Category Archives: Politics

Fuel shortage continues

As far as I can see, from the new list published by Revenue today. there is still only one trader along the Shannon who is licensed to sell marked fuel (green diesel).

Ireland needs promissory notes

                                                                                        Chamber of Commerce, Limerick
10th March 1826
Right Honble Earl of Limerick
 
My Lord
By desire of the Directors of the Chamber of Commerce, I have the honour to forward to Your Lordship a petition to the House of Lords from that Body, praying that the proposed measure of prohibiting the issue of promissory notes payable on demand for sums under five pounds may not be extended to Ireland. The Directors request that you will please to present it and give it your support, if your opinion on the subject coincides with theirs.
 
I have the hon …
John McNamara, President
 
(A like letter to Mr [Thomas Spring] Rice [MP], with a Petition to the House of
Commons)
 

From the Limerick Chamber of Commerce letter book page 89.

The diesel monopoly

I wrote here about the Revenue Commissioners’ new Marked Fuel Trader’s Licence. In brief, anyone selling marked fuel oil [green diesel] has to pay €250 to get a Marked Fuel Trader’s Licence and must also make monthly returns to Revenue of all “oil movements”. I thought, but I wasn’t sure, that this applied to marinas and others selling fuel for private pleasure navigation; as far as I could see at the time, none of those selling fuel along the Irish inland waterways had registered.

I have two pieces of news about that.

First, the Revenue Commissioners have confirmed that the new scheme does apply to sales of marked fuel for private pleasure navigation: in other words, those selling green diesel for boats along the inland waterways should all be registered under the scheme.

Second, I am happy to say that there is now at least one registered seller: Ciaran Fallon of Rooskey Craft & Tackle at Rooskey Quay. (There may be others that I haven’t spotted; you can check the latest list of Licensed Marked Fuel Traders here.) For the moment, then, Rooskey Craft & Tackle seems to have a monopoly of the legal supply of marked fuel on the Irish inland waterways.

Finally, on a somewhat related matter, here is the form [PDF] for making mineral oil tax returns for 2012. The numbers of returns received so far have been 38 in 2009, 41 in 2010 and 22 in 2011.

Northsouthery 121212

The North/South Ministerial Council reports here [PDF] on the most recent inland waterways meeting, which was held on 121212. Not much happened (or at least not much that is being revealed to the citizens and subjects). Sponsor departments are to think about having a board; there is still no money for the Clones Sheugh but an interagency groups is to find some [hint: look under the end of a rainbow] and it was John Martin’s last appearance as he will be retiring in March and the search for a new CEO has a process (which is important).

The interesting bit is that WI is to transfer some property at Harvey’s Quay, Limerick, to Limerick City Council, which is making a boardwalk. And something similar is happening in Tullamore. You’re nobody nowadays unless you have a boardwalk; their usefulness in Irish weather is not proven.

Finally, I noted a certain modesty in WI’s aims for 2013, no doubt in keeping with the tenor of the times:

Ministers discussed the main priorities for Waterways Ireland in 2013 and noted progress on the 2013 Business Plan and Budget. The priorities for 2013 include:

• ensure the navigations are open and all existing facilities operational during the main boating season from April to October
• to actively promote the waterways to extend and expand recreational use of the waterways in all its forms.

 

Around the world with Irish waterways

Yesterday was one of those days: I managed to track down sources for several pieces of information I’ve been hunting for some time, but in the process I came across a few interesting links, from Gordon of Khartoum to the War between the States.

The starting point was William Watson, manager of the Inland Department and later Chairman of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. He worked with Robert Mallet on the design of an innovative boat for use on Irish inland waterways. Robert Mallet married a Cordelia Watson in 1831. (I thought that might be a daughter of William of the CoDSPCo but it’s pretty clear from the excellent Mallett Family History site that that was not so.)

One of Mallet’s inventions was a large mortar designed for use in the Crimean War. And one of Mallet’s sons, John William Mallet, went to the USA and became professor of chemistry at the University of Alabama. He joined the Confederate forces, rising to the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the artillery and superintendent of the Confederate ordnance laboratories.

Meanwhile Watson’s son Charles Moore went east rather than west. Colonel Sir Charles Moore Watson KCMG, CB, MA, of the Royal Engineers, Watson Pasha, was a general in the Egyptian Army and Governor-General of the Red Sea Littoral. Watson’s base was at Suakin on the Red Sea. The Dubliner was succeeded in that post by a Kerryman, Horatio Herbert Kitchener, from Ballylongford near Saleen on the Shannon Estuary, on which the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company operated.

Watson was “Gordon’s principal friend in Egypt”:

It is certain that Watson was, above all others, the one man in Cairo whom Gordon cared about most, and that he was the last to see Gordon off when he started [for Khartoum].

Gordon died at Khartoum; the relief expedition, led by another Irishman, Sir Garnet Wolseley, arrived two days too late.

