robin Evans said that was £39m less than the amount needed to prevent deterioration from the previous year. The base figure for your calculation is £131m.

 

So cost per mile is higher than the figure you give.

 

Not sure that the comparison between roads and waterways is valid but if it is then BW should be given to the highways agency

[Morat]

I think the sh!t will really hit the fan when, after a couple of years of kicking the maintenance can down the road, C&RT are judged to be 'succeeding' and given the Thames to look after too.

 

The number of millionaires, politicians, captains of industry and generally powerful people whose gardens slope down to the banks of the Thames must run into four figures if not five. Once C&RT are seen to be fecking up management of the Thames I think we can expect to see some real arse-kicking to begin.

 

Whoever is running the show when this scenario comes to pass he is in for one helluva wake-up, and the resulting improvements in management attitudes and competence will probably rub off onto the canals too. Not only that but the prospects for funding will prolly improve too when management of ALL the waterways get lumped into one organisation.

 

(Edited tro correct spelling.)

 

Couldn't we short circuit that by giving the canals to the EA? I was highly impressed by the facilities on the Thames last year...

[Laurence Hogg]

Couldn't we short circuit that by giving the canals to the EA? I was highly impressed by the facilities on the Thames last year...

Dont even go there, the EA performance experienced of late is woeful and worse than BW's.

[cotswoldsman]

Dodwell's figure is gross, the net figure is much lower.

 

 

 

Please explain your meaning of gross and net? I was talking about income.

 

What BW/CART are asking for is £59m a year for ten years - well down on what is actually needed.

 

I wish them "Good luck" the more money the better.

Edited November 29, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Please explain your meaning of gross and net? I was talking about income.

 

Sorry, I was having a pop at Dodwell misleading with the £100m figure not your good self. It is, as you say, income.

 

However, when payroll and other costs are taken into account that figure becomes £60m. That's what I mean by gross and net and it is the net figure that is important as that is the amount available to maintain the waterways.

 

The way that BW calculates how much it needs to spend on maintenance is via its steady state model. The difference between the steady state model prediction and actual spend is, of course the funding gap. Actual spend last year was £92m down from £101m in both 2009/10 and 2008/9. This year it will drop about the same amount.

 

An extra £20m on top of the £39m only gets us back to where we were in 2009/10 when the funding gap was at least £30m

[Neil Corbett]

Everybody except perhaps Cotswoldman seems to be overlooking one big fact. If the canals weren't being handed over to C&RT there is every likelihood that the cuts in provision would be even more severe. With the public finances being what they are, we might have escaped just in time. The prospect of them being welcomed back into public ownership with open arms and an improved budgets is pure fantasy land. Anyway the last thing C&RT needs if it is going to succeed is a lot of people wanting them to fail. I'm going to give them a chance before I criticise and I shall help out somewhere if I can.

[deletedaccount]

The public finances aren't the issue here imo. The ideological drive of the tories for 'small government' (i.e. privitise everything) is.

[Rebotco]

The public finances aren't the issue here imo. The ideological drive of the tories for 'small government' (i.e. privitise everything) is.

I think the issue is both. A big part of the reason that the government wants to get rid of quangos like the BW, is that they don't want to (or can't afford) to keep picking up the ever increasing bills or taking the flak when it is failing (there are no votes in that!)

"Small government" is something I welcome, mostly because Nanny State interference in every aspect of our lives has grown to become oppression. And the more that politicians keep away from things they neither know or care about, the better. I don't know that has to be privatisation though. The CaRT is to be a charity, not private companies working for a profit.

 

Brian

[cotswoldsman]

The CaRT is to be a charity, not private companies working for a profit.

 

Brian

 

I presume you mean it needs to be a charity(Trust) working for a profit

[Rebotco]

I presume you mean it needs to be a charity(Trust) working for a profit

Sorry, that is a crap sentence, What I mean is privatisation means being handed over to private companies whose overriding motive has to be to make a profit. Whereas CaRT is not that, but a non-profit making charity.

Bit cumbersome, but more like what I meant!

Brian

[cotswoldsman]

Sorry, that is a crap sentence, What I mean is privatisation means being handed over to private companies whose overriding motive has to be to make a profit. Whereas CaRT is not that, but a non-profit making charity.

Bit cumbersome, but more like what I meant!

