Stealth seaplanes?

I have made several visits to Mountshannon this year, but unfortunately none of them coincided with an appearance by any of the “brand new fleet of aircraft, operating from destinations nationwide” that Harbour Flights promised would arrive “early in the new year” of 2014.

River Nore heritage

On its page headed Heritage Audit of the River Nore, Kilkenny County Council says

Phase 2 of the survey (from Kilkenny City to Inistioge) commenced in 2011 and will be completed in 2012.

It also says (on the same page)

Phase 2 of the survey (from Kilkenny City to just north of New Ross) is in the final stages of editing and will be completed in early 2014.

If anyone has seen any sign of it, I would be grateful for a link.

 

 

A puzzle in waterways history

According to the Lagan Canal Trust,

The Lagan Navigation also forms part of a wider all Ireland waterway network. This network of waterways once traversed through the towns and cities of Ireland delivering goods and produce, helping to shape the economic fortunes of the country.

I would be grateful for information about any goods or produce that were ever carried from the Shannon, or from the Royal or Grand Canals or the River Barrow via the Shannon, through the Junction Canal in the Ballinamore & Ballyconnell Drainage District [later called the Ballinamore & Ballyconnell Canal and later still the Shannon–Erne Waterway] and then the Ulster Canal to Lough Neagh or any of the waterways connected therewith. Or, of course, in the opposite direction.

As far as I can tell, outside the sales blurbs written by engineers seeking employment and waterway owners seeking subsidies, there was never a connected all-Ireland waterways network; nor was there ever any need or demand for such a thing.

Any more than there is now.

 

The delays in approving WI business plans

I wrote on 26 November 2013, and again on that date, on 22 January 2014 and on 7 April 2014 about the extraordinary delays in having Waterways Ireland’s business plans approved by The Powers That Be. I saw it as poor practice that would make management’s job harder, with plans not being approved until very late in the year or even until after the end of the year to which they applied.

But, thanks to a statement by Jim Allister of Traditional Unionist Voice, I have been alerted to the possibility that the problem might be even greater than that. He points out that the NI Comptroller and Auditor General qualified the Resource Accounts of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure [DCAL] for y/e 31 March 2014 because the business plans for Waterways Ireland and the North/South Language Body were not approved in time. Jim Allister’s interpretation is perhaps a little overheated — the C&AG’s “irregular” becomes “illegal” and “unlawful” — so it’s worth looking in detail about what the C&AG actually said.

Sources

It’s very hard to find the DCAL Resource Accounts on the departmental website (which has a dreadful search engine) so here is a link [PDF]. I quote from them under the [UK] Open Government Licence [the link in the accounts omits a backslash].

Summary

In his Certificate of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Northern Ireland Assembly on page 83 of the accounts, the C&AG, K J Donnelly, says:

Basis for qualified opinion on regularity

The Department is responsible for providing Annual Business Plans to the Department of Finance and Personnel in sufficient time to allow approval by the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the North South Ministerial Council prior to the commencement of the financial year to which the plan relates. As business plan approvals were not in place the Department has incurred irregular spend in 2013-­‐14 in relation to grants amounting to £3,213,000 paid to Waterways Ireland and £5,258,000 paid to the North/South Language Body.

The detailed account

The C&AG writes about this in more detail on pages 120 and 121:

2. Irregular Spend

2.1 The Department, along with the Department for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht jointly sponsors Waterways Ireland and the North/South Language Body; both are North South Implementation Bodies set up under the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (the legislation).

2.2 The legislation requires each body to prepare an annual business plan that is subject to the approval of both Finance Ministers and the North South Ministerial Council. The legislation also states that the department may make grants to the body out of money appropriated by the Act of the Assembly and that such grants shall be of amounts and made on such terms and conditions as the department may, with the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel, determine.

2.3 In order to comply with the legislation, sponsor departments are responsible for providing Business Plans to the Department of Finance and Personnel in sufficient time to allow approval by the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the North South Ministerial Council prior to the commencement of the financial year to which the plan relates.

