That’s from the government’s Medium Term Economic Strategy 2010 [PDF]. Not a word about the Clones Sheugh, which would undoubtedly save the economies of both jurisdictions on this island, but perhaps it will qualify for one of the new models of infrastructure funding mentioned hither and yon in the document.
Maybe the Sunbeds Bill would be more interesting – or more important.
PS Folk who write “between both” should be flogged naked through the streets before being hanged in the marketplace.
… is to address, on Sunday night, anyone who watches television but doesn’t have a choice of television channels. There will be a medium term economic strategy too, promising a new and better future for all our people. But as Finfacts says:
… past experience coupled with signals so far, suggest that [the strategy] will be a promotional brochure for an international audience with some questionable claims and omissions. The expected plunge in services exports by as much as €50bn during the time horizon is not likely to be acknowledged.
There is an urgent need for a credible growth strategy that has an unvarnished assessment of the challenges with an honest analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, using data that is free of the outsize impact of the foreign-owned exporting sector.
I wonder whether the strategy will include any sheughs.
Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Foreign parts, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Non-waterway, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Ulster Canal, Waterways management
Tagged boats, canal, Clones, Clones sheugh, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, Erne, Ireland, Lough Derg, Operations, Shannon-Erne Waterway, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways Ireland
I wonder why Sinn Féin asks questions when it does. This one [h/t KildareStreet.com] seems to have been asked at a time that the minister might have welcomed.
Sandra McLellan [SF, Cork East]:
To ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the position regarding the Ulster Canal restoration project; the steps that must be taken to complete the project; the indicative timeline for the completion of the project; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Jimmy Deenihan [FG, Kerry North/West Limerick] [the third para is the interesting one]:
As the Deputy will be aware, in July 2007 the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) agreed to proceed with the restoration of the section of the Ulster Canal between Clones and Upper Lough Erne. The then Government agreed to cover the full capital costs of the project, which were estimated at that time to be of the order of €35m.
It was always the intention that the Ulster Canal project would be funded from the Waterways Ireland annual allocations, as agreed through the annual estimates processes in this jurisdiction, as well as the deliberations of NSMC in relation to annual budgets. It was a key consideration throughout the process that the Ulster Canal project would be supported by a significant level of projected income from the commercialisation of certain Waterways Ireland assets. However, the economic downturn has had a negative impact on those plans.
I am continuing to explore all possible options to advance this project within the current fiscal constraints. In this regard, I established an Inter-Agency Group on the Ulster Canal to explore ways to advance the project and to examine possible funding options for it, including existing funding streams and the leveraging of funding from other sources. The Inter-Agency Group last met on 9th October and will meet again next week, on 9th December.
In the meantime, the Ulster Canal project is progressing on an incremental basis. Planning approvals have now been received for the project in both jurisdictions. Compulsory Purchase Order land maps are in preparation and consideration is being given to how the construction work and other technical aspects of the project will be structured once the necessary lands have been secured. The timeline for completion of the project will be determined when these preparatory steps have been completed.
I welcome these developments, which, I am sure the Deputy will agree, are a significant milestone for the project.
Hmm. The inter-agency group first met on 20 September 2012 and its second meeting was to take place in May 2013 or thereabouts. Now it’s going much faster, with meetings on 9 October and today, 9 December. Does this suggest that the group has found a pot of gold? Is there any link to the cancellation of SEUPB funding for the Narrow Water project?
And what has been going on in (and around) the North/South Ministerial Council? At its June 2013 meeting the Council approved or noted:
That suggests to me that there was either a major disagreement between the northern and southern ministers or a serious problem that rendered ministers unable to approve the WI budget and business plan until 18 months after the documents were required. Could it be that the northern minister, Carál Ní Chuilín [SF], like other NI politicians, had been looking for something from the waterways sector that hasn’t been delivered so far?
Note also that Jimmy Deenihan said
[…] consideration is being given to how the construction work and other technical aspects of the project will be structured once the necessary lands have been secured.
I understand that the design and construction of the Clones Sheugh was to be put out to tender but I wonder whether keeping the work in house might help WI to meet its increasing wage costs with a declining budget.
Posted in Built heritage, Drainage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Foreign parts, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Irish waterways general, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Tourism, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged boats, bridge, canal, Carál Ní Chuilín, Clones, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, Erne, inter-agency group, Ireland, Jimmy Deenihan, Lough Neagh, North/South Ministerial Council, Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Assembly, Operations, SEUPB, Sinn Fein, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways Ireland
I’ve just read the minutes (they call ’em joint communiqués, to be posh) of all the North South Ministerial Council Inland Waterways meetings since northsouthery got going again in 2007.
After a bit of catching up in the first couple of years, the NSMC has usually managed to “note” WI’s Annual Reports and Accounts about six months after the end of the year to which they refer: the accounts for 2008 were noted in 7 months, 2009 in 5, 2010 in 7, 2011 in 7 and 2012 in 6. But “noting” doesn’t mean approving: various other bods, including two Comptrollers and Auditors General, then have to look at them, so the citizenry doesn’t get to see the accounts for many months afterwards: the report and accounts for 2012 are still not available.
Nothing to see there, then: both WI and the NSMC appear to be doing their bit as fast as could reasonably be expected. But what is odd is the delay in noting or approving plans and budgets. Knowing litle of management science, I had the naive idea that managers would be working to approved plans and budgets from the start of the year, but WI usually doesn’t get approval until the year is almost over. I do not know why that is.
WI’s business plan for 2008 was approved in October 2007, which is reasonable, although it seems to have been revised in July 2008. But the plans for 2009 and 2010 were not approved until 11 months into the year, that for 2011 until 10 months and that for 2012 until June 2013, six months after the end of the year. I realise that forecasting is difficult, but retrospective planning is surely less than useful.