Brian

 

Well sorry you think it was a crap sentence........CaRT will certainly be profit making charity (Trust) otherwise we have some real problems.

[BEngo]

The public finances aren't the issue here imo. The ideological drive of the tories for 'small government' (i.e. privitise everything) is.

 

Maybe, apart from the fact that the charity thing was an idea picked up by "call me Dave" Fletcher (Heaven knows where it originated but I have my suspicions, which don't include Watford), which was recycled by Robin Evans and accepted by Labour, and is now being implemented by the Condems. The driver is really the Treasury which wants the last remnant of 1948 Nationalisation to disappear and DEFRA support this, because it wants to dodge the relatively minor political furore that erupts every time the waterways support budgets are cut.

 

The charity thing recognises; that you can't privatise BW, because it's never going to make a profit without a radical closure programme; that a closure programme still leaves you with the Sixties conundrum that the drainage functions cost more to replicate than maintaining the canals as drains and that there is a lot of money and (election-swinging) middle-class votes tied up in the waterways.

 

Provided they have the balls, the CART Interim Trustees have DEFRA over a barrel- the Charity cannot be forced to take the canals on and the Charity Commissioners should be interested if the trustees knowingly take on the task without enough money. I have no idea what size a grant for enough money is, and there are at least as many ways of working it out as their are accountants and politicians involved. To me it should cover steady-state maintenance as well as some contingency for the ability to respond to a major collapse like the Montgomery or the Stourbridge, including the cost of indemnifying those members of the public who are affected. Emergency response should not depend on selling the property portfolio either.

 

It appears that so far the Interim Trustees have stared to push back. This won't happen very much in public, because if that will rock the old-boy network's boat and might jeopardise some one's gong but the message clearly is that what is on offer is not enough and either DEFRA pay what is needed to give the charity a sound financial footing, or the canals might have to stay with BW.

 

Yes, in that event BW will see, at least in the short-term, reduced grants, but there will be an election in 2015, and all the politicians will have at least one eye on that. The other consideration is that in a recession, Government activity that support jobs (particularly in construction) is more easily funded than at other times. Both BW and the restoration movement have benefitted from this in times past. Additional grant to a Charity is much harder to justify politically than direct expenditure and has to compete in the media arena with the million or so other charities which would all like a bigger handout. All Governments are susceptible to spending money if the right buttons are pushed, so IWA, RYA, NABO and the rest will have to find out what the buttons are and how to push them. That cannot be done via a bankrupt charity.

 

 

N

[Rebotco]

Well sorry you think it was a crap sentence........CaRT will certainly be profit making charity (Trust) otherwise we have some real problems.

Why?

 

brian

[cotswoldsman]

Why?

 

brian

 

Why what? If you are asking why it is a profit making Trust the main reason is that it owns properties etc that have to make a profit, it will also continue to have joint ventures with Property Developers on land sold. It still owns pubs (maybe less said about that the better!!) We need the income (profit) from these to survive. All very well having a Boaters Manifesto but please remember boaters will account for about 15% of total income for new Trust.

[Rebotco]

Why what? If you are asking why it is a profit making Trust the main reason is that it owns properties etc that have to make a profit, it will also continue to have joint ventures with Property Developers on land sold. It still owns pubs (maybe less said about that the better!!) We need the income (profit) from these to survive. All very well having a Boaters Manifesto but please remember boaters will account for about 15% of total income for new Trust.

I don't think we are in disagreement here. Its just that I understand income and profit as two different things, whereas you show them as the same.

Brian

[Laurence Hogg]

This was received today:

 

Chairs appointed for Canal & River Trust Waterway Partnerships

 

Search broadened out to remaining waterways

 

 

Canal & River Trust, the new waterways charity that will become the guardian of the canals and rivers in England and Wales in April next year, has appointed chairs to a number of the Waterway Partnerships that will play a role in the management of canals and rivers across the network.

 

 

 

Chairs have been appointed in Manchester & Pennine, North Wales & Borders, South Wales & Severn and Kennet & Avon. The chairs for the Partnerships in the West Midlands and North West, who have, to date, been trials, have been asked to and have agreed to continue. A chair has also been recruited for the Museums Partnership, which will be the successor to The Waterways Trust Museums Management Board.

 

 

 

Chairs are now being sought for the remaining Waterway Partnerships in the North East, Central Shires, East Midlands, South East and London and recruitment for the All Wales Partnership is continuing.