2.4 Due to delays in the provision of Business Plans for some bodies, the Department of Finance and Personnel sought legal advice on the legitimacy of grants paid to the bodies prior to the approval of the plans. The Department of Finance and Personnel wrote to Accounting Officers on 23 May 2014 pointing out that failure to follow the outlined approval process in relation to grants made to North/South bodies has resulted in irregular spend.

2.5 The Department has advised me that given the timing of business plan approvals it has incurred irregular spend of £8,471,000 in 2013–14. This is made up of £3,213,000 in relation to Waterways Ireland and £5,258,000 in relation to the North/South Language Body.

Conclusion

2.6 As Business Plans have not received the required approval, there was no authority for this expenditure. I have therefore concluded that the expenditure was not in conformity with the authorities which govern it and qualified my audit opinion on regularity in this respect.

2.7 The Department of Finance and Personnel also indicated that if a department pays a cash grant to a North/South Body without the prior approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel then the department will have breached the provisions of the legislation and the expenditure is thus unlawful. However, there is conflicting legal advice on whether Department of Finance and Personnel approval has been provided in this regard. This is an issue which affects a number of departments and I would encourage this Department and others affected to further engage with the Department of Finance and Personnel to recolve this matter. I intend to keep this matter under review.

The Accounting Officer’s response

Peter May, the department’s Permanent Secretary, is its Accounting Officer. In his report he wrote about Governance Divergences arising in the Current Year on pages 79 and 80:

N/S Bodies

On 23 May 2014 DFP alerted departments which sponsored North South Bodies of concerns it had around the regularity and legality of grant payments made to these Bodies.

Regularity of payments — The Department accepts that N/S Bodies business plans  must be approved by the North South Ministerial Council in order for expenditure to be regarded as regular.

During 2013–14 DCAL incurred irregular spend in respect of grants to Waterways Ireland and the Language Body as business plans for these respective periods  have not been approved. It should be noted that draft business plans were in place against which the performance and budget of the bodies was monitored, and an approved Corporate Plan was in place for the period 2011–13.

Legality of payments — DFP has also raised concerns about these grants because they insist there is no record of formal DFP approval for the amounts of these grants or the terms and conditions under which they were made.

On the basis of legal advice, the Department considers the Estimates process and the negotiations between Finance Ministers on the efficiency savings show approval for the amount of the grant, while the Financial Memorandum provides the terms and conditions, which have not changed since 2005. This approach has been followed in good faith by DCAL on the basis of advice provided by DFP in 2009.

Full details of this spend is given Note SOAS 8.

SOAS8, on page 90, adds no useful information.

Jim Allister follows up

Jim Allister has two Priority Written Questions down on the matter:

AQW 35466/11-15 Mr Jim Allister (TUV – North Antrim): To ask the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, in light of the Comptroller and Auditor General qualifying her Department’s Resource Accounts for 2013/14, whether she accepts that grant payments of over £8m made by her Department’s North/South Bodies were irregular; and if she will seek approval from the Department of Finance and Personnel for all such payments in accordance with the statutory requirements of the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. [Priority Written] [04/09/2014 Awaiting Answer]

AQW 35541/11-15 Mr Jim Allister (TUV – North Antrim): To ask the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure whether she will place into the Assembly Library, a copy of the documentation received from the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP), or otherwise recording DFP approval, which verifies the claim by her Department’s Accounting Officer in the Resource Accounts 2013/14 that DFP approval of grants to North/South Bodies was given for the amount of the grant at estimates or efficiency stage negotiations. [Priority Written]  [05/09/2014 Awaiting Answer]

WTF?

If I have understood him correctly, Jim Allister is most interested in whether DCAL was engaged in illegality; the department is, I think, rather defensive about the matter, but they can fight it out between themselves.

What interests me, though, is why DCAL could not approve the business plans in good time. Had it done so, and pushed them through the remaining regulatory hoops, it would have had no problem with either regularity or legality. Neither Corporate Plans, which cover three-year periods, nor draft business plans are acceptable substitutes for having the annual business plans approved in good time.

