Category Archives: Foreign parts

The drums, Carruthers

I pointed out recently that some newspapers seemed to have reproduced, unquestioningly, what may have been press releases about the Clones Sheugh. On 25 April the Irish Independent, and other media, had a story, attributed to the Press Association, beginning:

Part of the cross-border Ulster Canal which has not been used for 80 years is to reopen, it has been revealed.

That followed the granting of planning permission, in Northern Ireland, for those portions of the proposed canal to Clones that lie with HM Realm. A couple of weeks earlier, Sinn Féin had been calling for taxpayers’ money to be spent on the project. And Brian Cassells was quoted in the Belfast Telegraph on 27 April 2013 in praise of walking in the country. I wondered whether there was a coordinated campaign to put pressure on the Irish government to come up with the loot for the Clones Sheugh: whether the jungle drums were being orchestrated.

Paying the piper

But none of those stories made it clear that the Irish taxpayers, who had been volunteered to pay for those sheugh, could not afford it. Then, last week, we had several stories making that very point — but without any reference to the stories of the previous week:

The Indo gives the cost of the Clones Sheugh as €35m and the BelTel as £29.6m; it is not clear whether they are repeating an outdated estimate or whether Waterways Ireland’s engineers have provided a new estimate.

Please put a penny

Both stories repeated the current Irish government’s current rather confusing story about where the money was to come from:

  • sale of Waterways Ireland assets (which Irish ministers are not empowered to sell)
  • annual budgetary allocations to Waterways Ireland
  • income from commercialisation of Waterways Ireland assets, which (as I interpret it) is not the same as revenue from the sale of assets.

But it is the journalism that concerns me again here. Newspapers have printed a story saying that there is no money for the Clones Sheugh but they have ignored their own stories, of only a week earlier, saying that the project was going ahead.

Given that, I find it difficult to believe that the newspapers (and the Press Association) have anyone taking an active interest in the Clones Sheugh: researching, investigating and reporting. I suspect — and I accept, of course, that I may be entirely wrong — that on both occasions the journos were simply presented with press releases, probably pre-digested.

Calling the tune

I think it would be interesting to know who has been issuing these various press releases and why they have been doing do. So I’d like journos to tell us the context and the background: that would be more interesting to read, and more worthy of the journos’ efforts, than the reproduction of the releases’ contents.

I don’t know who sent out the first set of releases, saying that the Ulster Canal was to go ahead, but I suspect that the second set was a damage-control effort by the current Irish minister. I suspect that he wanted to dampen down unrealistic expectations without actually the Clones enthusiasts to get stuffed (whether for the short or for the long term). What happened in between the two sets of releases was that a member of the minister’s own party, Heather Humphreys [FG Cavan-Monaghan], asked a Useful Question in the Dáil. That was no doubt entirely coincidental, and not in any way prompted by the minister or by the FG managers, but it allowed the minister to get his story out.

South of the border

The occasion was a Topical Issue Debate on Cross-Border Projects on 1 May 2013. Ms Humphreys was able to associate herself with the views of the local supporters of the project (who are not paying for it), to say how important it was and to claim that getting planning permission was a significant step forward. Which it might be, but it doesn’t help the project to get past the financing obstacle, although she did say that the government was hoping to nick some Euroloot (from PEACE IV; here’s some stuff about PEACE III) for the project.

The minister responded with a history of the proposed rebuilding; then he said [I’ve added extra paragraph breaks]:

The planning applications for this project are now likely to be determined in May 2013. The compulsory purchase order, CPO, land maps are well progressed. It is estimated that the CPO process will take approximately 12 months and, depending on the funding in place, the CPO process may proceed incrementally.

A decision on the construction of the project and on whether to have a single large contract or a number of smaller contracts will also have to be made.

As the project is above the EU procurement threshold the tender process will be required to comply with the EU procurement process and will take approximately six months to complete. Taking that into consideration the earliest the contract could be awarded would be late 2014 with a contract period of 24 months giving a completion date of spring 2017. If the project is to proceed in a more piecemeal fashion the completion date could be some years later, depending on the number and timing of individual contracts. Funding for the project very much depends on the availability of funding from the Exchequer. Deputy Humphreys referred to the possibility of funding from a European source. The Taoiseach referred to a similar possibility.

