Category Archives: Ashore

Southron sheughs

For reasons now lost in the mists of time, I forgot to draw the attention of Learned Readers to an exchange in the Dáil on 18 April 2012, which was reported on the invaluable KildareStreet website as well as on the Oireachtas site. Jack Wall, a Labour TD for Kildare South, asked this question:

Question 702: To ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the position regarding the canal system under Waterways Ireland; the plans the agency has for the development of the canals; the number of lock keepers in the system; if there are any vacancies; if so, when same will be filled and the mechanism that will be adopted to do so; if the agency has any plans to refurbish existing systems that are not in use at present; if the agency has any plans to increase the number of berthings on the canals and if so, in which areas; if the traffic on the canals has shown a percentage increase over each year for the past three years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18431/12]

Now, that’s a bit of a portmanteau question. I wonder whether Jack Wall was prompted to ask about lock keepers but not quite well enough briefed to ask follow-up questions. The minister, Jimmy Deenihan, gave a four-paragraph answer, and I’m going to break it up so that I can discuss each element individually.

Waffle

The minister’s first paragraph was background music:

Since its formation in 1999, Waterways Ireland has continued to upgrade the facilities on the canals through the capital allocations under the National Development Plans. The canals system has benefited extremely well during that time, particularly with the number of additional mooring and landing spaces that have been made available. The provision of further mooring space will be dependent on available finance and priorities over the coming years.

I’m going to move the third paragraph up and deal with it next.

Lockkeepers

The minister said:

I am informed by Waterways Ireland that there are 20 lock keepers employed at present on the Grand Canal and Barrow Navigation. A number of staff have retired recently and decisions on their replacement will be taken having regard to the business needs of the organisation. I understand that Waterways Ireland is not planning to recruit lock keepers at this time. Any posts filled will be either by internal transfer or external recruitment, depending on the particular circumstances.

Although the minister mentions the Royal Canal elsewhere in his answer, and the question certainly does not exclude the Royal, the minister doesn’t mention it in this paragraph. In fact, there are several things the minister doesn’t mention:

  • that there are no lockkeepers on the Royal
  • that agency staff have been employed
  • that, far from considering recruiting replacement lockkeepers, Waterways Ireland might be considering reducing their numbers, or at least assigning some of them to other duties, perhaps on the Royal.

Now, I’m not saying that any of those actualities or possibilities is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, given the virtual absence of lockkeepers on the Canal & River Trust’s English and Welsh canals, it’s hard to see why the Irish canals, with much lower traffic, need so many.

But my point here is that a TD, and especially a Labour Party TD (haven’t they something to do with supporting workers?), might be presumed to be interested in the aspects that the minister did not mention. The minister’s answer was true but incomplete.

For the 2011 election Fine Gael published a document called Reinventing Government, with section headings on “More Open and Transparent Policy-Making Processes” and “New Systems of Openness and Transparency”. Where are they?

Stop digging

Here is the minister’s second paragraph:

My Department’s 2012 capital allocation for Waterways Ireland is €4.5m. This will facilitate continued investment in the development and restoration of the inland waterways. The main thrust of the refurbishment of the waterways over the next few years will be focused on the re-opening of the Ulster Canal from Upper Lough Erne to Clones. However, Waterways Ireland is also undertaking feasibility studies on the Kilbeggan Branch of the Grand Canal and on the Longford Branch of the Royal Canal. These are due to be completed by the end of 2013.

AAAARRRGGGH!

They’re thinking of digging even more sheughs!

Look. I know that engineers love to have excuses (and money) to do engineering: all that kit, wellies and hard hats, muck-shifting and the satisfying feeling that you are bringing joy (and tourists) to a small town. But it’s a waste of time and money. And there is absolutely no point in doing feasibility studies: what you want are cost-benefit analyses. Pretty well every single canal ever built with public funding in Ireland has been a waste of money and there is no reason to believe that relining the canals to Longford and Kilbeggan will be any better. I mean, look at the Naas Branch: very scenic, but hardly anyone ever goes there other than in convoy.