I don’t see, in either the C&AG’s or the Accounting Officer’s coverage, any explanation for the inordinate delays; they don’t say whether the problem is within DCAL, between DCAL and DFP or between DCAL and its southern counterpart, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Wherever it lies, it needs to be sorted out.

 

A1 @ A2SN

I wrote here about the workshop, being organised by A2SN, the Archives and Artefacts Study Network, and PRONI, the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, entitled

By air, sea and land — Transport & Mobility through the archives.

I attended the workshop yesterday; it was absolutely excellent. I can’t remember the last time I attended an event where every speaker was both a good communicator and worth listening to. The programme covered waterways, roads, railways, aircraft, public transport and shipping, with two more theoretical, but no less interesting, sessions at the end — followed by a reception on and tour of the SS Nomadic.

The timetable had been designed to provide much opportunity for discussion between speakers and attenders: it was successful, thanks largely to its enforcement with a rod of iron, or rather with three sheets of card.

I imagine that the A2SN blog will have a full report when KH has had a chance to recover, so I won’t cover it here, but it was gratifying to note that Waterways Ireland is working on making access to its archive much easier.

If A2SN hold any more events on the island of Ireland, I’ll be there.

 

The Royal under the Railway

A new, short book, on aspects of the history of the Royal Canal, published by the Railway and Canal Historical Society, will be launched at the Clinker Lecture on 18 October 2014. The title is The Royal under the Railway: Ireland’s Royal Canal 1830–1899 and it covers a number of topics, mostly about the canal after it was bought by the Midland Great Western Railway. From the Introduction:

The accounts of the Midland Great Western Railway for the half year ending 31 December 1849, four years after it bought the Royal Canal, showed its gross income from the railway as £23,773 and its income from the canal as £7,677, roughly a quarter of the total. By 1899, though, income from the railway was £264,393 and that from the canal £2,220, less than one per cent of the total. The Royal Canal, never particularly successful, had declined into utter irrelevance.

It may seem perverse, therefore, to offer even a short book on the canal’s history in that period, especially as there exist two full histories, by Peter Clarke and by Ruth Delany (with Ian Bath in the most recent edition). This, though, is not a full history, even of the limited period, roughly 1830–1899, from just before the railway took over until the end of the nineteenth century. This is rather a complement to those histories, providing just enough background information to  enable the book to stand alone while covering some new topics and providing new or extra information on others. The topics include:

  • the 120-foot steam-powered narrowboat
  • the Midland Great Western Railway’s early attempts at running canal boats
  • the ingenious Mr Mallet’s moveable bridge
  • the whore who held the mortgage on the canal
  • the competition between the roads of Roscommon and the Royal Canal
  • the reconstruction of Dublin bridges over the canal
  • the horses who slept on board their boat.

[…] this book is not intended to be the last word on any of those topics. I hope that it might encourage others – those researching local, family, social, industrial, transport, economic or technological history – to record and transmit anything they might learn about the history of the Royal Canal. To take just three topics, we know very little about canal employees, the operations of canal traders or the management of the horse-drawn canal boats. On any one of those, useful information could just as easily be found by a local or family historian as by a canal specialist.

 

Steam, the Shannon and the Great British Breakfast

That is the title of the Railway and Canal Historical Society‘s 2014 Clinker Memorial Lecture, to be held at the Birmingham and Midland Institute, Margaret Street, Birmingham B3 3BS, at 1415 on Saturday 18 October 2014.

The lecture will concentrate on the period before 1850 with such interesting topics as

  • Shannon steamers
  • the Grand and Royal Canals
  • the first Irish turf (peat) to reach the USA (possibly)
  • port developments in Dublin, Limerick and Kingstonw
  • the Dublin and Kingstown Ship Canal
  • the Midland Great Western Railway
  • what “cattle class” really means
  • bacon and eggs.

Admission is free and booking is not required. However, if you plan to attend, it would be helpful if you could e-mail […] to this effect.

The Clinker Memorial Lecture is named for Charles R Clinker, an eminent railway authoe and one-time historian of the Great Western Railway, who died in 1983.