I established an inter-agency group comprising county managers from Monaghan and Cavan, the director of leisure, development and arts from Fermanagh, representatives from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Fáilte Ireland, the Strategic Investment Board, Waterways Ireland and senior officials from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Northern Ireland and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The inaugural meeting was held on 20 September 2012 and the next meeting will take place shortly. Its challenge is to find alternative sources of funding. I again thank the Deputy for raising the matter. With the planning permission process completed, the next stage is to acquire the land and we will proceed with that immediately.

I feel sorry for the poor folk from the NI Strategic Investment Board, who barely mention the Ulster Canal in their Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland 2011–2021: building a better future [PDF], and who take care to mention the Unionist Lagan Navigation along with the Republican Ulster Canal. They must be wondering how their involvement is expected to help the southern government to meet its commitment to pay for the Clones Sheugh.

Along the banks

Anyway, back to the Dáil. Heather Humphreys, who may not have seen many canals, responded, saying (inter alia):

The canal is an iconic, achievable project that is worthy of support.

Naturally, I disagree about the “worthy of support” bit, but even “iconic” is nonsense. The Ulster Canal was a relatively minor, small, uninteresting waterway carrying insignificant cargoes, and there is little to attract the tourist. The Royal Canal is much more “iconic”, and even that pales by comparison with some canals elsewhere.

The minister finished by saying:

Potential funding from the €150 million PEACE IV programme is very important. If we could source funding from it that would give a greater possibility of the project progressing in the near future. I hope that having completed the CPOs we can make a start on the project in 2015 or 2016. As Deputy Humphreys indicated, it is an iconic project and it would give a major boost to that part of the country which has suffered considerably from rural depopulation. The farming community is under a lot of pressure as well.

Certainly, this project would be seen to be a major asset to the local community and local economy.

It seems that the rural seclusion of the area between Lough Erne and Clones will not be broken by the sounds of JCBs just yet.

The Marquis survives

I reported last October that an unused London pub, named after Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 3rd Marquess of Lansdowne, KG, PC, FRS, was threatened with demolition in favour of a museum extension.

I pointed out that the late Marquis had two claims on the attention of Irish waterways enthusiasts. First, the best-known of the early River Shannon steamers, the Lady Lansdowne, was named after his wife. Second, he was Lord President of the Council [the current holder of the post is Nick Clegg] when the government of Her Late Majesty Queen Victoria decided, in 1839, to spend about half a million pounds improving the Shannon Navigation.

The Indie reports today that Hackney Council’s planning committee has voted against the demolition, so the Marquis survives, at least for now.

The Clones Sheugh and other northern waters

Industrial Heritage Ireland has been visiting Ulster waterways including the Blackwater, which linked the Ulster Canal to Lough Neagh.

Brian Cassells was quoted again in the Belfast Telegraph on 27 April 2013. He believes that walking in the country is a Good Thing, although it’s not clear why that requires a canal. I trust that Sammy Wilson will stand firm and refuse to spend public money on a project that has an even stronger political smell than the proposed Narrow Water Bridge.

The Shannon River

Length: 770 feet

Breadth: 3 feet 6 inches

Depth: 1 foot 3 inches

Longest straight stretch: 90 feet

Tunnels: 6, totalling 356 feet, the longest 100 feet

Transport links: monorail

More details later.

What is the point of newspapers?

The Irish Independent says today:

Canal ‘to reopen’ after 80 years

Part of the cross-border Ulster Canal which has not been used for 80 years is to reopen, it has been revealed. […]

It says that the NI environment minister, Alex Attwood, announced that planning permission had been granted in Northern Ireland for the restoration of the Clones Sheugh and that Brian Cassells of the Inland Waterways Association of Ireland expected restoration to be extended all the way to Lough Neagh, which he thought would be a good thing.

Waterways Ireland has a press release here [PDF], the Impartial Reporter covers it here, the Indo’s sister-paper the Belfast Telegraph report is here and 4ni has a brief account here.