The same delays apply to the budgets for 2010, 2011 and 2012. So the June 2013 meeting of the NSMC approved or noted:
I do hope that someone checked to ensure that all the documents accorded with one another: it would be really embarrassing if they didn’t. But as a management exercise this seems to be somewhat less than useful.
The same meeting also
… noted progress on the development of the 2013 Business Plan and budget. Following approval by Sponsor Departments and Finance Ministers the plan will be brought forward for approval at a future NSMC meeting.
It is good to know that, six months into the year, there was progress on the business plan and budget for that year. The minutes of the November meeting don’t mention the 2013 business plan and budget (but do, I am pleased to note, mention the 2014 versions), but there was a disturbing item of information on the previous day, 19 November 2013. Brendan Howlin, Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, replied to a written question from Gerry Adams [SF, Louth], saying inter alia
The 2013 Budget allocation to the Body are subject to on-going discussion by the two Sponsor Departments.
This is November; 88% of the year has passed and the Irish budget for 2013 was approved long ago — yet WI still hasn’t been told its budget for 2013. WTF is going on?
I note that the same applies to the other north-south body or bodies that share the [RoI] Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and the [NI] Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure as sponsors. An Foras Teanga, which includes Foras na Gaeilge and Tha Boord o Ulstèr-Scotch, likewise still has its 2013 budget under discussion by the two departments.
I have asked DAHG about this, and will no doubt receive a full and frank reply in due course. In the meantime, I can only speculate. Is it possible that one minister wants to spend very much more or less on waterways than the other does? As the total current expenditure is fixed at 85%/15%, it seems to me that one side might very well come up with a figure that the other didn’t like.
Is it possible that DCAL, run by Mr Adams’s party colleague Carál Ní Chuilín, is more keen on cross-border bodies than is DAHG, run by Fine Gael minister Jimmy Deenihan? Or are both of them struggling to find savings to pay for the Clones Sheugh, or at least as a deposit for the SEUPB?
Or could it simply be that WI is having great difficulty in cutting its expenditure to fit within the limits imposed by the RoI budget?
Posted in Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Ireland, Irish waterways general, Operations, People, Politics, Sources, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged accounts, annual report, budget, business plan, capital expenditure, Carál Ní Chuilín, corporate plan, current expenditure, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, Gerry Adams, inland waterways, Jimmy Deenihan, North South Ministerial Council, NSMC, Operations, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways Ireland
The likelihood that limitless wealth will result from the construction of the Clones Sheugh was reduced recently with the closure of the cruiser-hire base closest to the Ulster Canal: the Emerald Star (Le Boat) operation at Belturbet.
Perhaps, though, it reflects a wider decline in the hire business rather than disappointment at the delay in the canal’s reconstruction.
Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Drainage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Operations, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Shannon, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged Belturbet, boats, bridge, canal, Clones, cruiser, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, Emerald Star, Erne, hire boat, Ireland, Le Boat, Lough Neagh, Operations, Shannon, Shannon-Erne Waterway, Ulster Canal, vessels, waterways
I noted here what the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht had to say about Waterways Ireland’s budget — or at least that portion of it paid by the RoI government — for 2014. The minister listed WI’s “core activities and targets” and various other things it should be doing:
Note that WI is not expected to promote, engage in or achieve anything in the realm of northsouthery. That’s slightly odd when it receives [the larger] part of the northsouthery budget of the minister’s department.
Posted in Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Ireland, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Sources, Ulster Canal, Waterways management
Tagged canal, Clones, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, Dublin, Erne, Ireland, Lough Neagh, northsouthery, Operations, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways Ireland
In 2014 the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht [.pdf: go to page 51] is to cut its current expenditure on North–South Co-operation by €2.1 million:
Savings, in excess of the agreed 3% per annum efficiency savings, for the North-South Implementation Bodies will require the approval of the North-South Ministerial Council.
The 85% of Waterways Ireland’s current budget that comes from the [Republic of] Ireland government is in there somewhere; the NI executive pays the other 15% and, in theory, the North–South Ministerial Council will have to give its blessing, but in practice the NI ministers can hardly force the RoI ministers to pay up.
There’s a list of 14 High Level Programme Activities [mustn’t hurt anyone’s feelings by leaving out their favourite fodder] of which No 13 is
Development of inland waterways within the context of the implementation of the Good Friday and St. Andrews Agreements.
Translation: Ulster Canal, even if there’s no money for it. But there is half a million for a
20-Year Strategy for Irish with a range of concrete measures, including supportive actions to roll out the language planning process on the ground, in line with the Gaeltacht Act 2012. These actions will include direct support to community organisations to enable them to prepare and implement practical and deliverable Irish language plans – not only in the Gaeltacht itself but also in selected towns and areas in other parts of the country.
Do they ever give up? They’d be better off supporting Ulster Scots, which has at least some chance of showing a growth in the number of speakers. But page 51 has a long list of imaginary measures to allow the department to claim that it will save €15 million in 2014: more efficient working, review, examining the scope for achieving further efficiencies … waffle.
On the capital expenditure side, RoI and NI each pays for works within its own jurisdiction. The RoI spending will be down from €4071000 in 2003 to €3858000 for 2014: a cut of just over 5%.
Maybe the money is being put aside to pay for the Clones Sheugh, although it’s not specifically mentioned in the document.
Posted in Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Industrial heritage, Ireland, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Tourism, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged boats, bridge, budget, canal, Clones, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, Dublin, Erne, Ireland, Lough Neagh, North South Ministerial Council, Operations, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways Ireland
Irish waterways history 