If you would like the contact email address, leave a Comment below and I’ll get in touch with you direct.

 

 

The monsoon is coming …

… perhaps. The water depth at Banagher has stayed at around 2.1 metres but that at Athlone has gone down to about 2.0 metres. Are TPTB lowering Lough Ree so that it can store the water from the autumnal rains? Information welcome.

Shannon traffic figures to July 2014

I am grateful to Waterways Ireland for letting me have the Shannon traffic figures for July 2014. All the usual caveats apply:

  • the underlying figures do not record total waterways usage (even for the Shannon) as, for instance, sailing, fishing or waterskiing on lakes or river stretches, which did not involve a passage through a lock or Portumna Bridge, would not be recorded
  • the passage records would not show, for instance, a change in the balance of types of activities from those in larger cruising boats to those in smaller (sailing, fishing, waterskiing) boats
  • figures like these, for a small number of months, will not necessarily be representative of those for the year as a whole. The winter months, January to March, see little traffic in any year; for April, May and June, the weather can have a large influence on the amount of activity especially, I suspect, in private boats.

On the other hand, the figures do include the Shannon’s most significant tourism activity, the cruiser hire business. And they are our only consistent long-term indicator of usage of the inland waterways.

Shannon all boats Jan to Jul 2014

Total (private + hired) traffic for the first seven months of each year

Traffic in 2013 was up a bit on 2012; 2014 is down slightly below the 2012 level. It’s the lowest seven-month figure in the series (ie since 2003), which is a bit of a surprise: I thought that the good weather would encourage more boating.

The changes are small, so their importance must not be exaggerated, but they’re not cause for celebration. Let’s see whether the drop was amongst private or hired boats (or both).

Shannon private boats Jan to Jul 2014

Private-boat traffic for the first seven months of each year

Private traffic is up a bit on 2012 but down on 2013.

Shannon hired boats Jan to Jul 2014

Hire-boat traffic for the first seven months of each year

Hire-boat traffic is down on both previous years, but the pace of decline seems to have slowed.

Shannon private and hired -v- 2003 Jan to Jul 2014

Changes since 2003: private and hired boats

Hire-boat traffic seems to be levelling off at 40% of its 2003 figure: a massive loss of business. I do not know whether anyone is trying to, or could, recover that amount of business. I am not aware of any new Shannon-based tourism business that could compensate for the losses in the cruising (hire-boat) business, but I would be glad to hear from anyone who knows of such projects. Something with high growth potential is required.

Private traffic is wobbling either side of its 2003 figure: the increases during the Celtic Tiger years have been lost.

Shannon private -v- hired boats Jan to Jul 2014

Still roughly 50/50

In the year to July 2014, hire-boat traffic was just above private traffic, but there is very little in it. Private traffic is now comparatively more important to Waterways Ireland [which may be why it is now trying to establish its economic importance] but it does not bring in much money from outside the two jurisdictions, so the case for public spending on waterways becomes much weaker.

And, quite clearly, opening more waterways doesn’t work: as this chart showed last month, the branches off the main lines of the Shannon, Erne and SEW are little used. The Lough Allen Canal, the Suck and the navigation to Limerick are very little used and I see no sign that the reopened Royal Canal has attracted many visitors to Ireland. What is needed is more intensive usage of the main waterways, not further dilution by the opening of more branches [to Clones or anywhere else].

SnnNav JanJun 6

High and low usage

Finally, I thought it might be interesting to see whether the monthly pattern of usage has changed since 2003. To avoid an over-cluttered chart, I included only four years: 2003, 2003 +5, 2003 + 10 and 2014. The chart is for all boats, private and hired.

Shannon all boats by month selected years Jan to Jul 2014

Monthly traffic, selected years

The season seems to have got going earlier in 2003 and even in 2008. Was the weather better in those years?

 

Survey problems

Back in the dark ages, some unfortunate folk tried to teach me about Statistics, which included how statistical surveys should be conducted. Some snippets of information, perhaps misremembered or misunderstood, came back to me as I read Waterways Ireland’s press release about its research into the contribution of boating to the economy and as I attempted to complete its online questionnaire.