I realise that it would be folly to expect newspapers to know anything about the subjects they write about, but shouldn’t they do something to check the press releases they’re given? A moment’s googling would have shown that “is to reopen” is, to put it mildly, an overstatement, because there can be no reopening until funding is provided. The last Irish government undertook to pay the cost but soon found that it couldn’t afford it; it and its successor have, since then, been trying to disguise the fact (and to find a crock of gold).

Of course, even if the Irish government does find the funding, spending it on a dead-end stump of a canal to Clones would be a waste of money, and there is not the slightest possibility that the canal will ever get any further. Some Clones folk, and inland boat-owners, are all in favour of it, but they’re not offering to pay for it.

But back to the newspapers. Shouldn’t they check the context, as well as the content, of press releases to ensure that the published accounts tell the full story?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marina occupancy

Practical Boat Owner, a magazine, reports [in its June 2013 issue, published in April] that the British Marine Federation surveyed its members in February and March 2013 to ask about gross capacity and actual occupancy of their marinas in January 2013. The BMF press release is here.

It got 145 valid responses, a 56% response rate; it reckons that that means 31% of all UK marinas and 38% of all UK marina berths.

The total capacity of the marinas was 29118 and the occupancy 23462, which the BMF says is an 80.5% occupancy rate and a 19.5% vacancy rate.

Of those marinas, 69 [or perhaps 68] were tidal or coastal, with a total capacity of 17604 berths and the occupancy 14227 berths: an 80.8% occupancy rate and a 19.2% vacancy rate.

There were 53 responses from marinas on C&RT waterways; they had 7710 berths, 6122 of them occupied: 79.4% occupancy and 20.6% vacancy.

There were 23 responses from marinas on the waters of other navigation authorities, including the Environment Agency, the Broads Authority and some national authorities responsible for lakes. They had 3804 berths, 3113 occupied: 81.8% occupancy and 18.2% vacancy.

I don’t know what difference it would have made if the survey had been conducted at some other time of year. Should we assume that British boaters all book marina berths for the full year?

I don’t know whether the Irish Marine Federation or its associate group, the Irish Marina Operators Association, has published anything similar. While the IMOA has members on coastal and estuarial waters, it doesn’t seem to have any on non-tidal waterways. It would be interesting to know the vacancy rate on inland marinas, although there are definitional problems (does a block of flats with some moorings constitute a marina?). Maybe the only way to find out is to get HarbourAir to take aerial photos on one of their flights.

 

More say he rose again

Last September, I noted that the excellent KildareStreet.com website had been crippled by a change to the software used on the Oireachtas debates website. Life is too short to be spent ploughing through the witterings of politicians (unless you’re being paid to do so, of course), so KildareStreet.com’s search facility was invaluable, as was its emailing of alerts when my chosen keywords were mentioned. That flow of information ended in September.

Happily, though, the KildareStreet.com folk did not give up, readers donated funds, the rebuilt parts of the site are being tested and, yesterday, I got my first alert in over six months. Here, then, is the news about the Clones Sheugh, as seen from Kildare Street.

 

WI down wid da kidz

I have recently written, for publication elsewhere, an article comparing Waterways Ireland’s online presence unfavourably with that of the Canal & River Trust, which manages many waterways in England and Wales. WI clearly listened, because it has completely revamped its website.

Actually, that’s my little joke, because WI has clearly had folk working hard on this for some time. Its home page address remains as it was with (as I write) a clock ticking down to the official launch on 18 April 2013, but you can bypass that. Clearly not all the pages have yet been populated, but the overall design can be seen and it is several leagues ahead of the previous version.

It promotes a wider range of activities: walking, cycling, angling, boating, rowing, canoeing, sailing and power sports (but not, alas, campervanning). It has an events section, with events listed in chronological order by starting date; you can shorten the list by selecting a waterway, an activity or a date. This online listing is far more user-friendly than WI’s print equivalent. Sensibly, information on planning events is in the same section as the events listing.

The Clones Sheugh is listed amongst the waterways under Events, but no activities are planned there. However, the sheugh is not amongst the seven waterways listed under Our Waterways.

There’s a useful Do it Online section, with subsections called Register it, Pay for it, Apply for it and Report it. The last of those is rather disappointing, suggesting off-line communication; it would be more useful to have this sort of discussion between WI and its customers conducted in public. The promised form for online compliments and complaints isn’t there, but presumably will be added soon. Apply for it includes a procedure for applying for permission to film on WI property; this is something that BW (C&RT’s predecessor) had years ago.