What you want to do is to explain, politely, to the TDs of Longford and Kilbeggan that they can have canals only if they will agree to having all other public services (including the drinking-water supply) cut off. But of course both Kilbeggan and Longford already have ways of attracting tourists. Kilbeggan has a distillery while Longford has an absence of signposts, especially to Athlone, thus causing motorists to drive around in ever-decreasing circles until they imitate the oozlum bird.

I mean, the canal age is over; this is the age of the camper van.

Traffic

Here is the minister’s final paragraph.

I am informed that boat traffic numbers on the Grand Canal and Barrow Navigation have remained fairly constant over 2009 and 2010. In 2011 the numbers increased by 30% following the re-opening of the Royal Canal and the fact that access was available to the Tall Ships event in Waterford.

Now this is really interesting, for three reasons:

  • first, Waterways Ireland keeps telling me that it cannot produce any usage figures for the canals and the Barrow. So on what traffic numbers are the minister’s statements based?
  • second, note that the basis of comparison between the earlier years (2009 and 2010) and the later (2011) is not clear. The Royal was not officially open during the earlier years, although there was some traffic. Was it counted? And does the 2011 figure that shows the 30% increase include Royal figures (in which case it would be an invalid comparison) or not (in which case the few boats doing the complete triangular route caused a huge increase in traffic)?
  • third, note that the minister does not give any actual usage figures. Could it be that they are very small?

What the canals and the Barrow need is action to increase the amount of traffic, especially in summer (when few people travel because of weed and sometimes water shortages) and winter (when few travel because it’s miserable). Adding extensions only spreads the existing traffic more thinly over a larger number of destinations. When you get to the stage of having traffic jams at locks, you can begin to think about extra destinations. Until then, put the shovels away.

DAHG

I thought I should troll on over to the website of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht to see if they had anything to say about the budget.

I looked straight away at the News & Recent Publications section on the front page. But I was taken aback to see that the department has not had anything to say since 15 May 2012, which is the date of the most recent addition to the section. Using the menu on the left, I find that the ministers have made no speech since October 2011 (not that I’m complaining, of course). There have been press releases, but the most recent consultation ended in March 2012.

It really is a god-awful website. DAHG needs to hire a couple of twenty-year-old interns who have some idea about tinterweb.

More budget

Here’s a fun bit from the bumpf pile about the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Waterways Ireland’s parent department in roI:

From the Expenditure Report 2013 Part 1

From the Expenditure Report 2013 Part 1

As last year, waterways exist only in the context of northsouthery, which itself is the lowest of DAHG’s priorities. The interesting thing is that DAHG is having its expenditure ceiling raised by €2.2 million, but it’s not going to waterways or even to northsouthery.

Culture for Angela

Culture for Angela

So we’re going to be forcing unfortunate EU leaders to sit through plays and such. But hold on: is there a staging of An Béal Bocht available?

At least the money is not going on the Ghastly Gathering.

Anyway, there will be lots of unspecified savings to compensate, like these:

Sauve qui peut

Sauve qui peut

The two right-hand columns are headed Savings in 2013 and Full Year Savings.

And more to come:

Tomorrow, tomorrow ....

Tomorrow, tomorrow ….

Finally, here’s a bit from the MinFin:

From Michael Noonan's Financial Statement

From Michael Noonan’s Financial Statement

Wouldn’t it be nice if he took the opportunity to abolish green diesel altogether as part of the scheme?

Budget

Vast wodges of bumpf from the government’s budget site, with non-searchable PDFs, god rot ’em. An initial look suggests these points:

  • the Dept of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht’s total allocation to northsouthery, which includes waterways, will be down 6% next year
  • current spending on northsouthery will be down from €38 244 000 to €36 178 000. Waterways Ireland gets the biggest wodge of that, about 60% [see my comment last year] in 2011; I guess that the cuts will be shared pro rata, but I can’t be sure
  • WI’s capital expenditure allocation will be reduced from €4 500 000 to €4 071 000, which may go towards shovels for thon sheugh
  • decisions on northsouthery have to be agreed by the NSMC [Irish government and NI executive].