WI commissioned a similar survey in November 2005 (with the results being published in 2006). That survey was carried out on WI’s behalf by the Tourism Research Centre at Dublin Institute of Technology [about whose current status I can find little information]. The TRC folk posted questionnaires to the 6682 boat-owners registered with WI; 54 respondents said that the questionnaire was no longer relevant to them so the population was reduced to 6628. Owners returned 718 questionnaires; 14 were excluded as being incomplete so the 704 were analysed, a valid response rate of 11%.

Participation

The current survey is online. It is said to be “open to all boat owners on Ireland’s inland waterways” but there is no way of restricting participation. Question 1 is “Are you a Boat Owner?” It does not specify that the boat has to be on Irish inland waterways run by Waterways Ireland. However, answering No brings up a page stating, inter alia, “This survey is solely for owners of craft on the inland navigational waterways.”

There is nothing to stop truthful people who own boats on other waterways from participating. There is nothing to stop liars who don’t own boats from participating. There is nothing to stop people from participating twice, or even more often, as long as they delete cookies after each session; that makes the survey open to manipulation by evil-minded interest groups.

And, most significantly, there is no way of assessing whether the average expenditures to be reported by the survey are in any way representative of the amounts actually spent by the body of boat-owners on Irish inland waterways. All that can be said is that the reported results will represent what some people, who may or may not be owners of boats on WI’s inland waterways, said about their spending.

Initial Questions

According to the press release

The survey should take 10-12 minutes to complete.

That may be so if you happen to have all your financial records to hand and if your classification happens to coincide with that used by Waterways Ireland. It took me considerably longer than that, even though my records are all in an Excel spreadsheet. There is no provision for saving your answers and returning to complete them later.

Furthermore, I cheated: the survey asks about spending “between August 2013 to August 2014”; I had figures for y/e 31 December 2013 so I used those.

Q2 asks about gangs whereof you might be a member and Q3 about your three favourite waterways activities; I think you can get away with listing only two, but not only one. Q4 asks “Do you own your own craft outright or shared?” but does not distinguish between sharing with a spouse (or other close family member), sharing with friends and sharing via a commercial syndicate (if there are any: it would be interesting to know).

The next page has five questions: whether you bought your boat new or secondhand (Q5), when you bought it (Q6), how long (in months) you expect to keep it before buying another (Q7), the cost in euro (Q8: I don’t know whether, if you log in from NI, you can answer in sterling) and the number of days each year you spend boating (Q9).

I had difficulty with QQ6 and 7. Q6, for some reason, insists on your entering the day, month and year in which you bought the boat. I know the year, I’m pretty sure of the month but I have no idea of the day. Q7 assumes that you are going to sell your boat: there is no provision for saying “I don’t intend to [or have no plans to] sell it”. I thought I’d get around the problem by saying “ten years”, which meant entering 120, but the survey rejected that, whereas it accepted 99 (and, on later trials, accepted 100). My answer to Q7 is thus inaccurate because the question is badly designed.

That lot is more or less equivalent to QQ 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10 on the 2005 survey.

One other feature of the survey is that error messaages appear in red between two questions; at first you have to guess which answer the system dislikes. And the message I got for entering too large a number for Q7 …

The comment you entered is in an invalid format.

… is not at all helpful: you have to guess what you are to do in response.

Expenditure questions

The next page has the detailed questions on expenditure; they are almost, but not quite, the same as those used in 2005. While that might allow comparison (were it not that the two surveys might be completed by non-comparable groups), some of the initial questions were so idiotic that they should have been dropped. I can’t imagine that anyone other than Ebenezer Scrooge would record a year’s spending on “Sweets/snacks” bought while on board. But there is no provision for showing that you have no records for a particular category: all you can do is record expenditure of 0.

The authors of the report on the 2005 survey said:

Another limitation is that respondents were asked to recall expenditure over a  twelve-month period, which is difficult to do accurately unless precise records are kept during the reference period and this leads to figures based on estimates. One way to address this issue in future studies and to ensure more detailed record keeping in future studies is to introduce an ‘Expenditure Diary’ for Waterways Ireland registered boat owners to track their expenditure.