 

 

 

Canal & River Trust is also calling on volunteers who want to actively support the two-century old canal network to join their local Partnership and get involved and advise on how the waterways are used and looked after. Each Partnership will consist of at least eight volunteers who will be drawn from the local community and who will collectively have a broad spectrum of expertise relevant to the development of the waterways. Experience in fundraising, volunteering, finance, planning and regeneration, boating, environment, heritage, engineering, community engagement, and working with partners in local government are all relevant.

 

 

 

Appointed chairs of Waterway Partnerships

 

 

 

Manchester & Pennine: Professor Walter Menzies. Previously chief executive of the Mersey Basin Campaign, a third sector partnership dedicated to sustainable development through the improvement of waters, the regeneration of watersides and the engagement of communities and businesses. Walter has also held non-executive positions at Waterwise, Healthy Waterways Trust, Land Restoration Trust and Look 2011.

 

 

 

North Wales & Borders: Jim Forrester. Jim is currently director at Imperial War Museum North in Manchester where he has delivered services to over 2,500,000 visitors over the last ten years and drawn in champions, stakeholders and potential funders, raising substantial capital and revenue funding each year. Previously a boatbuilder on the canals, Jim has spent the last 27 years working within charities in a variety of roles; from boat conservator to director of a new branch of a national museum in the region.

 

 

 

South Wales & Severn: Jack Hegarty. Jack has been managing director of Wychavon District Council since 2004, where he leads a complex public sector organisation, builds relationships with Ministers, MPs and Councillors and deals with local communities and partner organisations at a national and local level. He was directly involved with the Droitwich Canal restoration for 11 years.

 

 

 

Kennet & Avon: Fleur de Rhe Philipe. Fleur has been a member of Wiltshire Council since 1997, currently as cabinet member for economic development and strategic planning. As company secretary of The Kennet & Avon Canal Trust for ten years Fleur was instrumental in setting up the partnership which achieved a grant of £25 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund to complete the restoration of the waterway.

 

 

 

North West: Professor Steven Broomhead. Currently professor of entrepreneurial education at Liverpool Hope University, Steven previously spent eight years as chief executive at Northwest Regional Development Agency, prior to which he was chief executive at Warrington Borough Council. He has held the position of chair at a number of private and public organisations.

 

 

 

West Midlands: Peter Mathews CMG. Peter is past chair of the Black Country Consortium, which works to coordinate regeneration in the Black Country area of the West Midlands, and chairman and managing director of Black Country Metals. A prominent business leader, Peter has held the position of chair at various national and international organisations including The World Recycling Conference, UKTI Advanced Engineering and the Midlands World Trade Forum.

 

 

 

Museums: Laurence Newman. Chairman, Epsom & St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust. Previously, Laurence spent 20 years with KPMG where he was the partner responsible for their Leisure and Tourism Consulting Group. He is also a non-executive director of Grove End Housing Ltd, a trustee of Creativity, Culture and Education and a member of the Advisory Board of The Foundation, a growth and innovation consultancy.

 

 

 

Tony Hales, chair of Canal & River Trust comments: “I am delighted that such a high calibre of people have come forward to chair these important positions of governance within the Canal & River Trust. Each will prove to be well placed to champion the interests of their local waterways. The Waterways Partnerships are integral to the stewardship and development of the network, providing new perspectives and insights, opening up new resources and ideas, and giving local people a greater opportunity to support their local canals and rivers: something that is integral to the success of the Canal & River Trust.”

 

 

 

A written record of all meetings will be publicly available on the web. All positions on the Partnerships will be un-remunerated, but agreed expenses will be reimbursed.

 

 

 

Those interested in joining a newly appointed chair on their local Waterway Partnership or in applying for one of the remaining positions of chair can find role descriptions and application details at: www.waterscape.com/trust from Thursday 1 December. Applications for membership open on Friday 9 December 2011.

 

 

ENDS

 

 

 

For further media information on this press notice please contact:

 

Fran Read, 020 7985 7263, fran.read@britishwaterways.co.uk

 

 

 

 

 

------------------------------

 

Fran Read

 

National Press Officer

 

British Waterways

 

1 Sheldon Square

 

London W2 6TT

 

 

 

DL: 020 7985 7276

 

Mob: 07796 610 427

 

 

 

Follow the British Waterways press team on Twitter