The Learning section includes online games, the teachers’ resource pack and, encouragingly, information on arranging group tours of WI facilities and on accessing the archives; we are promised that some archive material will appear online.

The Corporate section includes About UsFAQs, Public Consultation, Research, Careers, Partner Information, Policies and Plans & Reports. There is little that was not on the previous version of the site. There are sections for the Media and on Commercial Activity; Visitors Centre leads to the existing pages on the Box in the Docks; there is a much better Contact Us page, with a classified list so that you can find the office you need.

The down-wid-da-kidz bit is that there are links to WI Facebook, Twitter and YouTube pages. There is nothing on the YouTube page yet; perhaps the first video will show Jimmy Deenihan cutting the ribbon on the new website tomorrow. The Twitter page — joy! — includes the marine notices, which makes this the first good reason I’ve come across for taking an interest in Twitter. The Facebook page seems to be no better or worse than other FB pages I’ve seen.

The new website does not seem to have anything about Nuttall’s Pondweed, which was the only thing on the old site that might attract nature-lovers. I see nothing on the new site to interest such folk; apart from the archives bit, WI’s wealth of industrial heritage is not represented. So, despite the much improved appearance and organisation, there are constituencies, or potential constituencies, that are not being addressed.

However, on the whole the new site does seem to fit in with and promote WI’s Marketing Strategy 2012–2017:

4.1 Marketing Mission

Essentially the marketing mission of Waterways Ireland is unchanged and is defined as increase awareness and promote greater use of Ireland’s 
Inland Waterways.

4.2 Strategic Marketing Objectives

Within the period 2012–2017, Waterways Ireland wishes to build on the success and achievements of the previous Strategy taking a more proactive approach in achieving the following strategic marketing objectives:

– promoting increased use of the Waterways including promoting the range of uses;

– creating awareness of the waterways including the commercial potential of thewaterways; and

– creating working relationships with other state and semi state, tourism, trade, recreational organisations and users.

What is not entirely clear to me, though, is whether this new and much-improved website is to continue the one-way communication process or whether WI will use the new media to their full potential, encouraging two-way communication (even if it includes criticism) and building a real waterways community. It will be interesting to see.

For far too long, the IWAI website was streets ahead of WI’s. The shoe is now on the other foot. Congratulations and best wishes to all involved in this major improvement to WI’s online presence.

 

 

 

 

 

Sinn Féin wants taxpayers’ money for Clones sheugh

The Impartial Reporter reports (impartially) that “Councillors press for Ulster Canal funding to be released”. The two councillors quoted are Thomas O’Reilly of Fermanagh District Council and Pat Treanor of Monaghan County Council. Both are members of Sinn Féin.

Cllr Treanor is quoted as saying “Once the Government release the funding ….” Cllr Treanor seems to have missed the point that “the funding” does not exist: the [RoI] government has not got the money and, as I have pointed out here many times, no money was set aside for the Ulster Canal. He says that …

… we would in the interim call upon all living in the local community, from Derrykerrib to Clones to begin to think about taking advantage of the obvious business opportunities that this reopening will bring.

If the members of the local community have any money, they might be better advised to invest it in Swiss bank accounts. Or even Bitcoins.

WI CEO salary

In 2005 the Waterways Ireland CEO earned £86590. Subsequent annual reports have not disclosed the CEO’s earnings; the report for 2011 says this:

WI salaries

Martin is the CEO; Russell, Brownsmith, D’Arcy and Dennany are (or were: Dennany has since retired) Directors, and thus senior to the three regional managers whose earnings have been disclosed. I think we can assume, therefore, that all five earned more than €100,000, which is £85,187.65 at the moment.

According to the information booklet for the CEO’s job, published here today [downloadable .doc],

The salary range for the position is sterling and as follows: £61,217- £84,630. Salary at appointment will be at the minimum point of the scale.

So it seems likely that the new CEO will be earning considerably less than the outgoing CEO, than the senior directors and than the regional managers, and perhaps less than other staff.

There is a defined benefit pension, though, which is a rara avis these days.