Tag Archives: Ulster Canal

Funding the Ulster Canal

I go away for a week and suddenly there’s lots of information about the funding of the Ulster Canal …. Happily, I was on the Erne, so I was able to read the Anglo-Celt, the Leitrim Observer and the Impartial Reporter, and was thus able to keep up with the news.

The really extraordinary thing, no doubt the result of an amazing coincidence, is that this sudden access of information comes just as I expect a ruling from the Office of the Information Commissioner on my appeal against Craggy Island’s refusal to give me any meaningful information about the funding of the project.

My last letter to Craggy Island on the subject was a request for an internal review of their refusal; as expected, that too resulted in a refusal, which enabled me to go to the Information Commissioner. You might, nonetheless, be interested to read my letter.

I will comment later on the content of the recent relevations and on how they’ve been spun; happily, Ewan Duffy was not deceived by the spin.

From the Dáil

Questions – Northern Ireland Issues, Dáil Éireann Debate Vol. 729 No 2 Unrevised

Deputy Gerry Adams:

[…] The Taoiseach might update us on other flagship projects such as the Ulster Canal — at least, it was described as a flagship project at the time it was launched. […]

The Taoiseach:

[…] A number of issues were identified which clearly, from any political point of view, would be of interest and benefit to the infrastructure and the economies North and South. The Deputy mentioned some which have been under discussion for a long time. Were we not obliged to pay €3 billion to Anglo Irish Bank for the next ten years, it would be great to be able to tell the Deputy that the Government could now deal with the Ulster Canal or a number of other issues. Unfortunately, that is not the way it is at present. Consequently, from that perspective the Government will continue to commit itself to working diligently in the interests of the development of the economies North and South and, in consequence, of the entire island. […]

[…] Deputy Adams knows we could deal with the Ulster Canal and many other issues in the north west and elsewhere in the country if we did not have this imposition and burden, but that is a fact of life. […]

[Emphasis mine]

Northern Sound News Details Jul 07 2011

[…] The Project Co-Ordinator for the regeneration of the Ulster Canal says he is not concerned about the funding issue. Gerry Darby says he is still confident that the Ulster Canal regeneration is on track.

What is the basis for that confidence?

 

Ulster Canal funding

When in Clones the Minister stated that he had been “warned not to give a commitment to funding” in relation to the redevelopment of the Ulster Canal, although he also remarked that he would be anxious to see the initiative going ahead.

Northern Standard 8 July 2011

Whoda thunk?

 

The Junction Navigation

Here are some pages about the Junction Navigation in the Ballinamore & Ballyconnell drainage district. It later became known as the Ballinamore & Ballyconnell Canal and later still as the Shannon–Erne Waterway.

The role of the cads and bounders of the Ulster Canal Company in getting a canal built at taxpayers’ expense

The construction of the Junction Navigation at Aghoo (Lock 4)

Lock gear old and new

And here’s a reminder of an old page about the Belturbet-built dredger used in constructing the navigation.

Craggy Island’s secrets

Government departments have been putting on line the briefing documents they prepared for incoming ministers. Craggy Island (nach maireann) has done the same, and you can read all about it … or at least about the bits that they feel like revealing to citizens. And, as you might expect, Waterways Ireland has Very Sensitive Issues ….

WI’s budget

Anyway, the Minister (which one?) now knows that Waterways Ireland comes under the heading of Rural Development, run by Principal Officer Aidan O’Reilly, based in Tubbercurry. He is (or was: these documents date from March 2011) also in charge of rural development, rural recreation, marine leisure and northsouthery, reporting to Assistant Secretary Rita McNulty. Record 1 General Brief Part 1 says:

The 2011 budget for WI is the subject of ongoing discussions between the co-sponsoring Departments [ie Craggy Island and NI’s DCAL] and will require formal approval by the North/South Ministerial Council in due course. WI’s priorities for 2011 include the ongoing [it’s that word again] re-commissioning of the Royal Canal (which links Dublin with the River Shannon) and progressing work on the re-opening of the Ulster Canal from Upper Lough Erne to Clones. The section of the Ulster Canal proposed for re-opening is some 13km in length. Preliminary design, land acquisition and the acquiring of planning permission are underway and construction is anticipated to commence in 2011 and to be completed in 2013, subject to resources.

Well, that’s pretty definitive: it might or might not happen. WI’s capital budget for 2011 is said to be €6m; the cost of building the Clones Canal was said to be €35m (although no recent basis for that costing has been published, as far as I know). Three years at €6m (2011–2013 inclusive) won’t meet even that cost but no doubt, given the prosperity of the Irish economy, it will be easy to double the amount available.

The EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland of 16 December 2010 suggests that the government’s capital spending will be cut every year up to 2013.

Issues for ministerial attention

Back to the briefing documents. The Issues for Ministerial attention say this about Waterways Ireland:

Next paragraph in relation to Waterways Ireland is exempt from release under Section 20, Section 21 and Section 24 (d) of the FOI Acts.

