Pat Rabbitte’s reply to Michael Colreavy; thanks to KildareStreet.
Update 6 February 2014: Fergus O’Dowd [FG, Louth] responded to the Dáil’s most famous canoeist, Ming Flanagan [Ind, Roscommon/South Leitrim], the Rockville navigator, with some more information about eels.
Posted in Ashore, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Natural heritage, Operations, People, Politics, Sea, Shannon, shannon estuary, Sources, The fishing trade, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged eels, ESB, estuary, Ireland, Lough Neagh, Shannon, Waterways Ireland
Waterways Ireland’s funding comes from Ireland [RoI] and Northern Ireland [NI] in the ratio 85:15. I understand that the ratio reflects the length of WI-run waterway in each jurisdiction, although I am not sure how length is measured on lakes.
The proportions of boats in the two jurisdictions are not 85:15. As of December 2013 there were 5570 boats on the Erne Register and 8816 on the Shannon Register. These numbers may or may not reflect the numbers of boats on the waterways as (a) there may be unregistered boats and (b) folk may not always deregister boats that have moved off the navigation. I do not know how many boats there are on the Lower Bann; boats on the Shannon–Erne Waterway should be on either the Erne or the Shannon Register.
Waterways Ireland reckoned that there were 520 boats on the Grand, Royal and Barrow at the end of 2013. Adding them to the Shannon number gives us
The ratio is RoI 63, NI 37.
On programme costs, though, matters are otherwise. Granted that the 2011 figures, the most recent available, may not be representative of long-term average costs: the Royal has not been reopened long enough for us to get such a long-term average, and the 2011 figure may be unusually high.
The other difficulty is with the allocation of the costs of the Shannon–Erne Waterway. I have arbitrarily divided it 50/50 between the two jurisdictions, although they probably exaggerates the proportion attributable to NI.
Shannon + Royal + Grand + Barrow + ½ SEW = €7275000
Erne + Lower Bann + ½ SEW = €807000
The ratio is RoI 90%, NI 10%.
So:
All subject to caveats.
No particular point: I just thought it was interesting.
Posted in Canals, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Irish waterways general, Operations, People, Politics, Shannon, Sources, Tourism, Uncategorized, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged Barrow, boats, canal, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, Dublin, Erne, funding, Grand Canal, Ireland, Lower Bann, Operations, proportion, ratio, Royal Canal, Shannon, Shannon-Erne Waterway, spending, vessels, waterways, Waterways Ireland
Poolbeg: €280 per metre for a year plus membership; €20 a night for visitors.
Dun Laoghaire: €435 per metre with facilities for a year, €290 per metre without; €3.60 per metre per night for visitors.
Howth: €81 per metre per month; daily rate €3,20 per metre, minimum daily charge €20.
Grand or Royal Canal: current maximum €278 per year, irrespective of boat length, less than Dun Laoghaire charges per metre (for a berth with no facilities).
Admittedly you can go to more places from Dun Laoghaire (like, er, Holyhead), but on the other hand you can go boating from west Dublin in all but the most extreme conditions and there are more pubs along the way.
Posted in Canals, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Operations, People, Politics, Sea, Sources, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management, Weather
Tagged boats, bridge, bye-laws, byelaws, canal, Dublin, Dun Laoghaire, Grand Canal, howth, Ireland, marina, mooring, Operations, Poolbeg, Royal Canal, waterways, Waterways Ireland
Very large numbers of new readers have visited this site in recent days and have read my posts about the draft WI canals byelaws. I am grateful to them and even more grateful to those who took the trouble to comment.
I have spent pretty well the whole week on this, between reading the legislation and draft byelaws, writing up posts and responding to comments. I have fallen behind with other work, and accordingly I need to turn my attention to other issues.
I have invited one person to write a guest post on an aspect of the byelaws issue that I think is important, but that apart I won’t be adding new material on the subject for some time. Furthermore, later this evening I will close the existing posts to comments. Those posts, latest first, are:
Draft canals byelaws: comments on what I sent to WI as my contribution to the consultation process
Bang em’ up? Alas, no more on the enforcement mechanisms
Pull the plug: drain the canals on WI’s financial situation. I hope it is clear that I don’t really want to see them drained, but that I do think action is needed
Asleep at the wheel on why the production of new draft byelaws should not have come as a surprise.
The posts themselves and the existing comments will remain visible.
I hope that readers have found the discussion and information useful — even those who didn’t agree with my views.
My next substantial post will be on the Dublin & Kingstown Canal.
