I have been wondering to
myself, how well has the Trust been performing since its inception.
Three years in or 20% of the period of time allocated by the
government for funding. The plan is that the Canal and River Trust
(CaRT) will be self funding by the end of the period. Has the plan
worked and has there been in the intervening time period, any
successes to provide any reassurance of a positive future?
A
Brief History in Time
The
creation of the Trust came as a result of government policy for
cutting costs. Which became better known as the 'Bonfire
of the Quangos'. The old
British Waterways was highlighted as being one of the Quangos at
risk. In all likelihood the BW management would have gone to the
conflagration and the assets would have transferred into the
Environment Agency. There was a stay of execution as the old BW
management cast around for a salary and pension saving alternative.
Expediency drove the Government into publishing a consultation
document on the future of the inland waterways titled 'A
New Era for the Waterways' way
back in March 2011.
There
were grandiose claims for the required funding, which proved to be
just that. People with experience and knowledge of the funding gap
highlighted that the level of funding accepted was insufficient. The
trust had to go back cap in hand to ask for more.
The
All Party Parliamentary Group on Waterways (APPWG) added its weight
to finding a future for the waterways. The APPWG gave a
recommendation to the government for an increase in the funding. The
APPWG also issued an invitation for both written and oral evidence
from interested parties. The APPWG held two hearings where it took
direct evidence from witnesses. Some of the witnesses brought with
them a wealth of relevant expertise and experience. These hearings
took place in May and June or 2011.
The
APPWG then issued a Memorandum where it reported back on its
findings. The memorandum was published July 2011. The APPWG
memorandum was titled 'The Future of The Waterways.' The
document highlighted the discussions and deliberations that had taken
place. It also set out some of its key findings for the running and
financing of the new Trust.
The
Future of The Waterways
The memorandum now provides
a good document with which to asses the Trusts performance so far.
First it will be interesting to evaluate how well the Trust has taken
on board the wishes of APPWG and accepted the knowledge and opinion
from the highly regarded expert witnesses.
In the introduction to the
Memorandum the key issues were highlighted as being a fundamental
concern of government. There was an expectation and a principal that
the Trust should become the 'National Trust for the Waterways'.
This was not just in name, this was in ethos which would obviously
include the business model.
There
has been a great deal of interest in the proposition that our
canals should be moved from being, in effect, 'owned' by a Government
Department to being a sort of “national trust for the waterways”
which is independent and structured as a charity or trust or mutual
organisation. Many questions have been asked: would such a new body
release public energy or face significant and difficult challenges?
The All-Party
Parliamentary Group for the Waterways decided that the best way to
make a constructive contribution was to undertake hearings on the two
most significant topics of the changeover in order to help to answer
these questions, those being governance and the financial
arrangements of the new charity. Rt
Hon Alun Michael MP, Chair All-Party Parliamentary Waterways Group
In clear concise and
unequivocal language the expectations of the APPWG were set out. When
it reported upon the findings of the evidence taken from expert
witnesses. The memorandum reflected the thoughts of the APPWG after
all the evidence had been weighed and given due consideration.
The memorandum stated 'We
accept the practicality that the New Waterways Charity should begin
life with fair representation of stakeholders but we believe that a
membership model of democratic stakeholder representation to Council
should be developed.'
National Trust for the
Waterways
So the APPWG had set the
agenda for the future. One in which there was a guiding principal of
building upon a democratic membership. Which in turn it said would
lead to stakeholder representation. The APPWG was abundantly clear on
this guiding principal. There it was, a wonderful prospect of a
national charity, built around the waterways. Working on the same
ethos as the National Trust. Which with few exceptions everyone
thought was a perfect exemplar.
However, the thought of the
Trust being built upon democratic membership did not sit well with
some. Subsequent events have proven that the democratic membership
was to become biggest glaring and deliberate omission in the make up
of the Charitable Trust and it continues to this day.
Democratic
Membership
At the time there had been
some significant opposition voiced to the whole idea of a democratic
membership model. In an effort to spell out in simple terms. The
APPWG laboured the point when it said 'We believe that membership
has so much to offer the new organisation in terms of engaging the
public and developing a sense of ownership that there should be a
clear timetable for moving to a full membership model.'