Not that anybody asked them, as far as I know: the FOI Act is irrelevant as the department could itself decide to release the information. My guess at the missing text is this:

We promised to spent millions on that canal to Clones; we haven’t got the money and we have no idea where to get it. Could you lean on Michael Noonan and Brendan Howlin please?

For the Finance/IT Division, we read:

Given the nature of capital expenditure, contractual commitments must be entered into in advance in order for projects to proceed. Discussions have been [guess what?] ongoing at official level with the Department of Finance on securing (a) the prospect of additional funding for LEADER in future years and (b) sanction to make additional commitments this year in respect of future years.

However, a litle earlier it said:

The multi-annual capital investment sanction was received recently from the Department of Finance.

I can’t find anything further about that.

Priority issues

The priority issues document says this:

Waterways Ireland — As is the case with An Foras Teanga, decisions will be required in relation to Waterways Ireland, including approval of business plans and budgets for 2011.

I wonder whether that has happened.

The Waterways Ireland staffing secret

The briefing document on state agencies and bodies gives some background information about WI. Then:

Staffing of State Body

Waterways Ireland has NSMC approval for 381 Full Time Equivalent posts (FTE). Employee numbers at the end of 2010 were 364.

Key Issues for State Body in 2011

Budget: The 2011 budget and business plan are the subject of [here it comes] ongoing discussions with the co-sponsoring NI Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and the Departments of Finance, and will require formal approval by the North/South Ministerial Council in due course.

Staffing: Next paragraph in relation to Waterways Ireland is exempt from release under Section 20, Section 21 and Section 24(d) of the FOI Acts.

Well, well. So there is a secret about staffing. And it’s a big secret, which the Craggicians can’t tell us about because (a) they’re still thinking about it (FOI Section 20), (b) it might affect negotiations (Section 21) and (c) it could cause Northern Ireland to invade us (Section 24(d)) or something. If I worked in WI, I’d be a bit worried about that — although it could be that Craggy Island just doesn’t like revealing anything that might be embarrassing.

Ask the experts

The document on northsouthery reveals that a “review of the North-South Implementation Bodies and Areas for Co-operation” is “being taken forward by a Review Group of senior officials and an advisory panel of four experts/advisers, two appointed by the Northern ireland Executive and two appointed by the Irish Government, reporting to the NSMC”. The term of reference relevant to WI, the first, says that the group will “examine objectively the efficiency and value for money of existing Implementation Bodies”.

The review is covered on the NSMC website. Joint communiqués from plenary meetings say:

5 July 2010: The Council agreed that recommendations in a report prepared for the Review Group by an advisory panel of experts/advisors, would be forwarded for views to Ministers who have responsibility for the North South Bodies. They noted consultation that is underway within Executive departments on the second and third terms of reference of the St Andrews Agreement Review and anticipated that the Review Group would move rapidly to conclude its work when this is complete. Ministers agreed to consider the outcome of consultation that is underway in both jurisdictions at a future NSMC meeting.

21 January 2011:  The Council noted that the consultation with relevant Ministers in both jurisdictions on all aspects of the St Andrews Agreement Review is now near completion and taking account of the outcome of this consultation, the Review Group will prepare a report for consideration by NSMC at its Plenary meeting in June 2011.

10 June 2011: Ministers noted proposals relating to Terms of Reference 1 and prepared by the St Andrews Agreement Review Group arising from consultation on recommendations in a report prepared by experts/advisers to the Review Group. They agreed that these will be forwarded, along with a copy of the report, for consideration by Ministers in the new Executive and Irish Government with responsibilities for North South Bodies and Finance Ministers and that, taking account of these considerations, the NSMC Joint Secretariat will make recommendations to finalise this element of the Review at the NSMC Plenary meeting in November 2011. They further agreed that Terms of Reference 2 and 3 of the St Andrews Review will be discussed also at that meeting.

No info on what the proposals actually are, alas. Must be a secret.

The crossborder secret

The northsouthery document repeats background information about WI and its current budget and says:

Next paragraph in relation to Waterways Ireland is exempt from release under Section 20, Section 21 and Section 24(d) of the FOI Acts.

So another unknown unknown. Or perhaps the same one. Who knows?

The remaining briefing documents have no relevant content.

Justifying secrecy

The official description of the waterways secrets is this:

Text in relation to administrative matters and Waterways Ireland

The official explanations for the secrecy are these:

Section 20 protects against the release of material related to an ongoing deliberative process of the Department or ongoing discussions at Departmental level.

Or in other words “When we’ve made our decision we’ll tell you about it. And no, we don’t want any information, comments or suggestions from any informed citizens until then.”

Section 21(1)(c) provides for this material to be withheld on the grounds that release may have an adverse effect on negotiations being carried out by the Department.

Note “may have”. The probability might be less than 1%, so this is an ideal excuse.

Section 24(d) also provides for this material to be withheld on the grounds that release could have an adverse effect on matters relating to Northern Ireland.

We’re not talking about terrorists here: we’re talking about canals and rivers and boats. What adverse effects could there be?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where is the Ulster Canal?

