Dodging the question

I CANNOT write for others that took part in the recent Canal & River Trust (CaRT) Q&A session on Facebook (Who ate the mince pies?), writes Allan Richards.

However, for me, it was yet another example of Chief Executive, Richard Parry, failing to give straight answers to simple questions. One example was the issue of Waterways Partnerships being self sufficient by the end of 2014 and providing an income stream thereafter.

Confusion

Before documenting the questions and answers, it is germane to give some background. There has always been confusion as to the role that Waterways Partnerships play within the Trust. One suspects that the idea originally came into being as a sop to government's dalliance with the concept of localism.

Indeed. the All Party Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Waterways, one of many Parliamentary special interest groups, held an enquiry into Waterways Partnerships in 2013 and found confusion as to their role. In particular they found Partnerships themselves confused as to their financial role.

Very clear

Richard Parry's predecessor, Robin Evans, had no such confusion. Indeed he was very clear as to the financial role of the Partnerships. He told the APPG that a member of one Partnership had already brought in £80,000 (it turned out this was untrue!) and suggested that if 50% of members could do likewise this then it would be ‘a good result'.

The APPG admired this ambition but thought it was premature to expect Partnerships to achieve these sort of results immediately.

As such three recommendations were made with regard to funding in a APPG report issued in April 2013:

Recommendations

• To ensure that Partnerships have clarity of their financial role and that revenue from the Partnerships beyond their operating costs are used within that Partnership's region.
• Waterway Partnerships should approach LEPs, LAs, the business community and other bodies to develop joint bids for funding and secure support for the Waterway Partnerships and its projects.
• Waterway Partnerships should continue to develop relationships with local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and the local business community with an aim to be self-funded in all their activities by the end of 2014.

Self funded by 2014

Over a year later, it was pointed out to APPG that many were still unsure about the role of Waterway Partnerships and that almost no progress was being made towards being self sufficient by the end of the year. With some of the Waterways Partnerships being in existence for three years only one example could be found of a financial contribution being made to the Waterways (£25,000 funding of new visitor moorings at Atherstone).
Consequently a second APPG report produced in August 2014 states:

‘Stakeholders mentioned their interaction with the Waterway Partnerships and how one of the original aims of the groups was to develop revenue streams for CaRT. Stakeholders stated that so far this had not been successful. Inland Waterways Association Chairman, Les Etheridge, raised concerns over the lack of funding streams being developed by Waterway Partnerships saying that the Partnerships need to raise these funds to better their local areas. The National Association of Boat Owners supported IWA's claim suggesting that the Waterway Partnerships had 'failed' in this regard, stating that 'there is little evidence, if any, that appreciable new funding streams are being channelled into the Waterways through engagement with local commerce or councils. Indeed, in many areas the Partnerships would appear to have dropped this as an aim'.

The report then went on to restate the three recommendations regarding funding that were made in April last year.

Three questions

Okay, that's the background. It seems that Waterways Partnerships are failing miserably in progressing towards developing the half a million or more income a year envisaged by CaRT. Indeed, they are failing even to cover their costs as part of the Trust's governance structure. Worse still, CaRT have admitted to offering Waterways Partnerships money to carry out projects—project that they should obviously be raising money for themselves.

... and it seems that, despite Waterways Partnerships having annual public meetings recently, nothing has been published that would give an indication of how each Partnership is performing financially.

The three part question asked was as follows:

'Will they be self funding by the end of this year and make a positive financial contribution to the trust thereafter?

If the Trust's plans regarding this have changed, why was the APPG Waterways not informed?

All but one of the Partnerships are recorded as having held Annual Public meetings but none have published minutes or notes. Why?'

Answer

After 16 minutes, Richard Parry replied:

‘The role of the waterway partnerships is to help the Trust operate locally, in touch with local authorities, businesses and other groups to ensure we are making the most of any local opportunities. All of their members are volunteers. They are beginning to be successful in helping us win support and funding. For instance, the Central Shires partnership secured funding last year for improvements in Atherstone. Their greatest impact is often in helping us understand how to benefit from local schemes and initiatives and to increase our influence with local decision makers. Annual public meetings are not minuted as they are simply a presentation of the work of the local partnership which anyone is free to attend. Minutes of partnership meetings are published'.

Dodging the question?

[Waterway Partnerships, along with Council and Board of Trustees form part of the governance structure of CaRT. The cost of governance was £1.4 millions last year. Roger Hanbury, CaRT's £100,000 Head of Governance who is responsible for Waterways Partnerships, will leave next year. It is not known if the Trust intend to replace him.]