Short termism

IT IS not just Canal & river Trust that is suffering from the blight of 'short termism' but most of the Establishment too in my opinion, writes Ralph Freeman.

The mission statement (oh how I hate that term) for CaRT is simple. Keep the the canals in a condition fit for purpose for another 200 years. That may be a bit of ball ache for some, but people did it in the past without the aid of modern communications and construction equipment, but maybe they had commitment on their side instead?

Forget the future?

Now look at the way CaRT is operating. We have this ridiculous short term 'leave it 'til it fails' policy; i.e think about tomorrow forget the future! Creatures much lower down the food chain pursue a more enlightened policy than that! It doesn't matter where we look, whether it is at maintenance or the clarification/revision of the laws of the Cut enshrined in the plethora of waterways acts CaRT inherited, we see a lack of will to get to the heart of a problem and then fix it. It appears to many that more time and money is spent avoiding issues instead of tackling them head on. Indeed one of my informants suggested attending a CaRT meeting was like being in an episode of 'Yes Minister'!

Not fit for purpose

Why is this I ask? There are several answers to that question of which short termism is one but there may be others such as 'can't be bothered', or plain incompetence? Whichever way you look at it the result is the same. In the opinion of many boaters, CaRT in its present form, is 'not fit for purpose'. The evidence is plain to see if you live on the canals.

How many times have precious time and resources been spent on 'gimmicks' and projects which amount to nothing more than PR stunts? Is that because that's all CaRT staff are capable of doing? I'm beginning to wonder if CaRT cannot arrange the removal of debris from spills and bywashes or it's legal department do a cut and paste of the existing waterways acts and generate a new single document (Waterways Act 2015) that is easy to understand and enforceable in the courts, then I ask is CaRT fit for purpose?

The knowledge is out there

There are many boaters out there that have had responsible posts in engineering and other professions in the past. Why not tap into this experience? I know boaters that have made perfectly reasonable suggestions, but to no avail. Just a wave of negativity comes back from CaRT. It seems to employ highly trained 'excuse' experts. All they reply with is why something can't be done, much of which is complete nonsense. I suspect it's just an extreme case of the 'Not invented here' syndrome. How can employees get away with 'dodging the issue' or cocking things up year in year out? This is not just the junior staff either in my opinion. It runs through CaRT end to end like lettering in a stick of rock. It doesn't matter where you look it's still there!

What to do in 2015?

So, I would suggest the two main thrusts for 2015 should be: Outsource or use volunteers to do all the non-essential tasks like wildlife/heritage/PR stunts etc and make sure that maintenance or more importantly the design/technical authority for the waterways is brought back in house and resourced properly. One problem with outsourcing engineering functions is that over time, the knowledge in the hands of the contractor may increase but that of the outsourcer (i.e CaRT) certainly decreases. Not good! Is Dutton an example of this I wonder?

I have often wondered who signs-off a lock (or work a contractor has done) as fit for purpose after a stoppage? I've seen lock mechanisms not greased and bolts fitted with no locking mechanism on locks that have just been re-opened. How can such obvious failings be overlooked? If small things like these are not dealt with it makes you wonder about the more important and often out of sight issues (like leaks through lock walls). Have they been ignored too? Evidence suggests this may well be the case. Look how many 'emergency stoppages' we have had of late. They were almost unheard of 10 years ago.

Disappointed

I thought that the coming of a 'new broom' at the top may well have given boaters hope that things would change for the better. Apparently not. The new broom appears to be a PR man and not what I call a 'nuts & bolts' man—the sort of person who gets to the core of an issue and then sets out a plan to remedy the situation.

Instead we get propaganda (lies), minutes of meetings with the facts 'filleted' out, and more 'smoke and mirrors', so no change there then. I would like to be upbeat for the future of the canals but until someone tackles the fundamental problems of long term maintenance and the laws of the waterways, I afraid that papering over the cracks and issuing PR nonsense to anyone that will repeat it, will lead to only one outcome. A return to 60's canal wise?

Continuing the Robin Evans years

Come on Richard. Get a grip! You are running a bloated, top heavy structure whose purpose seems to be self-serving and definitely not for the benefit of your customers. Certainly your main contributors, boaters (who also pay taxes too remember), are treated with contempt. CaRT in it's present form is on the road to nowhere and more PR men will not change that. In fact CaRT is in danger of continuing the Robin Evans years! Need I say more?