If you are interested in the mix of contemporary and historical waterways matters, you are welcome to subscribe to the site’s RSS feeds or by email. Note that the site is non-commercial and does not carry advertisements.
Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Canals, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Irish waterways general, Operations, People, Politics, Sources, Tourism, Uncategorized, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged barge, Barrow, boats, bridge, bye-laws, byelaws, canal, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, Dublin, Grand Canal, Ireland, lock, Operations, Royal Canal, vessels, waterways, Waterways Ireland
So there you are, with a large collection of photos on your favourite subject, and you’re wondering how you can capitalise on that to become a FAMOUS photojournalist, with your work published in NEWSPAPERS. Well, now I can tell you the secret road to success:
Yes: that’s all it takes. Because after a while, the Limerick Post may come along, help itself to your photo and publish it in its newspaper.
Judge of my surprise, gentle reader, when I found, on page 62 of its issue of 25 January 2014, one of my photos (from 2009) illustrating a story about driving in floods. I had no record of any request from Messrs Limerick Post for permission to use the photo. I sent this email:
Greetings.
On page 62 of your issue dated 25 January 2014, in an article on safety headed “Driving in hazardous conditions, storm and flood”, you publish one of my photographs, captioned “Irish Waterways’ photograph
of Castleconnell being cleared after floods”.I do not recall giving you permission to use that (or any other) photo and I would be glad to know how you came to use it.
I got this reply from the Commercial Features Editor:
Good morning. I wanted to use a photo that was representative of tough conditions re floods locally and saw the Castleconnell one online. I did credit Irish Waterways in the shot. Is there a problem?
I responded:
Giving a credit is not the same as seeking, much less paying for, a licence to use someone else’s photo — but I’m sure I don’t have to explain copyright law to a professional. So, yes, I see this as a problem and I would welcome your proposals for its resolution.
I have now left it for a week to give Messrs Limerick Post time to compose a suitably grovelling apology but it has not, alas, arrived. Accordingly, I beg to inform Messrs Limerick Post that if, in future, I find them using one of my photos without permission, they will be hearing from my solicitors.
Jimmy Deenihan, minister for waterways and some other stuff, supporter of the Lartigue Monorail in Listowel, is known to have played two forms of football: rugby and Gaelic. His cricketing expertise is perhaps less well known but, in a written answer to four Dáil questions yesterday, he showed his mastery of the straight bat.
I was surprised to find Bernard Durkan [FG, Kildare North] referring to “traditional canal boat dwellers”. I suppose it depends on your timescales: in my view, anything that began after 1850 isn’t really traditional.
Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Canals, Charles Wye Williams, Drainage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Operations, People, Politics, Sources, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged barge, Barrow, boats, bridge, canal, cricket, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, Dublin, Gaelic, Garryowen, Grand Canal, Ireland, Jimmy Deenihan, Lartigue, liveaboards, lock, Operations, Royal Canal, rugby, vessels, water level, waterways, Waterways Ireland
I have sent to Waterways Ireland my comments on the proposed canals byelaws, on everything from the structure of the document to the finer points of wording. Here is a summary of what I said about the more important points.
I am not a lawyer, but as far as I can see the draft byelaws are, and are being made, in accordance with the provisions of the Canals Act 1986 and the Maritime Safety Act 2005.
I suggested that the structure of the document would be improved, and the document would be easier to follow, if each new concept had:
As it is, eight concepts (excluding Waterways Ireland) are introduced in the definitions section:
The second and third concepts are implicitly, but not explicitly, covered by Byelaw 3. Its heading includes fishing but the text does not. The sixth concept, the fixed payment notice, is covered in Byelaw 7 and the seventh concept, the houseboat, is covered in Byelaw 4.
However, the three cruising concepts, two of which have permits, and the Barrow licence are not discussed in any of the draft byelaws, although the concepts are just as novel as those of the various mooring permits. That leaves the attentive reader wondering why some new concepts are covered by, or discussed in, byelaws and other are not.
I suggested that it would be better to
Apart from being easier to follow, that would ensure that all the new concepts have the same level of legal cover: at present some are covered by byelaws and others are not.
I suggested therefore that Byelaw 3 might cover the use of the canals and Barrow for navigation and Byelaw 4 might cover their use for the mooring of boats. Each byelaw would list the types of use that Waterways Ireland is providing for, state the permit required and state that the charge is set out in the schedule.
For the moorings, the byelaw would also state that WI will designate the areas or stretches of canal bank that may be used for each type of mooring; it might also state that those areas or stretches may not be used by boats without the appropriate permits. And it would make it clear that WI can set different rates depending on the size of boat, location and services provided.
