Tag Archives: Ulster Canal

Underwear and the Ulster Canal

In September 2010 I wrote:

[…] a government department, in a time of economic crisis, is proposing to commit to the spending of at least €35,000,000, without having any certainty of being able to get the money anywhere. Unless Waterways Ireland has surplus assets that I don’t know about, I cannot see how it can raise that amount by selling property in a slump; nor do I see any certainty that the Department of Finance will supply the money.

So the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs won’t be choosing between two sources of funding. Its only possible source is the Department of Finance, and its only possible argument is that, unless the taxpayer stumps up, the shame will be too great: the neighbours will realise that we’re all fur coat and no knickers.

Since the creation of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in 2011, we’ve seen a slow striptease, with the government flicking up the corners of its fur coat and gradually hinting at the nakedness underneath.

The setting up of an inter-agency group of treasure hunters was the most explicit acknowledgement that the Irish government could not afford to build the Clones Sheugh. The group included folk from Fermanagh District Council, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, the NI Strategic Investment Board and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, so the burden of treasure-hunting was spread north of the border. But if that constituted the fifth veil — highlighting rather than concealing nakedness — the sixth has now been dropped.

On Tuesday 9 July 2013 the Select Sub-Committee on Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht was concluding its consideration of the revised 2013 estimates for the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (and the National Gallery). Sandra McLellan, Sinn Féin TD for Cork East, said:

I have one more question, on subhead D4, Waterways Ireland. There is a promise of stage payments to Waterways Ireland to begin the process of making the opening up of the Ulster Canal a reality. Planning permission to begin the project was sought and is due to be approved at this month’s Fermanagh District Council planning meeting and permission has already been approved in County Monaghan. Once the Government releases the funding, the process should move quickly and whatever land purchases are needed will be made. Does the Government intend on doing this and will Waterways Ireland have the adequate funding to undertake the project in 2013–2014?

The minister, Jimmy Deenihan [FG, Kerry North/West Limerick], began by talking about planning permissions and compulsory purchases:

At this stage, the planning permissions have been granted. That, in itself, was a challenge because of environmental and other reasons. The next process will be the CPOs to get the land. In many cases, hopefully, we can acquire the land by agreement. That will be the next challenge.

He went on to say why the Irish government couldn’t afford the sheugh:

There is an inter-agency group sitting. It is something I established, where the local authorities and the statutory organisations, North and South, have all come together around a table and are looking for alternative sources of funding too rather than merely funding from the Dublin Government. Originally, the agreement was that this would be funded by Dublin and the funding for it was identified with the sale of property at the time. During the Celtic tiger, the property, down in the docklands, etc., was quite valuable. However, with the collapse of the property market, that potential source of funding was not there to the same extent, although, with the property market now recovering, that property could become valuable again. Hopefully, it will and can contribute to the overall costs.

Note that phrase “rather than merely funding from the Dublin Government”. But there is more to come:

The next stage would be the acquisition of the land in order to provide the canal and the inter-agency group is looking at possibilities. Also, my counterpart in Northern Ireland, the Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure, Carál Ní Chuilín MLA, is looking at possible funding for the small portion that is in the North. Funding may be available for that from the Northern Executive and, maybe, Westminster. That, obviously, would help. Wherever we can get funding for this, certainly we will be striving to get it. It will be incremental. We will have to approach it on a staged basis but the important point is to get it started.

So the idea that the wealthy and munificent southern government would pay the entire cost of the sheugh, as a present to the benighted and miserable inhabitants of Norn Iron, and as a demonstration of the prosperity to be expected from a united Ireland, has been abandoned altogether. If Carál Ní Chuilín [who is, coincidentally, a Sinn Féin MLA] manages to extract money from her colleagues for that portion of the sheugh lying within Norn Iron, it will mean that the construction is being funded in the same way as other Waterways Ireland capital spending: each government pays for the development within its own jurisdiction.

Will Ms Ní Chuilín manage to persuade her colleagues? In September 2010 I wrote:

[…] I see no evidence whatsoever that the Northern Ireland executive, or Her Majesty’s government, has any intention of ever starting the JCBs rolling along the Ulster Canal. They are happy to support the principle of canal restoration; they are even prepared to allow southern taxpayers to spend money (borrowed from the bond markets) crossing northern soil. It is possible that, if the canal to Clones brings wealth and prosperity to Co Monaghan, the northern executive will rethink. But as it stands, the evidence suggests that the southern taxpayer will be permitted to dig to Clones, and perhaps even to Monaghan and Caledon, but that the canal will never get any further.

