Percy: C&RT on escalation, agree to my staff furloughed FOI request

Tuesday, 27 October 2020

C&RT on escalation, agree to my staff furloughed FOI request

A good while back I reflected on the lack of work being done on the canal infrastructure during lockdown. Now I stand to be accused of hard hearted as I thought it was a good and safe time ( with appropriate RAMS -Risk assessments and method statements) in place to tackle some of the work needing doing - backlog jobs on a closed off system.

I recall my trigger was the stringent timings on Harecastle tunnel passages (ok not maintenance but a indication of the number of furloughed staff ) This was after a chat with a tunnel keeper who said they (to remove identification by gender) had been furloughed and a good number of staff still were (Early July IIRC)

So my initial FOI (Freedom of Information) request was declined - see below

Reference No: FOI 79/20
Thank you for your request of 8 May 2020. We have treated your request as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
I can confirm that while the Trust holds the information you have requested, its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are limited in scope to information relating to statutory functions which were transferred to it from British Waterways under the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order under 2012 – these functions relate to the operation and licensing of vessels on our inland waterway network.
The information you have requested does not relate to the operation or maintenance of our waterways, rather it is in relation to rather it is in relation to the Trust employees that have been furloughed. Therefore, the information you have requested falls outside the scope of the Act.
If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of this email and should be sent by email to information.request@canalrivertrust.org.uk or by post to Information Officer, Legal Department, Canal and River Trust, Aqua House, 20 Lionel Street, Birmingham, B3 1AQ.
You are also able to contact the Information Commissioner by telephoning 0303 123 1113 although please note they would usually expect you to have gone through our internal review procedure before contacting them.

I did not accept this and replied.....

On 17 Jul 2020, at 21:37

Dear Madam/Sir.

With reference to my FOI 79/20 and the response below.

I do not recognise the statement "statutory functions which were transferred to it from British Waterways under the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order under 2012 – these functions relate to the operation and licensing of vessels on our inland waterway network.”

The transfer of functions includes the upkeep and maintenance of the canal system surely ?

The reponse also stated "The information you have requested does not relate to the operation or maintenance of our waterways, rather it is in relation to rather it is in relation to the Trust employees that have been furloughed. “

I would contend the FOI was to understand the number of Staff furloughed and critically I asked for a breakdown by area of operation which does very much relate to the maintenance of the waterways

I therefore feel the response falls well short in its understanding and interpretation of my FOI request. Based on this could you please revisit the request and provide the information on Furloughed staff and a breakdown by area of operation?

Many thanks

Kind regards

Today I received this reply after my escalation

Dear Mr Wells,

Further to your email of 06/10/2020.

I have now conducted the internal review requested and can confirm that although the information does not directly relate to the Trusts operation and maintenance of the waterway, there is an indirect link between the two and in particular the number of operational staff which were furloughed in the height of the pandemic. We have now concluded that the request is in scope of the FOI and have provided a response to your questions below:

1. How many staff were furloughed at the peak of furloughing staff? 674 staff at peak

2. What % of the total staffing of the Canal and Rivers Trust were furloughed at the peak of furloughing ? 41.92% of staff furloughed at peak
3. Could this be broken down into administration and operational Staff?
129 employees were office staff
244 employees were bank and office staff
301 employees were Bank staff

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request for an internal review, then you are able to contact the Information Commissioner by telephoning 0303 123 1113.

Kind regards,

So it is for you to interpret. My interpretation is the trust used the furlough scheme (in part) to save costs on salaries at a time they could and should have been actively repairing the canal system while closed - using the correct RAMS.

Do you agree or am I being an arse for asking for this and also expecting the workers to work (as the ground workers did on the roads and a vast number of other workers did all under safe RAMS)

An alternative view may be this saved the trust some money in wages to spend on the system? However that works needs doing regardless. I'm not suggesting major projects were instantly brought forward disregarding all the essential planning and materials supply needed.... more a general tidy up of the system, and much needed Planned Preventative Maintenance carried out - the bit that I think is woefully disregarded in favour of Reactive Maintenance.

It's all immaterial of course as the time has past and the furlough scheme will I doubt ever be resurrected due to massive costs for the country.

Happy to be educated on my views here, down to leave them alone or daft FOI's etc

Over to you, but be constructive

2 comments:

Paul (from Waterway Routes) said...: I read the CRT response to say that was the peak week, perhaps right at the start when the government advice was clearly to stay at home.

My understanding is that, although there is considerable variability, staff were generally only furloughed to that level during the early peak of Covid-19 when the government instructions were very clear about staying at home and staying 2m apart etc.

Apart from those looking after the direct safety aspects boaters and the network they would be furloughed to comply with the government advice to stay at home. Once the government rules had been relaxed staff were gradually brought back to work where a safe working environment could be achieved and where that work was necessary. There’s lots of work that is desirable but not much which is necessary to maintain the integrity of the network.

From my experience in a similar industry the cost of working in a Covid-safe way adds 20% to 50% to the costs compared to normal working and require much more rigorous and longer closures with the public excluded. It typically means tasks taking 20% to 50% longer meaning that up to half the tasks a team might normally undertake in a month cannot be done.

The risk assessments and method statements for the Covid-19 aspects of the work have to be developed from scratch rather than adapting a proven model from a previous job as will be done for routine work like lock gate replacement. Then they need testing on pilot schemes and refining before briefing and training as appropriate for wider use.

Even the simplest of tasks which, for example, require two people to lift something while standing close together can no longer be done. It only takes one task like that in a set of activities to mean the activities can’t be done until another method of work is found. Examples like that may require a lifting frame with extended handles to be designed and produced so the workers can remain more than 2m apart.

If we have been given 12 months’ notice of the effects of Covid-19 then the risk assessments, method statements, staff training etc. could have all been done ready. As nobody knew the rules to work to in the early months nobody could even start that process.

I’m sure CRT and every industry could look back and find lots of things that could have been done better during the early days.

I’m happy with the way CRT behaved which is comparable with the other similar industry in which I have experience.

You said “... save costs on salaries at a time they could and should have been actively repairing the canal system while closed - using the correct RAMS...” The correct RAMS could not have existed at the initial peak and actively repairing the canal system would have been against the government advice at the time – and still is in the Tier 3 areas and probably in the Tier 2 areas. It is quite clear that people should only attend work when necessary – and anything more than safety checks and some maintenance isn’t necessary, however much we would like it to be.

The more work we can postpone until we can do it in normal timescales at normal costs the better. Doing what you ask and spending 20-50% extra and taking 20-50% longer on each task isn’t efficient and wastes time and money.

I don’t think asking that vague question was a good use of CRT resources. The answer merely tells you what happened during one peak day (or week) and gives no indication of anything else.; 27 October 2020 at 21:58
Nev Wells said...: Hi Paul, Thank you for the comprehensive reply and alternative views on the subject. I did ask for constructive responses and you have fully done that and made some sound counter arguments.

I'm not about to get into a deep discussion, you have made your points well. The only thing I will take issue with you on is your last paragraph where you suggest my FOI request was not a good use of C&RT resources. They have a dedicated FOI team so expect such requests and in my past life such FOI's were always a good check we were looking at the right information to make informed decisions. It also helps C&RT understand the thoughts of their users...

Finally it triggers more questions that can be more directed.... let's see who picks up on this and does just that, you may be surprised.

Thanks again for taking the time to read my words and providing an alternative and intelligent response.; 30 October 2020 at 09:33