Both byelaws should, as at present, give the legal basis, but I recommended sticking closely to the wording of the appropriate parts of Section 7 (1) of the Canals Act 1986.
The draft envisages permitting three types of cruising activity:
The definitions seem to be slightly contradictory: the annual canals cruising permit is said to be required by all boats but the definitions for the other two forms suggest that those activities may be undertaken without an annual canals cruising permit.
I suggested that the concept of continuous cruising be dropped. It describes the cruising permitted to holders of visitor permits, which Byelaw 5 can deal with adequately. Given that real continuous cruising is barely possible on the canals and Barrow, especially in the winter, providing for it seems pointless, and it might tempt customers to try to avoid paying for mooring permits.
I suggested that Waterways Ireland include a provision empowering itself to issue cruising permits for designated journeys, as in Byelaw 6 of the 1988 byelaws. The provision could be phrased so as to allow (but not require) Waterways Ireland to offer special permits, perhaps at discounted rates, to boats or groups of boats undertaking specific journeys, perhaps taking longer than one month, or travelling to specific events.
For example, a boat might not be able to complete the round trip from the Shannon to Dublin via the Royal, and back via the Grand, within one month, given the restricted schedule of bridge lifts, but WI might like to encourage boaters to undertake that trip by offering discounts on tolls. Similarly, if a waterside community were organising a festival, it might like to encourage boaters to travel there and WI might support the event by offering a package deal to festival-goers.
I noted that, as far as I can see, the Combined Mooring and Passage Permit will no longer exist. I take that to mean that there will be no uncontrolled mooring on the canals and Barrow. The definitions envisage permitting three types of mooring:
I suggested that the byelaw should state that WI can designate moorings for boats that are touring, visiting or cruising (or whatever the appropriate term is) and also state that other boats may not use those moorings without permission.
I said that the byelaw, rather than (or as well as) the schedule, should make it clear that WI can set different rates depending on the size of boat, location and services provided; it should also cover the annual and daily charges for the Grand Canal Dock and Spencer Dock.
I am not clear whether it is intended that a houseboat should hold the annual extended canals mooring permit as well as the annual houseboat mooring permit. The first is said to be required of all boats not navigating or continuously cruising, and that definition includes houseboats. I suggested that houseboats should not be required to hold both permits and that the definitions and byelaws should make that clear. If, on the other hand, it is intended that houseboats should hold both permits, that too should be made clear.
I said that the definition of houseboat must be fireproof, as must the power to decide what is and what is not a houseboat. The current definition, I felt, invites endless argument about the definition of “principal” and about whether or not the sleeping practices of the owner or occupant mean that the boat is a principal residence.
Finally, I suggested considering a canals equivalent of the Shannon’s winter mooring scheme, albeit with higher charges, or perhaps an annual permit that combined cheaper winter with more expensive summer mooring. That would cater for boats that spend the winter on the canals (presumably near their owners’ homes) and the summer on the Shannon. In winter, they could use visitor moorings or bank moorings near Dublin with little likelihood of their depriving anyone else of access.
I suggested that it be made clear that “canals” includes “Barrow navigation”. Neither the Canals Act 1986 nor the existing byelaws make that clear.
The definition of the visitor cruising permit confines it to boats “visiting the canals from another navigation”. I asked whether the Liffey, the tidal Barrow and indeed the sea come within the term “navigation”.
I have given my interpretation here.
I said that I do not imagine that WI knows, or could find, the price elasticity of demand for the various types of moorings. As a result, I suggest that WI should retain the maximum flexibility in price-setting and should be willing to change prices year by year to discover the best price points.
I have no objection to the rates shown in the first schedule but I wonder whether they make sufficient allowance for any future inflation. I raised some minor points about the Dublin passage charges; in particular I suggested that the per-boat charge for the Newcomen railway bridge should be changed to a per-lift charge to encourage numbers of boats to travel together and thus to reduce the number of lifts required.
Posted in Ashore, Canals, Drainage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Operations, People, Politics, Sources, Tourism, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged barge, Barrow, boats, bridge, bye-laws, byelaws, canal, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, Dublin, Grand Canal, Ireland, lock, Operations, Royal Canal, Shannon, vessels, Waterways Ireland
There was a proposal in the 1830s for a ship canal along the coast, outside the railway embankment, from Dublin to the asylum harbour at Kingstown. A preliminary report was provided by William Cubitt after the House of Commons Select Committee on the Dublin and Kingstown Ship Canal had reported in July 1833.
