Tag Archives: Clones

Southron sheughs

For reasons now lost in the mists of time, I forgot to draw the attention of Learned Readers to an exchange in the Dáil on 18 April 2012, which was reported on the invaluable KildareStreet website as well as on the Oireachtas site. Jack Wall, a Labour TD for Kildare South, asked this question:

Question 702: To ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the position regarding the canal system under Waterways Ireland; the plans the agency has for the development of the canals; the number of lock keepers in the system; if there are any vacancies; if so, when same will be filled and the mechanism that will be adopted to do so; if the agency has any plans to refurbish existing systems that are not in use at present; if the agency has any plans to increase the number of berthings on the canals and if so, in which areas; if the traffic on the canals has shown a percentage increase over each year for the past three years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18431/12]

Now, that’s a bit of a portmanteau question. I wonder whether Jack Wall was prompted to ask about lock keepers but not quite well enough briefed to ask follow-up questions. The minister, Jimmy Deenihan, gave a four-paragraph answer, and I’m going to break it up so that I can discuss each element individually.

Waffle

The minister’s first paragraph was background music:

Since its formation in 1999, Waterways Ireland has continued to upgrade the facilities on the canals through the capital allocations under the National Development Plans. The canals system has benefited extremely well during that time, particularly with the number of additional mooring and landing spaces that have been made available. The provision of further mooring space will be dependent on available finance and priorities over the coming years.

I’m going to move the third paragraph up and deal with it next.

Lockkeepers

The minister said:

I am informed by Waterways Ireland that there are 20 lock keepers employed at present on the Grand Canal and Barrow Navigation. A number of staff have retired recently and decisions on their replacement will be taken having regard to the business needs of the organisation. I understand that Waterways Ireland is not planning to recruit lock keepers at this time. Any posts filled will be either by internal transfer or external recruitment, depending on the particular circumstances.

Although the minister mentions the Royal Canal elsewhere in his answer, and the question certainly does not exclude the Royal, the minister doesn’t mention it in this paragraph. In fact, there are several things the minister doesn’t mention:

  • that there are no lockkeepers on the Royal
  • that agency staff have been employed
  • that, far from considering recruiting replacement lockkeepers, Waterways Ireland might be considering reducing their numbers, or at least assigning some of them to other duties, perhaps on the Royal.

Now, I’m not saying that any of those actualities or possibilities is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, given the virtual absence of lockkeepers on the Canal & River Trust’s English and Welsh canals, it’s hard to see why the Irish canals, with much lower traffic, need so many.

But my point here is that a TD, and especially a Labour Party TD (haven’t they something to do with supporting workers?), might be presumed to be interested in the aspects that the minister did not mention. The minister’s answer was true but incomplete.

For the 2011 election Fine Gael published a document called Reinventing Government, with section headings on “More Open and Transparent Policy-Making Processes” and “New Systems of Openness and Transparency”. Where are they?

Stop digging

Here is the minister’s second paragraph:

My Department’s 2012 capital allocation for Waterways Ireland is €4.5m. This will facilitate continued investment in the development and restoration of the inland waterways. The main thrust of the refurbishment of the waterways over the next few years will be focused on the re-opening of the Ulster Canal from Upper Lough Erne to Clones. However, Waterways Ireland is also undertaking feasibility studies on the Kilbeggan Branch of the Grand Canal and on the Longford Branch of the Royal Canal. These are due to be completed by the end of 2013.

AAAARRRGGGH!

They’re thinking of digging even more sheughs!

Look. I know that engineers love to have excuses (and money) to do engineering: all that kit, wellies and hard hats, muck-shifting and the satisfying feeling that you are bringing joy (and tourists) to a small town. But it’s a waste of time and money. And there is absolutely no point in doing feasibility studies: what you want are cost-benefit analyses. Pretty well every single canal ever built with public funding in Ireland has been a waste of money and there is no reason to believe that relining the canals to Longford and Kilbeggan will be any better. I mean, look at the Naas Branch: very scenic, but hardly anyone ever goes there other than in convoy.

What you want to do is to explain, politely, to the TDs of Longford and Kilbeggan that they can have canals only if they will agree to having all other public services (including the drinking-water supply) cut off. But of course both Kilbeggan and Longford already have ways of attracting tourists. Kilbeggan has a distillery while Longford has an absence of signposts, especially to Athlone, thus causing motorists to drive around in ever-decreasing circles until they imitate the oozlum bird.

I mean, the canal age is over; this is the age of the camper van.

Traffic

Here is the minister’s final paragraph.

I am informed that boat traffic numbers on the Grand Canal and Barrow Navigation have remained fairly constant over 2009 and 2010. In 2011 the numbers increased by 30% following the re-opening of the Royal Canal and the fact that access was available to the Tall Ships event in Waterford.

Now this is really interesting, for three reasons:

  • first, Waterways Ireland keeps telling me that it cannot produce any usage figures for the canals and the Barrow. So on what traffic numbers are the minister’s statements based?
  • second, note that the basis of comparison between the earlier years (2009 and 2010) and the later (2011) is not clear. The Royal was not officially open during the earlier years, although there was some traffic. Was it counted? And does the 2011 figure that shows the 30% increase include Royal figures (in which case it would be an invalid comparison) or not (in which case the few boats doing the complete triangular route caused a huge increase in traffic)?
  • third, note that the minister does not give any actual usage figures. Could it be that they are very small?