It is possible that having a Sinn Féin minister running DCAL will change  economic perceptions, and no doubt Simon Hamilton, the [DUP] Minister of Finance and Personnel, will be easily persuaded. Having an Irishman as UK Chancellor of the Exchequer may help the Sinn Féin cause: the last time that happened, HMG wasted half a million pounds on the Shannon.

But back to the minister:

It is a good North-South project. It links North and South. There also could be some possibilities under European funding, for example, there was funding available for the Ballyconnell canal and some of that was derived from European funding. We will be looking at every possible source of funding in order to get the project off the ground and to complete it over a period of time. Besides, Waterways Ireland, from its own capital budget, may have some small amount of funding available to initiate the project as well. I will be looking at identifying funding from different sources and, hopefully, over a period of time, we can provide the canal.

There are two sets of points in that paragraph. One suggests that the inter-agency group has not yet found the pot of gold, indeed that it has no very firm ideas about where to find it. Waterways Ireland is unlikely to be able to spare more than the price of a few shovels, but even if it devoted its entire capital budget to the Clones Sheugh it would take at least ten years to pay for it.

The other set of points is contained in the first two sentences:

It is a good North-South project. It links North and South.

Any minor boreen could be said to link North and South, but without costing €40 million or so. In fact, though, the Clones Sheugh is not a good project: it is a waste of money. It will link a couple of fields in the middle of nowhere to, er, Clones, which is no doubt a vibrant hub of culture. It will not attract significant numbers of foreign tourists, so it will merely displace waterways activity from elsewhere, and it will not generate new business or employment opportunities except perhaps for part-time summer jobs in a couple of pubs.

I have compared the Irish (and especially Sinn Féin) enthusiasm for canals to a cargo cult, but perhaps a more modern comparison, and one in line with this post’s heading, would be to the Underpants Gnomes (a metaphor I used here about the Shannon in 1792). It will be recalled that the Underpants Gnomes had a three-phase business plan:

  1. Collect Underpants
  2. ?
  3. Profit.

The Irish government’s (and perhaps Sinn Féin’s) devotion to the Clones Sheugh might be explained by their adherence to a similar plan:

  1. Build canal
  2. ?
  3. Peace and prosperity.

But, knickerless, they cannot gird their loins. Maybe Little Miss Higgins‘s video might provide useful advice.

Envoi

The minister’s extensive reply did not stop Sandra McLellan from asking pretty much the same question nine days later, causing me to wonder why the shinners want the sheugh:

Is there something in the St Andrew’s Agreement, or some other bit of northsouthery, that promises a sheugh to Sinn Féin, to enable them to claim credit for some high-profile but non-threatening all-Irelandism? Is the Clones Sheugh the price of SF support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland? I don’t know, but there must be some explanation for the failure to kill off the sheugh.

[h/t to the learned AD, who drew my attention to the meeting of the select sub-committee, which I had not myself noticed. AD is not, however, to be blamed for my views — or for my metaphors]

Sinn Féin sheughs again

Sinn Féin demonstrates its continuing commitment to the unification of Ireland reconstruction of the Clones Sheugh. KildareStreet tells us that Sandra McLellan, TD for Cork East, no doubt motivated by the wealth of waterways in her own area, asked a written question on 18 July 2013:

To ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the position regarding the Ulster Canal restoration project; the remaining steps that must be taken to complete the project; if he will provide an indicative timeline for the completion of the project; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

She got a more or less standard answer from the minister, Jimmy Deenihan [FG, Kerry North/West Limerick]:

As the Deputy will be aware, in July 2007, the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) agreed to proceed with the restoration of the section of the Ulster Canal between Clones and Upper Lough Erne. The then Government agreed to cover the full capital costs of the project, which were estimated at that time to be of the order of €35m.

It was always the intention that the Ulster Canal project would be funded from the Waterways Ireland annual allocations, as agreed through the annual estimates processes in this jurisdiction, as well as the deliberations of NSMC in relation to annual budgets. It was a key consideration throughout the process that the Ulster Canal project would be supported by a significant level of projected income from the commercialisation of certain Waterways Ireland assets. However, as the Deputy will be aware, the economic downturn has had a negative impact on those plans.

In the meantime, the Ulster Canal project is progressing on an incremental basis. Planning approvals have recently been secured for the project in both jurisdictions. I welcome these developments, which, I am sure the Deputy will agree, are a significant milestone for the project.

I am continuing to explore all possible options to advance this project within the current fiscal constraints. In this regard, an Inter-Agency Group on the Ulster Canal has been established to explore and examine ways to advance the project and to examine possible funding options for it, including existing funding streams and the leveraging of funding from other sources, including EU funding options.