More as I plough the pile, but the summary (to nobody’s surprise) is less spending on waterways. Maybe Éanna should have pushed ….

WI has won an award

WI has won the Public Sector Award from the [Dublin] Docklands Business Forum. The award is for

[…] its active contribution to the Docklands Summer Festival, the South Docks Festival, Tall Ships Festival and Docklands community life throughout 2012.

With docklands moorings becoming available, WI may have a chance of retaining its award next year.

Incidentally, we learned earlier this week about music at the Box in the Docks; the Public Sector Award press release has more information about the Box:

Waterways Ireland owns and manages a multipurpose centre in the Basin which is used as a Visitor Centre during the summer season and provided a linchpin for the festival and events as well as community activity such as the Waterways Ireland Community Choir.

And we hear a rumour that models are being built ….

By the way, WI is compiling its events guide for next year: get your event in to them by 25 January 2013.

Music box in the docks

WI PR here.

A gratifying display of loyalty

His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant took a trip on the Shannon Estuary in July 1856 on the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company’s vessel Erin-go-Bragh. He was greeted by demonstrations of loyalty from the populace, had dejeuner on board off Scattery Island and heard an address from the proprietary, clergymen, merchants, traders and inhabitants of Kilrush, read to him by Colonel Vandeleur. Here is the Freeman’s Journal‘s account of the trip.

Campaign news 2: marine casualties

There is an appalling piece of legislation called the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) Act 2000. Actually, only part of it is appalling. The first 45 of 46 sections are OK: they’re all about investigating marine casualties, which is more or less what you would expect, and that’s fine. But Section 46 is a stinker:

The Minister may, from time to time, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, advance to a person, out of monies provided by the Oireachtas, for the purposes of marine or natural resource based tourism or heritage projects, such sums, by way of grant or loan, as the Minister may determine and upon such terms and conditions as he or she considers necessary.

First of all, it has nothing whatsoever to do with investigating marine casualties and, second, it allows a minister to hand out money to his mates on whatever terms he likes. This sort of addition to an irrelevant bill is what we might expect in the USA or in Greece, but it should never have got through the cabinet, never mind the Oireachtas. It is fortunate that the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources at the time the act was passed was a person of the utmost probity, one Frank Fahey.

In 2010 responsibility for Section 46 was transferred to Craggy Island by Section 3 (1) of SI No 677/2010 — Marine Tourism (Transfer of Departmental Administration and Ministerial Functions) Order 2010:

3. (1) The functions vested in the Minister for Transport by or under section 46 of the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) Act 2000 (No. 14 of 2000) are transferred to the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs.

And in 2011 it was transferred again, this time to the Department of, er, Agriculture by SI No 163/2011 — Marine Tourism (Transfer of Departmental Administration and Ministerial Functions) Order 2011:

3. (1) The functions vested in the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs by or under section 46 of the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) Act 2000 (No. 14 of 2000) are transferred to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The Dept of Ag later became the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, although most marine functions are still in the Department of Transport.

On 13 February 2012 I wrote to the Dept of Ag thusly:

I would be grateful if you could give me a list of grants and loans made under Section 46 of the 2000 Act since it came into force, including the names of the recipients, the purposes for which the grants or loans were given and the details of your evaluations of the effectiveness of the grants or loans.

I would also be grateful if you could tell me whether your department intends to seek the repeal of Section 46.

After several reminders, I found a kindly chap who took up the matter. He has today written to say:

We sought the assistance of our Marine Agencies and Programme Division in Clonakilty, Co Cork and they have advised that the Department of Agriculture , Food and the Marine (formerly the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) has made no grants under Section 46 since responsibility for Section 46 was vested in the Department. If any grants were made under Section 46 prior to responsibility being vested in this Department the details would be held by the responsible Departments at the date of the decision. I regret that these details are not held by this Department.