What the canals and the Barrow need is action to increase the amount of traffic, especially in summer (when few people travel because of weed and sometimes water shortages) and winter (when few travel because it’s miserable). Adding extensions only spreads the existing traffic more thinly over a larger number of destinations. When you get to the stage of having traffic jams at locks, you can begin to think about extra destinations. Until then, put the shovels away.

Budget

Vast wodges of bumpf from the government’s budget site, with non-searchable PDFs, god rot ’em. An initial look suggests these points:

  • the Dept of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht’s total allocation to northsouthery, which includes waterways, will be down 6% next year
  • current spending on northsouthery will be down from €38 244 000 to €36 178 000. Waterways Ireland gets the biggest wodge of that, about 60% [see my comment last year] in 2011; I guess that the cuts will be shared pro rata, but I can’t be sure
  • WI’s capital expenditure allocation will be reduced from €4 500 000 to €4 071 000, which may go towards shovels for thon sheugh
  • decisions on northsouthery have to be agreed by the NSMC [Irish government and NI executive].

More as I plough the pile, but the summary (to nobody’s surprise) is less spending on waterways. Maybe Éanna should have pushed ….

Save the newts: abandon the Clones sheugh!

Why has the proposed sheugh not yet been approved in Northern ireland? Because the Northern Ireland Environment Agency has been asking hard questions. WI has very kindly put the answers on its website.

The newts are going to be evicted, the stables may have to go but the Orange Hall won’t be affected. Hours of interesting reading.

 

Northern Ireland seeks cutting-edge technology … of the 18th century

IndustrialHeritageIreland reports on two recent outbreaks of cargo cultism in Norn Iron. Folk in Tyrone want the whole of the Ulster Canal to be restored to its, er, former glory, which presumably means without any water west of Monaghan, while a Sinn Féin MLA wants to lumber Waterways Ireland with responsibility for the useless Strabane Canal on which £1.3 million has already been wasted.

What is it with Sinn Féin and canals? I realise that Irish republicanism is by definition a backward-looking creed, with little contact with reality, but why not look to (say) early nineteenth century technology, like the steam railway, rather than that of the eighteenth century?

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that Sinn Féin folk, especially those who are subjects of Her current Majesty, adopt a British conception of inland waterways. In Britain, canals dominate and boats must travel slowly, no faster than the horse-drawn vessels of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But Irish waterways are dominated by lakes, whereon modern folk like to zoom around in fast boats: jetskis, speedboats and skiboats, fast cruisers. Such boats are entirely unsuitable for canals: they damage the banks and the pace bores their owners.

As it happens, we have lots of lakes where owners can zoom. [I’d prefer if they didn’t, but that’s the way it is.] And with reductions in the amount of boating activity, we don’t need any additional waterways. Sinn Féin, though, doesn’t seem to have grasped this. Stuck in the eighteenth century, it wants canals. I suppose we should be grateful it isn’t proposing to have the taxpayer stump up for coal-mines as well.

Sinn Féin and the Clones Sheugh

Northern Ireland Assembly debate 6 November 2012, via TheyWorkForYou.com:

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin): […] Will the Minister provide an update on the restoration of the Ulster canal from Clones to Upper Lough Erne?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin): As I said, there was a presentation on the issue at the North/South interparliamentary forum, and the planning processes are up and running. I understand that, on the Cavan side of the border, it has been successfully concluded. There is still some work to do on this side. Everyone realises, from a tourism point of view, that this is filled with all sorts of potential for us, particularly in the context not only of whatever construction jobs will be created by the project but of the prospects for utilising our waterways in a way that can bring employment to local communities.

For “everyone” read “everyone except irishwaterwayshistory.com and a few other sane people”.

All sheugh up

Thinking about the exciting news from the North South Ministerial Council plenary session about the Clones Sheugh, I was reminded of the even more exciting news of the first meeting of the North/South Inter-parliamentary Association.

Strangely, its meeting received little publicity in the great world. I asked Messrs Google to search for it but to omit links from the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as those from politicus.org and flickr.com. It found only 42 hits, of which the first seven were links to the site of a Labour senator called Mary Moran. (I won’t provide a link to her site as she’s obviously perfectly capable of generating all the links she wants.)

Anyway, the first meeting of the North/South Inter-parliamentary Association seems to have passed almost unnoticed. You can read about it on InsideIreland.ie, which seems to be a news site run by an advertising agency.

From Ciarán Hanna’s account, I deduce that the North/South Inter-parliamentary Association is an entirely pointless body. I note that it won’t meet again until April 2013. And perhaps the Irish government’s support for the Clones Sheugh is because it gives this pointless body something to discuss, thus keeping it from commenting on anything important.

