Tag Archives: department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht

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 ….

Campaign news 2: marine casualties

There is an appalling piece of legislation called the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) Act 2000. Actually, only part of it is appalling. The first 45 of 46 sections are OK: they’re all about investigating marine casualties, which is more or less what you would expect, and that’s fine. But Section 46 is a stinker:

The Minister may, from time to time, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, advance to a person, out of monies provided by the Oireachtas, for the purposes of marine or natural resource based tourism or heritage projects, such sums, by way of grant or loan, as the Minister may determine and upon such terms and conditions as he or she considers necessary.

First of all, it has nothing whatsoever to do with investigating marine casualties and, second, it allows a minister to hand out money to his mates on whatever terms he likes. This sort of addition to an irrelevant bill is what we might expect in the USA or in Greece, but it should never have got through the cabinet, never mind the Oireachtas. It is fortunate that the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources at the time the act was passed was a person of the utmost probity, one Frank Fahey.

In 2010 responsibility for Section 46 was transferred to Craggy Island by Section 3 (1) of SI No 677/2010 — Marine Tourism (Transfer of Departmental Administration and Ministerial Functions) Order 2010:

3. (1) The functions vested in the Minister for Transport by or under section 46 of the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) Act 2000 (No. 14 of 2000) are transferred to the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs.

And in 2011 it was transferred again, this time to the Department of, er, Agriculture by SI No 163/2011 — Marine Tourism (Transfer of Departmental Administration and Ministerial Functions) Order 2011:

3. (1) The functions vested in the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs by or under section 46 of the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) Act 2000 (No. 14 of 2000) are transferred to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The Dept of Ag later became the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, although most marine functions are still in the Department of Transport.

On 13 February 2012 I wrote to the Dept of Ag thusly:

I would be grateful if you could give me a list of grants and loans made under Section 46 of the 2000 Act since it came into force, including the names of the recipients, the purposes for which the grants or loans were given and the details of your evaluations of the effectiveness of the grants or loans.

I would also be grateful if you could tell me whether your department intends to seek the repeal of Section 46.

After several reminders, I found a kindly chap who took up the matter. He has today written to say:

We sought the assistance of our Marine Agencies and Programme Division in Clonakilty, Co Cork and they have advised that the Department of Agriculture , Food and the Marine (formerly the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) has made no grants under Section 46 since responsibility for Section 46 was vested in the Department. If any grants were made under Section 46 prior to responsibility being vested in this Department the details would be held by the responsible Departments at the date of the decision. I regret that these details are not held by this Department.

In relation to the repeal of Section 46, it can be confirmed that there are no proposals at present to seek its repeal.

I am glad to learn that no grants have been made. The reply does not mention loans, so I’ve sent a follow-up question to ask about them. I’ve also asked why the blasted section is not being repealed. And I’ve written to Craggy Island (or rather its successor, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht) and the Dept of Transport to ask whether they made any grants or loans when they were responsible for Section 46.

Ireland is not Greece, a minister said today. So why has Section 46 not been repealed?

Christmas caption competition

The usual prize of a glass of something or other [and I know the last two prizewinners still have a claim on me] for the best non-libellous caption for this photo, taken today at the launch of WI’s education programme for primary school children. I understand that the materials on WI’s e-learning page are complemented by “an off-line teachers resource pack”, which is what the besuited ones are clutching.

No lifejackets. Photo courtesy of Waterways Ireland, who are not to blame for my decision to use it for a caption competition

Starting at the back, the four chaps are Éanna Rowe, Waterways Ireland’s Marketing Honcho; John Martin, Heid Fector o’ Waterwyes Airlin [as we say in Ulster Scots]*; Ruairi Quinn, Minister for Education and Skills; Jimmy Deenihan, Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht but, on the other hand, a strong personal supporter of the Lartigue Monorail, which is a point in his favour.

Update 4 December 2012: the press release is now on the WI site.

* In its 2008 Annual Report, Waterways Ireland was, in Ulster Scots, Watterweys Airlann on the cover but Watterwyes Irelan in the Foreward bae the Cheif [sic] Executive, who signed himself as Chief [sic] Executive. By 2009, though it was still Watterweys Airlann on the cover, it was Waterwyes Airlan in the Foreward bae the Chief [sic] Executive, who signed himself as Heid Fector, a title I rather like. By 2010, though the cover remained unchanged as Watterweys Airlann, the body was Watterwyes Airlan in the Foreward, but the Heid Fector title had been dropped, alas, and John Martin was Chief Executive in two languages.

But 2008 was not the Heid Fector’s first appearance: in 2007 John Martin signed himself thus, though the foreword was called Twarthy words bae tha heid yin and the body was referred to in the text as Wattherweys [sic] Irelan.

Back in 2006, the foreword was Innin wi tha Heid Fector, and the body was Watterweys Airlann, with an accent, which I can’t reproduce, over the first e. That was the same as in 2005; in both years John Martin signed himself as Heid Fector.

I’m not sure whether I prefer Heid Yin or Heid Fector, but either seems better than Chief or Cheif Executive. But the real problem is the difficulty that this inconsistency causes for us eager students of Ulster Scots. I realise that change is inevitable in a thriving, developing language or dialect, but perhaps the cross-border bodies could give a lead in standardising the vocabulary and spelling.

WI finances

Robin Evans, chief executive of the Canal & River Trust, was interviewed in the December 2012 issue of Waterways World. CART, a charitable trust, has taken over from British Waterways in England and Wales, but not in Scotland.

Robin Evans pointed out in the interview that, whereas waterways in Scotland get 98% of their funding from the state, CART’s English and Welsh waterways get only 35%. Amongst other things, CART is seeking donations and getting people to volunteer as lockkeepers and in other roles.

I’ll bet the Irish government is looking on with interest.

Royal water (current status)

I have updated my page about Royal Canal feeders with some information provided by Nigel Russell of WI to the An Bord Pleanála oral hearing on the Royal water supply scheme.

Incidentally, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, WI’s parent department in RoI, was among the (few) objectors to the proposed abstraction of water from Lough Ennell, although it was in favour of ceasing to abstract water from Lough Owel [Inspector’s report pp11–12]. Indeed it seemed to have some reservations about the reopening of the Royal Canal, not on economic grounds but because “some important nature consideration issues need to be fully addressed”.

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.