In relation to the repeal of Section 46, it can be confirmed that there are no proposals at present to seek its repeal.

I am glad to learn that no grants have been made. The reply does not mention loans, so I’ve sent a follow-up question to ask about them. I’ve also asked why the blasted section is not being repealed. And I’ve written to Craggy Island (or rather its successor, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht) and the Dept of Transport to ask whether they made any grants or loans when they were responsible for Section 46.

Ireland is not Greece, a minister said today. So why has Section 46 not been repealed?

Christmas caption competition

The usual prize of a glass of something or other [and I know the last two prizewinners still have a claim on me] for the best non-libellous caption for this photo, taken today at the launch of WI’s education programme for primary school children. I understand that the materials on WI’s e-learning page are complemented by “an off-line teachers resource pack”, which is what the besuited ones are clutching.

No lifejackets. Photo courtesy of Waterways Ireland, who are not to blame for my decision to use it for a caption competition

Starting at the back, the four chaps are Éanna Rowe, Waterways Ireland’s Marketing Honcho; John Martin, Heid Fector o’ Waterwyes Airlin [as we say in Ulster Scots]*; Ruairi Quinn, Minister for Education and Skills; Jimmy Deenihan, Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht but, on the other hand, a strong personal supporter of the Lartigue Monorail, which is a point in his favour.

Update 4 December 2012: the press release is now on the WI site.

* In its 2008 Annual Report, Waterways Ireland was, in Ulster Scots, Watterweys Airlann on the cover but Watterwyes Irelan in the Foreward bae the Cheif [sic] Executive, who signed himself as Chief [sic] Executive. By 2009, though it was still Watterweys Airlann on the cover, it was Waterwyes Airlan in the Foreward bae the Chief [sic] Executive, who signed himself as Heid Fector, a title I rather like. By 2010, though the cover remained unchanged as Watterweys Airlann, the body was Watterwyes Airlan in the Foreward, but the Heid Fector title had been dropped, alas, and John Martin was Chief Executive in two languages.

But 2008 was not the Heid Fector’s first appearance: in 2007 John Martin signed himself thus, though the foreword was called Twarthy words bae tha heid yin and the body was referred to in the text as Wattherweys [sic] Irelan.

Back in 2006, the foreword was Innin wi tha Heid Fector, and the body was Watterweys Airlann, with an accent, which I can’t reproduce, over the first e. That was the same as in 2005; in both years John Martin signed himself as Heid Fector.

I’m not sure whether I prefer Heid Yin or Heid Fector, but either seems better than Chief or Cheif Executive. But the real problem is the difficulty that this inconsistency causes for us eager students of Ulster Scots. I realise that change is inevitable in a thriving, developing language or dialect, but perhaps the cross-border bodies could give a lead in standardising the vocabulary and spelling.

WI and the tooth fairy

There is a slightly disturbing item in WI’s 2010 accounts [PDF]:

1.5 Deferred Pension Funding

In accordance with accounting practice for  non-commercial State bodies in the Republic of Ireland, Waterways Ireland recognises an asset representing resources to be made available by the UK and Irish Exchequers for the unfunded deferred liability for pensions on the basis of a number of past events. These events include the statutory backing for the superannuation schemes, and the policy and practice in relation to funding public service pensions in both
jurisdictions including the annual estimates  process. While there is no formal agreement and therefore no guarantee regarding these specific amounts with the funding bodies, Waterways Ireland has no evidence that this funding policy will not continue to progressively meet this amount in accordance with current practice. This treatment is inconsistent with  accounting practice for UK Non-Departmental Bodies, where, due to the absence of a formal guarantee, a funding liability is not recognised until the commitment falls due.

IANAA, but an absence of evidence for the non-existence of the tooth fairy would not convince me that it does exist. I suppose it’s the same for any other unfunded pension scheme, and (unlike the UK practice) at least acknowledges the size of the problem, but it’s not exactly reassuring, either to taxpayers or to future pensioners. If I’ve misunderstood it, perhaps some kindly accountant will correct me.