I suspect that would not have been welcomed but the problem has not, as far as I can see, been addressed in any other way, apart from this instruction at the top of the page:

Please detail all expenditure for the last 12 months only, please ensure all expenditure, including credit card and cash payments.Where the exact value is not known,please give as close an estimate as possible and state clearly that it is just an estimate.

However, if you try to enter anything other than a numeric value (eg “Estimate”) in any of the fields for QQ10 and 12, you get this:

Please enter a positive number.

The questions are grouped in two major categories: Regular Expenditure and Irregular Expenditure. The latter provides for the purchase of a boat but it does not provide for improvements more significant than maintenance (which is under Regular). For instance, if you happen to have added three and a half tons of ballast, there is no suitable category for recording the expenditure.

Here, in flagrant breach of WI’s copyright, but in the interests of allowing folk to prepare their answers, are the expenditure questions.

10. Regular Expenditure (August 2013- August 2014)

Regular Expenditure (August 2013- August 2014)
Mooring Rental (per annum)
Insurance
Fuel
Winter Moorings
Maintenance (to include parts,repairs,servicing,paint.etc)
Equipment (Life Saving Appliances, Fire Extinguishers, Mooring lines etc)
Annual membership fees
Smart Cards
Permits
Lock Passes
Other

11. Please specify equipment purchased/or other expenses
12. Irregular Expenditure (August 2013- August 2014)

Purchase of craft/boat ( within the last 12 months)
Training
Navigational publications – charts, guide, GPS
Hire of boat (if applicable)
Internal transport cost associated with boating
Accommodation while using the waterways
Food in bars and restaurants while using the waterways
Drink in bars and restaurants while using the waterways
Shopping(food) – on board
Shopping(drink)- on board
Newspapers/magazines
Clothing associated with boating
Sweets/snacks
Souvenirs/crafts
Other purchases associated with boating (please detail below)

13. Please specify other expenses

There is some upper limit to the values you can enter in the fields for QQ10 and 12, but I haven’t discovered what it is.

Trips

If you survive that lot, you get asked about your trips.

14. How many boating trips do you take each year?
15. Average number of days spent on each boating trip?
16. Last Boating Trip

What waterway was visited:
How much did you spend on your last boating trip on Ireland’s Inland Waterways(euro):
Number of nights spent on your last boating trip:
Number of people in your party:
Adults:
Children:

17. 2nd most recent boating trip

[same questions][

18. 3rd most recent boating trip

[same questions]

19. Which of the above 3 boating trips was most typical/most accurately reflect your spending patterns?

There is a minor difficulty in that it is assumed that the same number of people was on board throughout. What I see as a more significant problem is that, for those who take their annual holidays “on Ireland’s Inland Waterways”, at this time of year the three most recent boating trips might include (say) a fortnight’s holiday, a weekend and a bank holiday weekend. Only the non-bank-holiday weekend is likely to be typical of trips within the year, but all three might be regular annual events. It is difficult to get that across in answer to Q19.

There seems to be no data validation on that page: ridiculous numbers are accepted, as are waterways that are not run by WI.

The rest

On the next page, QQ20, 21 and 22 ask about age, gender and personal status. Then, on the last, you can (but are not forced to) give your name and email address if you want a copy of the survey results or to get WI mailings.

The value of the survey

I am all in favour of gathering and publishing information. And I appreciate both the difficulty of doing so at low cost and the desirability of maintaining some sort of comparability with the earlier survey. But it seems to me that this survey is seriously flawed: the design of the questionnaire, the restrictions on the answers and the impossibility of drawing any reliable conclusions about the body of inland boat-owners are weaknesses that undermine the value of the exercise.

Having been one of the victims interviewees for WI’s other information-gathering exercise, the Survey of Waterways Users 2010 [PDF], I had reservations about that too, but the method might offer more control and, with better questionnaire design [tested on actual owners], might be applied to the “Economic Contribution” survey as well as to the user survey.