There it is, in plain and
simple language. 'A clear timetable should be put in place for
moving to a full membership model.' There were no ifs or buts,
just a direct statement. I wonder if anyone has seen this mythical
timetable?
The Trust still stands
opposed to the democratic model of a membership. A membership that
could easily number in the hundreds of thousands. Made up of boaters,
birdwatcher, walkers, cyclist, conservationist and fishermen. A whole
myriad of people and organisations that could contribute and at long
last feel ownership. This however can only come about if all
interested parties have the option of becoming a paying member.
Which would also bring with it a significant funding stream. Many
like me were confused why there was this opposition in some corners
for democracy. Opposition to what the APPWG and all the evidence of
the experts pointed to. The common thought was being accountable to
the membership and that the membership would be able to vote on the
make-up of the governing council and trustees.
So the evidence gained from
years of experience from experts in the National Trust and other
charitable institutions was weighed. The memorandum highlighted the
importance it placed upon the National Trust experts evidence. The
APPWG actually stated it wanted to create the equivalent of the
'National Trust for the Waterways.' Here was a once in a
lifetime opportunity. There was a distinct prospect of fulfilling the
hopes and aspirations of the early pioneers of restoration such as
Aickman, Rolt and many others.
Dame
Fiona Reynolds (Director General of the National Trust) and Paul
Boniface (Secretary of the National Trust) informed the
APPWG that the structure and organisation of the New Waterways
Charity as proposed in the consultation document suggested over
complication and a lack of clarity. It needed to be
simpler in terms of governance and in identifying
accountability within the organisation. There seemed to be
imprecision about the roles of
the Council and the Board of Trustees and confusion over the role of
Local Partnerships.
If ever there was some
advice to listen to it came from the National Trust. Dame Fiona is
obviously very astute and she and her colleague identified almost
from the start. That the Local Partnerships would be confused. That
situation has not changed, if it has changed in any way, its
certainly not for the better. The promised £800,000 a year
contribution by each partnership looks to be an extremely unlikely
prospect. The promised self sufficiency of funding by the
partnerships by the end of 2014 has not happened. The partnerships
have failed completely to even partially fulfil even the minimal
expectations. The theme of a democratic membership, certainly does
not stretch to the make up of the Waterways Partnerships either.
The Evidence Builds.
Other
people offered their considered opinion which built upon years of
expertise. Cliff Mills a Practitioner in the law and
governance of co-operative, mutual and membership based
organisations. Principal Associate with Mutuo. Consultant with
Capsticks Solicitors LLP and Cobbetts LLP added to mounting evidence
for a democratic membership.
Cliff
Mills told the APPWG about his experience in setting up
mutuals and membership-based organisations. He said that he was also
struck by the potential for engagement with the wider community.
He believed that the statement of intentions in the consultation
document – with membership as an option for the new body to
consider later on – was wrong. The new body needed to start
as a membership based organisation to generate engagement
– membership was the point at which the public could become engaged
leading to a sense of ownership. Unless membership was built
in from the start of an organisation it could be very hard to
move to membership later on.
But then I suppose the
Trustees under the chairmanship of Tony Hales must think that Mr
Mills is only an expert in setting up and advising charitable
organisations. After all, what would he know when compared to the
experience in the third sector of the trustees. I bet Mr Mills if
asked, would now be saying – I told you so!
Michael Stephenson (General
Secretary of the Co-operative Party) questioned the detail of the
governance proposals. He told the APPWG that the proposals as they
stood were 'a missed opportunity' and could be more
ambitious. The previous administration had favoured the creation
of a mutual rather than a trust. The mutual model would allow for a
greater involvement of ‘membership‘, and allow
members a more direct say over appointments and representation.
In a Pickle
The grand plan for the
Trustees is based upon – recruiting friends. The problem is that
the Trust seems to be unable to find friends in sufficient numbers.
Not only that but it has thrown a huge amount of our money into the
discredited chugging on the high street to recruit the elusive
friends. The chuggers however soon went bust and so the Trust now
forlornly chuggs along the towpath. If chugging stopped people from
entering town centres – think what it must be doing for towpath
visitor numbers.
Cliff
Mills continued 'If the design of the organisation was
right from the outset it need not be incompatible with a charity but
accountability would be undoubtedly improved through membership.