Northsouthery and the Clones Sheugh

The minutes of the latest North South Ministerial Council plenary meeting, held on 2 November 2012, are now on the NSMC website. Of the Clones Sheugh:

The Council also welcomed the following key developments: […]

the restoration of the Ulster Canal from Clones to Upper Lough Erne is progressing through the planning application process in both jurisdictions. An inter-agency group has been set up to examine all possible options to advance the project.

Perhaps Mr Noonan will have an early christmas present for the promoters.

Political parties: update

I said that I had asked many political parties whether they had asked the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs [now the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht] for costings for the Clones Sheugh (aka the Ulster Canal). Those I asked were:

Christian Solidarity Party
Fianna Fáil
Fine Gael
Fís Nua
Green Party
Labour
People before Profit
Sinn Féin
Socialist Party
South Kerry Independent
Workers and Unemployed Action Group [WUAG]
Workers’ Party

I have so far had responses from Fís Nua, the Green Party and Labour; it seems that none of them made the request. I have emailed a reminder to the others and I await their responses.

Political parties

Regular readers will know that I sent and FOI request to the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs [now the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht] looking for files on the Clones Sheugh (aka the Ulster Canal). One of the grounds on which I was refused access was that certain files related to “the costing, assessment or consideration or any proposal of a political party carried out for or on behalf of that party”.

While my appeal against that refusal continues on its course, I thought I might as well ask the political parties directly for the information that might be in those files — in the process, of course, establishing which of them had Clones Sheugh proposals in mind.

Party time

As far as I can see, the parties that contested, or were eligible to contest, the 2011 general election were:

Christian Solidarity Party
Fianna Fáil
Fine Gael
Fís Nua
Green Party
Labour
People before Profit
Sinn Féin
Socialist Party
South Kerry Independent
Workers and Unemployed Action Group [WUAG]
Workers’ Party.

Accordingly, I decided to email them all, enquiring whether they had asked the [then] Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs for information “relating to the costing, assessment or consideration of the restoration of some or all of the abandoned Ulster Canal”. I added that, if they had done so, I would be grateful for a copy of the query they put to the department and of the response they received. I told them that I was sending my query to all political parties that contested the 2011 general election (or at least to all those for which I could find an email address).

That was not quite true: I omitted the South Kerry Independent Alliance, on the grounds that its interest in the Clones Sheugh was likely to be limited (I am of course open to correction on this). Furthermore, I was unable to find any website or email address for WUAG so I did not send my request to them.

Fianna Fáil logic

All of the other parties had websites and email addresses — except one: Fianna Fáil. Now, strictly speaking it falls outside the range of parties in which I might have been interested: not just for the obvious reasons but because it was in government at the time and would automatically have had full access to the civil service costings (such as they were). But I was interested to note that Fianna Fáil did not provide an email address on its website: interested enough to ring it and ask for an email address for its press office. The polite receptionist asked someone and told me that the address to be used was pressoffice@fiannafail.ie.

So I sent my query to that address. And I got back an autoresponse saying

This email is not monitored. For urgent queries you can contact the FF Press Office on 087 955 5600.

Well I never. What was the point of that?

Labour gains

Anyway, the results so far put Labour in the lead: I got an almost immediate informal response from Dermot Lacey, saying that he didn’t think Labour had contacted the department; I also got a more formal response next day, from Mags Murphy, Director of Councillor Services and Training, saying:

Labour did not include a specific commitment to the development of the Ulster Canal in our manifesto in the 2011 Election.

However, Labour is keen that all practical possibilities for cooperation, reconciliation and mutual benefit, including maximising tourism potential from a development of the Ulster Canal would be considered seriously as part of our deep commitment to the Good Friday agreement.

To this end, the Labour members of the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement committee visited the Ulster Canal, Enniskillen and Clones with their cross-party colleagues for a range of meetings on 27 September 2012 with Waterways Ireland officials, local councillors and community groups.

Oh dear. Still, brownie points for responding.

What is the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement committee?

Where are the others?

I am still awaiting responses from the other political parties.

Declaration of non-interest

I did not vote for any of those parties.

 

Da new kidz in da hood

A couple of canally sites I hadn’t come across:

  • da corpo’s canal (h/t IndustrialHeritageIreland)
  • Dublin canal walks. I don’t know who is behind this site, which looks like a work in the early stages of progress, but I’m all in favour of folks’ walking along Dublin canals; my own effort at encouragement is here.

Industrial Heritage Ireland, by the way, has been watching the Clones Canal campaign. This suggests that the campaign is being cranked up, although I don’t know what the poor buggers from the NI Strategic Investment Board are doing in the group: pouring money into holes in the ground is not (pace Keynes) usually seen as an investment.

It is reported, nonetheless, that IWAI folk are confident that public money will be wasted on the ghastly project, thus subsidising their hobby. And it seems that a gang of Irish parliamentarians, following the tradition established in Grattan’s Parliament, are keen to distribute pork: there is nothing in the press release to suggest that any of the poor dears have any interest in assessing the costs and benefits of the Clones Canal proposal. In the unlikely event that any of them is interested, the pages starting here might be useful. And interested parliamentarians might like to check on any cost-benefit analyses done (or revised) since it was found that the canal would cost €45m, not €35m.