A younger brother of Sir Garnet, Frederick Wolseley, went to Australia. His Sheep Shearing Machine Company made a brief expedition into the manufacture of motor-cars, under one Herbert Austin, who later founded his own company. Austin and Wolseley both ended up in British Leyland Motor Corporation, which made diesel engines, some of which were marinised and used in boats on the Irish inland waterways … which brings us back to where we started.

Please, sir, I want some more

I have written from time to time about the Heritage Council and the budget cuts it has suffered. Here’s a comment from December 2010; here I said that the Council’s vigorous lobbying campaign had succeeded in ensuring its own survival; last month it became clear that, although the Council had survived, its main grants scheme had not.

The dauntless Michael Starrett returns to battle in today’s Irish Times [incidentally, if the Irish Times tries to charge me for linking to their site, I’ll set McGarr Solicitors on them]. He argues that natural and cultural heritage are the core of the tourism product and that they are being damaged by the withdrawal of (inter alia) the Council’s programme of (mostly small) grants to (mostly small) community projects.

This line of argument accords with that used by the Council in its successful campaign to ensure its own survival. It was made explicit in the report Economic Value of Ireland’s Historic Environment [PDF] produced by Ecorys and Fitzpatrick Associates for the Heritage Council and launched in May 2012. However, there are some difficulties with its use in the present context.

The first is that some folk might feel that heritage (natural or built) should be appreciated for itself, not for its economic value. That’s fine as long as people do it on their own time; I lose sympathy when that argument is used to extract money from taxpayers while hiding the economic cost and distracting attention from the beneficiaries of that spending.

The second difficulty is that the Economic Value of Ireland’s Historic Environment concentrates on larger sites and attractions:

Reflecting these various criteria, Ireland’s historic environment has been defined for the purposes of this study as comprising the following sets of built heritage assets – those which are statutorily protected, together with components of the broader built heritage:

– World Heritage Sites
– Recorded Monuments, as defined by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht
– Protected Structures included in planning authorities’ development plans
– Architectural Conservation Areas included in planning authorities’ development plans
– Designed landscapes surveyed by the Inventory of Architectural Heritage, and
– Other structures erected pre-1919, of which a note says “This is an increasingly accepted definitional component for the broader built heritage, although it is  acknowledged that some Protected Structures may have been built post 1919. Up to 1919 most houses in Ireland and Great Britain were built by skilled craftsmen using traditional indigenous building materials. Although the majority of older buildings are not listed/ statutorily protected, the majority provide flexible domestic and office accommodation. Major investment in money, energy and materials is embodied in these structures.”

The economic impact of the sector is the sum of three things:

  • Direct repair and maintenance output in relation to pre-1919
    building stock
  • Direct tourism expenditure by tourists principally attracted to
    Ireland by the Historic Environment (HE)
  • Direct employment, expenditure and income by the public sector (eg the Office of Public Works), subtracting overlap with the repair and maintenance category and the tourism expenditure category.

Eight of the ten case-studies considered in the report are about large sites, some of them commercial operations and others state-owned. The two exceptions are the Irish Landmark Trust and the Heritage Council’s grant scheme for traditional farm buildings.

Now, as far as I can make out, a lot of the recipients of Heritage Council grants (generally, not just those for farm buildings) would have fallen into the “Other structures erected pre-1919” category. I have not been able to discover, from the report, how much of the Historic Environment’s contribution to Gross Value Added is attributable to that category, or to any other category that might include the Council’s recipients of small grants.

In effect, the report seems to me to made some very broad-brush claims about the annual value of the Historic Environment, and those claims are being used to cast a halo effect over the entire sector. But it is not, it seems to me, proven that spending on any particular sub-sector is a good investment. (If I am wrong on that, I would welcome comments.)

Furthermore, I suspect that most of the contribution of the small projects supported by Heritage Council grants would come from the spending on repair and maintenance (where the total contribution is arrived at after some pretty heroic assumptions) rather than from that by tourists. Approaching it from the bottom up, I suspect that very few tourists are attracted to Ireland by the fact that the Heritage Council has grant-aided the clearing of an individual graveyard or the removal of rhododendron from a woodland.

So the argument that is being presented today, that (to quote the headline) “Tourism will suffer without real support for heritage” where “heritage” means “small local projects”, is not convincing. And it is rendered even less convincing by the fact that Heritage Council grants schemes explicitly gave low priority to tourism projects. But that is not to say that the small schemes are without value: there could and, I would argue, should be an effort to use them as part of the tourism marketing effort.

But there is a real difficulty here. How do you market small-scale tourism attractions? How does a small enterprise, or a small community, sell its heritage? How do the overseers of the national tourism product get tourists out of the well-known areas and off the beaten track, to places where they can meet real people and see real stuff? Maybe that’s what The Ghastly Gathering is about [I’m sorry: I can’t bring myself to read it].

Towards the end of his article, Michael Starrett talks in terms of landscapes, and I think he is right to use a term that is broader than a single site or location for a project. To have an impact, to be marketable, small projects need to be linked. Some of those links could be geographical, within a single area or landscape; some could be temporal, some familial, yet others commercial or otherwise thematic (for instance, the fascinating history of the Irish egg trade). I think that the small projects can help to attract tourists, but they need to be organised.