Under the currently proposed constitution arrangements, it seemed
that preservation was fundamental to the purposes. But the
opportunity to challenge, change and evolve would be lost with this
model and there was a danger of preserving something in aspic.
Membership would allow more freedom to direct evolution of the
waterways in a positive manner.'
I think that the above is a
pretty positive statement of how things would fail to progress, from
his considerable experience. I quite enjoyed his metaphor of the
Trust ending up like a specimen in a jar and pickled in Aspic.
Mr Mills continued that in
his opinion there was a danger that failing to adopt a membership
structure - at least in the sense of identifying clear
stakeholder representative constituencies that could generate elected
representatives to Council - could result in bad publicity and
be seen as a device to cling on to power. In effect it would
hold at arm’s-length those who might benefit the new
organisation most through their enthusiasm and potential
financial contributions.
In a short and succinct
statement, Cliff Mills had highlighted everything that could go wrong
and which prophetically has gone wrong.
But Mr Mills is only an
expert with considerable experience in the third sector. The trustees
however, have been providing at best a lack lustre leadership.
Predicated upon the flawed supposition that they know best.
Adopting a democratic
membership has envisaged by the APPWG would have most likely led to
the removal of poorly performing trustees. What was it again that Mr
Mills said 'could result in bad publicity and be seen as a
device to cling on to power. In effect it would hold at
arm’s-length those who might benefit the new organisation
mostly through their enthusiasm and potential financial
contributions.'
The
Minister Weighs In.
The
APPWG
memorandum also went
on to say that 'In the light of the evidence we conclude that
following the route outlined in the consultation document (setting up
a governance structure which initially does not allow for membership)
is likely to foster a perception of a lack of democracy and
public engagement and to engender a concern amongst
stakeholders that the new organisation is British Waterways
under another name.
This
is a concern [the lack of democratic membership and a British
Waterways continuation] that we note that the Waterways
Minister is on the public record as being keen to wish to
avoid:
The
Waterways Minister said in answer to a question from an MP.
'It is vital that we are extremely careful to ensure that we
receive the best advice and get the correct model. I can assure her
that officials in my Department are working hard on the issue and are
committed to it, although we shall have a difficult time ahead with
the comprehensive spending review, which I shall talk about in a
moment.
We would have to have a
completely new board or council that would shape its own future.
It would not be British Waterways by another name, but a
new structure, in different hands altogether. We do not aim to
impose a particular model for a new civil society body, so we will
work up different options in partnership with stakeholders. Citation:
HC Deb, 7 July 2010, c501
The
memorandum also went on to say Once an organisation is set up
it can be very difficult for that organisation to then move
towards a membership model at a later date, however good the
original intention.
We recommend that the
Charity should begin life with a Council that comprises members that
are elected by the relevant organisations where that is possible, and
with representatives of other interest groups provided for through
nomination in the first instance; and that the process and
timetable for achieving a fully elected Council, and moving the
Charity to a full membership organisation, should be incorporated
into the articles for the New Waterways Charity and be a required
milestone in the Government contract with the Charity.
The section on governance
finished with the following. We recommend that the Charity should
begin life with a Council that comprises members that are elected by
the relevant organisations where that is possible, and with
representatives of other interest groups provided for through
nomination in the first instance; and that the process and timetable
for achieving a fully elected Council, and moving the Charity to a
full membership organisation, should be incorporated into the
articles for the New Waterways.
The Story Continues
There are many thousands of
charities in the UK. England and Wales. The Charities Commission role
is to regulate and monitor their charitable activities. The
Commission have conducted their own regular research into the
performance of Charitable Trusts and Mutuals. In particular to their
structures and make-up. The research from the Commission was
available long before the trust came into being. The scope of the
research was not limited to the performance of the exemplar National
Trust. The Commissions research was - independently conducted by
Mori – Furthermore it was conducted across the whole spectrum of
third sector charities.
So you might conclude that
the Charity Commission would know a bit about the best way to run a
charity. Many charities are run as a business and in some cases could
legitimately be described as being - a very big business. The Canal
and River Trust with its assets is a multi Billion pound, third
sector, business operation, enjoying what many other charities would
love to have and that is a monopoly position.