The North-South Ministerial Council held a plenary meeting in Dublin on 10 June 2011. The only waterways item was this:

Waterways Ireland will host a meeting in Enniskillen from 13-16 September 2011 for its 17 partners from 13 countries in an INTERREG IVc project entitled ‘Waterways Forward’.

No mention of the Ulster Canal, but the participants did big up that other fatuous scheme, the over-specced A5 road, towards which the penniless southern state is about to pay £11,000,000 (that’s real pounds).

Is the Ulster Canal doomed?

More for less

Press reports from last week’s plenary meeting [10 June 2011] of the North-South Ministerial Council suggest that Waterways Ireland and other cross-border bodies will be facing cuts. The Irish Independent, for example, quotes Peter Robinson, Northern Ireland’s First Minister, saying this:

There are no sacred cows. We want more for less and that is as much in respect of cross-border bodies as in any part of our administration.

Because the proportion of its current income contributed by each of the two governments is fixed, one side cannot unilaterally cut the amount it gives Waterways Ireland. These reports suggest that both sides want to cut WI’s income, although they might be satisfied with higher productivity in some form.

The press reports do not say whether the Clones [né Ulster] Canal was discussed. The NSMC website does not yet have a report of the meeting.

 

Astonishing news

The Western Rail Corridor has attracted rather fewer passengers than the, er, “business case” proposed. Well I never. I wonder whether there is any news about the religious affiliations of the Bishop of Rome.

A recent enquiry had me revisiting my page about the Tralee Ship Canal, another major waste of public money.

But governments (or at least their civil servants) never give in: it seems that the present crowd is determined to build an unnecessarily lavish road in the United Kingdom. Perhaps it would be cheaper to move the Limerick–Galway railway line up there. [The Alternative A5 Alliance could add that idea to the Wikipedia entry on the A5, which doesn’t seem to reflect their views.]

While responsibility for waterways has moved from Craggy Island to the Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport, it is entirely possible that existing policies will be implemented. It’s impossible to have any confidence that reason will prevail and that the planned Clones Canal will be dumped, although I continue to hope that there is an influential economist somewhere in the department.

Meanwhile, the Clones Dudes are trying hard to get people to invest in waterways businesses: they organised visits to some of the surviving businesses along the Erne and the Shannon–Erne Waterway and they’re having a workshop on 23 June 2011 to tell people how to set up boat-repair, marina and water activity businesses.

Still, at least they’ve stopped referring to it as the Ulster Canal: they’ve now adopted the term Clones Canal, which suggests that they’ve accepted that the thing will never get beyond Clones. Perhaps there is a limit to the willingness even of Irish governments to waste public money (or ECB money) on pointless projects.

 

 

Departmental responsibility for waterways

Statutory Instrument No 195 of 2011 transfers responsibility for inland waterways (and Waterways Ireland and waterways northsouthery) from Craggy Island to the Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

It does not say whether the same people are still doing the work.

Text of the statutory instrument here.

 

What happened to the Wingate?

On 22 September 1870 the Irish Times said that the owner of the new steam launch Wingate was

 willing, in case of six or eight gentlemen joining, to defray the expenses of making a cruise through the Grand Canal, down the Shannon to Limerick, and then up the river to its source.

The notice said that the launch would steam through Loughs Allen, Kay [now Key], Dee and Derg. I don’t know where Lough Dee is: perhaps it’s a typo (or printo) for Ree. There would be a side-trip to Lough Gill, taking the Lady of the Lake steamer to Sligo, and the launch would then take the Leitrim Canal (now the Shannon–Erne Waterway) to the Erne, covering the whole of it from Belturbet to Belleek.

After that, the Wingate would travel by the Ulster Canal to Lough Neagh and Coleraine, returning “either by Newry or the Royal Canal” to Dublin. It is not clear how the Royal Canal (which links Dublin to the Shannon) could form part of a route from Lough Neagh to Dublin.

Whoever wrote the notice suggested that the cruise would take ten days, which suggests a degree of optimism not consonant with a knowledge of the distances involved.

An ad appeared in the next day’s paper, offering for sale the Wingate, a composite steam screw launch lying at Kingstown (Dun Laoghaire), and saying that a cruise of 10–12 days, only as far as Lough Erne, could be arranged pending sale.

According to the invaluable Clydebuilt database, a launch called Wingate was built by T Wingate & Company of Glasgow in an unspecified year. But why was a new launch being offered for sale?

Richard Heaton’s genealogy website includes a collection of newspapers, and one of them, the Supplement to the Warder for 3 [not 31] September 1870, has an account of how the Wingate reached Dublin (Kingstown) from Scotland, where the owner had failed to find half a dozen hardy souls willing to accompany him on a tour of the Western Isles and the Highlands. This is scarcely surprising as the Wingate was an open launch only 35 feet long.

So who owned the Wingate? Did the owner manage to reach the Irish inland waterways, or was he forced to sell his launch? I would welcome more information.