 

Blarna, Canima and the Liffey Dockyard

Pat Sweeney, in Liffey Ships & Shipbuilding [Mercier Press, Cork 2010], tells us that in December 1960 Cork Harbour Commissioners got permission to raise a loan of £250,000 to build two diesel-powered tenders to carry passengers to and from transatlantic liners moored in Cobh. The tenders were built by the Liffey Dockyard in Dublin; the MV Blarna was launched in May 1961 and her sister MV Cill Airne in February 1962.

After a varied career, the MV Cill Airne is now back on the Liffey as a floating restaurant. Her website says that she and her sister were the last rivetted ships built in Europe; they were the third-last and second-last ships to be built at the Alexandra Basin, the last being the Shannon Navigation’s Coill-an-Eo.

MV Blarna spent much of her life in Bermuda as a party boat named Canimabut then spent ten years in Canada waiting vainly for restoration or conversion and coming to be regarded as an eyesore. That period is now over: the “Millbank eyesore“, the Canima, sank in December 2012 and “salvage may not be an option“.

h/t Niall Galway

What’s it oil about?

What with all those nasty chaps [PDF] doing whatever it is they do to diesel, thereby cheating the citizenry and polluting the countryside, it seems that the Revenue Commissioners, whom god bless and preserve, came up with a new scheme last year that might be made to look like a solution. (The real solution, of course, is to abolish green diesel, charge everyone full whack, and — if you really must, although personally I think they get too much subsidy as it is — give farmers back some money to shut them up … for a while.)

The new scheme is outlined here. As far as I can make out (but IANAL), anyone selling marked fuel oil (which I guess would include marinas selling it for private pleasure navigation, the category I’m interested in) has to pay €250 to get a Marked Fuel Trader’s Licence.

Actually, I may be simplifying it unduly: first they have to apply to be allowed to apply.

If this Application is approved the National Excise Licence Office will issue you with an Application Notice to apply for the Licence.

If the marina counts as a “forecourt retailer”, it also has to make a monthly electronic return of “oil movements”.

These requirements came into effect on 1 October 2012 and the Revenue website provides a 147-page PDF list of licence-holders as at 31 December 2012. I’ve had a quick look for a few Shannon marinas; I found none of them, although I confess I haven’t read the whole thing.

I haven’t been to any of the seminars (although I’ve looked at some of the PDFs available on that page) and I haven’t contacted the official sources of information (although I have emailed the Revenue press office). I have read the FAQ, though. There is no reference to boats or marinas or private pleasure navigation, so I assume that the scheme does apply to marinas. As far as I can see (again, IANAL), all traders in marked fuel must have licences, even if they sell only small quantities. However, for those selling under 2000 litres per customer per month, there is a simpler monthly return:

However, if you supply less than 2,000 litres per month per customer, you only need to notify Revenue of the number of customers you supplied during the month as well as the aggregate quantity of fuel supplied.

That would cover most marinas, I imagine, although the ROM1 procedure still has to be used.

The first return, in respect of oil movements during January 2013, must be submitted by 25 February 2013.

So does this apply to marinas? I’ve asked Revenue but I don’t expect to hear for a few days. If it does apply, what will the effect be? Is the increased cost (time to compile the application and meet any Revenue demands; €250; whatever the ROM1 system costs) likely to be significant? How are the marinas (and other waterways fuel retailers) responding?

The music of the Shannon steamers

On my page about PS Erin-go-Bragh I’ve provided a link to a performance of the song of that name. It would be wrong, therefore, to omit Garryowen. There is a “Fantasy on Dover Castle” by David Fanshawe, the African Sanctus chap, but I can’t find a free legal recording.

Some new things arise

First, I’ve checked all the linked sites listed at the bottom of the right-hand column and removed some that have died. If you know of others to which I should provide a link, do please let me know.

Second, I’ve added a link to the excellent Grace’s Guide to British Industrial History, and I take the opportunity to draw it to the attention of folk interested in who made what. I have received much useful information from its volunteers and I have been able to contribute photos of a few artefacts. It’s well worth exploring. I have also added a link to the Railway and Canal Historical Society.

Third, I am glad to see that the Irish Times‘s conversion to the benefits of civilisation continues: yesterday it featured an Intel Pentium chip from 1994, which provided the basis for an essay on Ken Whitaker’s 1950s report, globalisation, television, women, Northern Ireland and Viagra. If only some more of the nineteenth century industrialists, entrepreneurs, engineers and modernisers had been covered.

That, fourth, reminds me that I came across a couple of interesting articles by Roy Johnston on the Victorian Web site: they’re under the heading Science, Technology, and Politics, on this page, which has several articles about Ireland. They include articles on whether Ireland was a colony, although I must confess that I have yet to be persuaded that that is a question in which I should take an interest.