Henry E Flynn was opposed to the idea and, in his A Glance at the Question of a Ship Canal connecting the asylum harbour at Kingstown with the river Anne Liffey at Dublin &c &c &c [George Folds, Dublin 1834], dedicated to Daniel O’Connell, he wrote eloquently of the drawbacks of the proposal, which included this:
Be it remembered, that the whole coast from Ringsend to Merrion is the bathing ground for the less affluent classes of the Citizens; and hundreds get their bread by attending on and bathing the females who frequent it.
And are the patriotic Would-be’s who support a Ship Canal equally reckless of the health, the morality, and the existence of those persons? Would they have no objection to expose their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters to the immediate wanton gaze, the scoffs, the jeers, the immodest jest, the filthy exposure and indecent exhibitions which the most abandoned race of men [ie sailors] could find in their dissolute minds to perpetrate in their view, and within their hearing? And yet, all this must be the consequence of a Ship Canal in the immediate vicinity of the female baths and bathing ground along the line.
Happily, the canal was never built.
Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Canals, Charles Wye Williams, Drainage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Rail, Safety, Sea, Shannon, Sources, Steamers, The cattle trade, The fishing trade, Tourism, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management, Weather
Tagged cattle, Daniel O'Connell, Grand Canal Dock, Henry E Flynn, Liffey, North Wall, Richard Bourne, strand, William Cubitt, women
One of the most exclusive groups in Ireland is that of the boat-owners who pay Mineral Oil Tax on the diesel they use for private pleasure navigation. My own view is that, if you make payment of a tax effectively optional, most people won’t pay it. I have been providing supporting evidence for some time here, here, here and here, from which last I can say that there were 23 law-abiding boat-owners in Ireland last year (and 8816 boats registered on the Shannon, not to mention those based on other waters).
Clearly, this ridiculous system should be abolished: boats using diesel for private pleasure navigation should be forced to use non-marked fuel and pay the full non-rebated rate. Until that happy day comes, those who wish to join the respectable classes can download the return form for 2013 here [PDF]. Mineral Oil Tax on fuel used in 2013 is to be paid by 1 March 2014.
Posted in Economic activities, Extant waterways, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Operations, People, Politics, Sea, Shannon, Sources, Tourism, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged boats, diesel, Ireland, mineral oil tax, private pleasure navigation, Shannon, tax-dodgers, waterways
According to the Sindo,
Concerns were also expressed that the new system of fines “will see the canals fall into a similar state of dereliction to the 1960s, when entire sections of the waterways were filled in”.
Right. Well. Yes. The Sindo evidently has its own definition of the word “new”. This is from Section 7 of the Canals Act 1986:
(3) A person who contravenes a bye-law under this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000 (together with, in the case of a continuing contravention, a fine not exceeding £100 for every day on which the contravention is continued and not exceeding in total an amount which, when added to any other fine under this paragraph in relation to the contravention concerned, equals £1,000) or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or, at the discretion of the court, to both such fine or fines and such imprisonment, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £5,000 (together with, in the case of a continuing contravention, a fine not exceeding £500 for every day on which the contravention is continued) or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years or, at the discretion of the court, to both such fine or fines and such imprisonment.
Emphasis mine.
So a Sindonian “new” includes anything up to twenty-eight years old.
The provisions of the Canals Act 1986 were modified by the Maritime Safety Act 2005. Now, I am not a lawyer, but this is what I think is happening. I would be glad to hear from any of My Learned Friends who happen to be passing. My interpretation, open to correction, is this:
Working out how a speedy system of enforcement will lead to the filling in of waterways requires an exercise of the imagination that is beyond me. But the only thing that is new here is that Waterways Ireland is implementing a power that it has had for seven years. Under the system introduced in 2007:
I think that the explanatory note at the end of WI’s draft byelaws document is badly drafted in that it does not explain the difference between breaches of byelaws that constitute offences and those (relating to fees etc) that do not. On the whole, the 2007 rules, now being implemented, seem to me to represent an easing of the rules on enforcement.
I repeat: I am not a lawyer; my interpretation may be mistaken. Caveat lector.
Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Canals, Drainage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Forgotten navigations, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Operations, People, Politics, Sources, Tourism, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged barge, Barrow, boats, bridge, bye-laws, byelaws, canal, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, Dublin, Grand Canal, Ireland, lock, Operations, Royal Canal, vessels, waterways, Waterways Ireland
Irish waterways history