Isn’t it funny? Every so often the shinners ask a question to remind the minister that they, er, haven’t gone away, you know. They don’t get really aggressive about it and they don’t seem to be organising mass rallies in Clones to demand a sheugh. And the minister is equally polite, saying in effect “we haven’t shot your horse”.

This project is not very important: it’s a waste of money and will be of no benefit to the national economy, and a government seeking savings could easily kill it off. Yet it has refused, over several years, to take that obvious step. Instead, it’s devoting departmental time, and that of other public servants, to (admittedly low-cost) measures that seem to be intended to show that the project will be maintained on life support, even if it never rises from its bed.

Is there something in the St Andrew’s Agreement, or some other bit of northsouthery, that promises a sheugh to Sinn Féin, to enable them to claim credit for some high-profile but non-threatening all-Irelandism? Is the Clones Sheugh the price of SF support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland? I don’t know, but there must be some explanation for the failure to kill off the sheugh.

 

Dialogue

Some time ago I noted that Waterways Ireland was now down wid da kidz in da hood, doing groovy things like social meeja with a Youtube thingie. It features (inter alia) a flight in a helicopter gunship along a restored Clones Sheugh. At least, that’s what I presume was going on, although I couldn’t work out how to fire the rockets at the suspiciously large number of narrowboats found along the way. The scenic highlight of the journey was Clones.

There’s also a Facebook page, from which I learned that there is now a skippered boat available for hire on the Barrow. And there is a Twitter whatsit, which does two interesting things.

First, it has summaries of marine notices, which will be useful to those cruising on the waterways without internet access.

Second, it shows signs of WI’s engaging in public dialogue with users, even when their comments might be critical. This is very welcome; it will be interesting to see the extent to which such public dialogue is permitted to develop.

 

The Ulster Orangeway

I am happy to say that the ineffable Professor Billy McWilliams [Visitin’ Lekturer at the Ulster Scots School o’ Dancin’, Ballymena] has provided the answer to one of WI’s problems. I have pointed out that a walking route along the Clones Sheugh would be much cheaper than a restored canal; Professor McWilliams has shown how to make such a route more attractive to members of the Ulster-Scots Community. WI could adopt his idea from Comber and declare the route to be the Ulster Orangeway.

The Exchequer Bill Loan Commission

I noted the other day that the North South Ministerial Council’s inland waterways meeting discussed how it might get the Irish government off the hook of its rash promise to fund the Clones Sheugh. It noted that:

[…] sponsor departments have agreed to examine the potential social benefits and leveraged funding opportunities in that context.

The interesting point is that the blasted thing wonderful investment opportunity was originally funded, using the same excuse, by a loan from the Exchequer Bill Loan Commission set up under the Poor Employment Act 1817. John Strettell Brickwood, Secretary to the Exchequer Loan Commissioners for Public Works [sic], said* that the Commission’s first £1.5 million was allocated in 1817 and that by 1835 £5.5 million had been advanced.

Of that, £200,000 (at 3¼% interest) was allocated to Ireland in 1827 and the Ulster Canal was allocated £120,000 of that; it drew down £40,000 in 1833 and the same again in 1835. Mr Blackwood said that the Ulster Canal money was issued under an express act of parliament, leaving the commissioners no discretion. There would be no repayment until the canal was complete, with the interest and principal payable only from the prospective income.

Isn’t economic development wonderful?

First and Second Reports from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the amount of advances made by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland with the Minutes of Evidence, Appendix and Index Ordered, by the House of Commons, to be Printed, 26 June and 27 August 1835

 

 

 

News from the NSMC

The communiqué from the North South Ministerial Council inland waterways meeting held on 19 June 2013 is here. This is my selection of the interesting bits.

The NSMC got reports on WI’s additional moorings (368m during some unspecified period), sponsorship programme, maintenance (“with 99.8% of waterways remaining open during the month of April”), publications (food guide and What’s On 2013) and website.

The WI business plan for 2012 was approved, which seems a bit pointless in the middle of 2013. A budget of €31.15m (£27.10m) was approved for an unspecified year. Then there’s this oddity:

5. They also noted progress on the development of the 2013 Business Plan and budget. Following approval by Sponsor Departments and Finance Ministers the plan will be brought forward for approval at a future NSMC meeting.

This is the middle of 2013. The next NSMC inland waterways meeting will be held in September 2013. What is the point of approving the budget and business plan for 2013 three quarters of the way through the year?