Speaking
at the Ascension Trust Practitioners Conference in Manchester, Sam
Younger urged charities to respond to public expectations by being
transparent and accountable:
'In
all areas of life, the public expects access to more, and more
accessible, data. Trustees need to respond to that. Trustees should
ask themselves: 'what do our donors, our beneficiaries; our partners
expect to know about our work?' Organisations - and charities are no
exception here - sometimes fear that revealing too much exposes them
to risk, for example to the risk that the information may be
misinterpreted or misused. My experience is that the occasions where
this is indeed the greatest risk are relatively rare.
Failing to be
transparent, allowing speculation to build, is often the greater
risk, especially in the long term. My view is that so long as
trustees have followed our guidance in making their decisions, they
should, in most cases, feel able to be open and transparent about
those decisions. And better still - share the information before
they are asked in the first place."
This is obviously an ethos
that is not shared by the Canal and River Trust board of trustees.
Time and again information is published late if at all. The on line
information is quietly removed at the first opportunity from public
scrutiny. The latest trend seems to be wholesale redacting of
information. The drawbridge is up and firmly in position at Ivory
Towers and the suspicion of the public is at Defcon One.
80,000
Charities Have a Membership.
Membership
is a common governance model
in the sector and its popularity looks likely to continue. The
Charity Commission estimates that
approximately 80,000 charities have a membership structure. Their
research indicated that charities with members overwhelmingly saw the
role of their membership as a positive one, with 84% of charities
with individual members and 81% with corporate members stating that
their members made a useful contribution to the running of the
charity. Their findings also highlighted that membership charities
also receive significant wide-ranging benefits from their members.
Charity
Commission experience indicates that those few charities that do run
into problems with their membership are likely to have one or more of
the following features: The trustee body puts up barriers
to membership involvement,
either deliberately
or inadvertently. The charity's membership lacks
diversity so the trustee
board is self perpetuating or
change-resistant
and unrepresentative
of its potential beneficiaries. Members or trustees deliberately
abuse voting procedures and
rights.
There
is very little I can add to what the expert witnesses provided and
the Charity Commission have published from conducting research into
charities in the third sector. I constantly have feelings of 'deja
vu' about the APPWG warnings and what the Charity Commission have
published as being areas of deep conern for the wellbeing and
governance
of charitable trusts.
The Epilogue
So here we are in 2015 with
the benefit of 20:20 vision. Three years forward and a whole
generation backwards. The public face of the Trust tainted forever.
Through the richly deserved bad publicity, gained as a result of
towpath evictions of vulnerable boaters. The black hole in the
maintenance budget grows to a gaping chasm. Where in access of £130
million a year is needed just to halt the deterioration. And about
£500 million more is needed to put things right. Boaters
increasingly disenchanted despite the best effort of the new CEO to
meet and greet. The promised openness and accountability proving to
be little more than a fig of the imagination. Meeting minutes filled
with redaction after redaction. The electorate who would form the
core of a democratic membership not allowed to know what their
representatives who they elected are doing.
Each time I read about the
Trust, I'm reminded of J M Barrie's book about Peter Pan and the
shenanigans that took place in Never-never Land. The book was a
personal favourite of mine as a child. Because it is full of
villainous characters, fanciful flights of the principal character
and the twists and turns of the unravelling plot. Which as a story
line, can found in all good fairy stories. The nautical flavoured
plot came complete with a bumbling ships crew and a certain accident
prone, prosthetic wearing Cap't Hook.
Pirate Hook was to be found
blindly issuing commands and edicts to an ever bewildered crew. While
he stood resolutely, but completely out of touch, at the helm of the
fast deteriorating and leak filled Jolly Roger. While at the same
time, being in command of a sinking ship. The Cap't, with furtive
backward glances over his shoulder, was being relentlessly pursued by
a crocodile. One which came with an inbuilt alarm clock.
If you listen carefully, you
can just hear the feint Tick Tick Tick. However, that's not the
crocodile that's catching up with Hook. That's the sound of time
running out for the Trust. Maybe its time for another bumbling fairy
tale character to walk the plank!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please put your name to your comment. Comments without a name may automatically be treated as spam and might not be included.
If you do not wish your comment to be published say so in your comment. If you have a tip or sensitive information you’d prefer to share anonymously, you may do so. I will delete the comment after reading.