And another point: why is it taking so long? My guess is that, if things were running smoothly, and allocations were easy, the work would have been finished by now, so I deduce that WI’s budget is under pressure, with consequences for its future activity and thus its business plan.

The NSMC “noted” WI’s annual report and draft accounts for 2012; they’re not on its website, so presumably someone else has to note them as well before they can be published.

The unfortunate Bastables seeking treasure to pay for the Clones Sheugh had their second meeting in May 2013 (their first was in September 2012). In the absence of any GB, and with half-sovereigns rather scarce, the Bastables have adopted the “Lo! the poor Indian” strategy:

[…] sponsor departments have agreed to examine the potential social benefits and leveraged funding opportunities in that context.

The NSMC decided that Waterways Ireland won’t have a Board but will think about governance again some time. And it appointed Dawn Livingstone as WI CEO.

O say can you see …

… any sign of the next North South Ministerial Council inland waterways meeting? I’m interested because (apart from exciting news about the Clones Sheugh) it might announce the appointment of the new CEO of Waterways Ireland. The communiqué issued after the last meeting said the next would be in summer 2013 (assuming there is one).

I asked the press offices of Waterways Ireland, the Council itself and the two departments (DAHG and DCAL) but nobody has responded. I don’t know why the dates of meetings should be kept secret.

Incidentally, I can see the search terms that visitors to this site have used. Over the past week there have been several searches that included the term “waterways ireland” plus the name of a senior WI manager. Two such managers were sought; Google gives almost 1000 returns for one of them but less than fifty for the other.

The decline of the Shannon

The number of lock and bridge passages for the Shannon, in the first five months of 2013, has been just a little over half what it was in 2003.

Shannon passages

Shannon passages as percentages of the 2003 total

The usual caveats apply: the underlying figures (kindly supplied by Waterways Ireland) do not record total waterways usage 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 are our only consistent long-term indicator of usage of the Shannon but they 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. On the other hand, they do include the Shannon’s most significant tourism activity, the cruiser hire business.

Cruiser hire activity, January to May 2003–2013

Cruiser hire activity, January to May 2003–2013

Over eleven years, the number of hire-boat passages has fallen from 11440 to 4781, a drop of almost 60%.

There are some minor inconsistencies in the Waterways Ireland figures, but they’re not large enough to affect the general picture.

Another caveat is that the picture to the end of May doesn’t predict the outcome for the year. Things like the weather and the date of Easter can cause boating activity to occur earlier or later in the year. In the first year of this series, 2003, private boaters seem to have been slow to get started; the number of passages in the first five months was lower than that for 2004. However, private boaters’ total for 2003 was higher than that for 2004.

Private boats January to May 2003–2013

Private boat activity, January to May 2003–2013

But 2013 is the first year in the series in which private boat passages have fallen below 3000.

Total Shannon passages, January to May 2003–2013

Total Shannon passages, January to May 2003–2013

And there are the totals: 51.15% of the 2003 figure.

We’re still in the first shoulder season; if the peak season is better than usual (and if the weather is good), the final figures for 2013 may end up looking more cheerful.

One small point, if I may: this sort of decline makes it pretty well impossible to justify increasing the cruising area by building sheughs in Cavan, Monaghan, Longford or anywhere else.

Addendum: if this story is true, we won’t be needing any increase in waterways capacity for quite some time to come.

Palindrome

“A man, a plan, a canal — Panama!”, said Leigh Mercer.

The man with the plan this time is Daniel Ortega, President of Nicaragua, who wants to build a second Atlantic–Pacific canal, capable of taking ships of greater capacity than the Panamax limits. The OilPrice story says that the canal would be more than three times as long as the Panama, with (if I understand it correctly) 130 miles of cut and 50 in Lake Nicaragua:

[…] the proposed canal could take 11 years to build, cost $40 billion and require digging roughly 130 miles of channel.

[…] the canal’s proposed locks will require 1.7 billion gallons of water per day, given that the channel will be 200 feet deep in places.

Mr Ortega hopes that China will fund the construction, which suggests that he is rather more optimistic about the Chinese economy than some others are. However, it is a thought, and one that the Inter-Agency Group on the Ulster Canal might wish to consider.

This week’s quiz: which ocean lies at the western end of the Panama Canal?

 

No money for sheughs …

… in the government’s new €150 million election manif exchequer works programme 2013–2014, announced today. Maybe it will be in the “New PPP [public–private partnership, I presume] Pipeline”, but I note that

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform will be engaging with his colleagues the Minister for Education and Skills and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in order to bring forward these additional PPPs.

No mention of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, thus depriving keen investors of the opportunity of making a profitable return on an investment in the Clones Sheugh.