The inside story of the decline of the west

‘A premeditated act of economic discrimination' against people of the region

by Gerry Murray

At one point during the building of Knock Airport, the legendary Monsignor Horan ran out of exchequer funding.

Not only that, but he was told in no uncertain terms not to expect any more.

There was a significant shortfall, in today’s values €13 million.

As the controversy rumbled on, the Dublin establishment revelled in the mistaken belief that the funding deficit was a bridge too far, and that the half-finished airport would quietly sink back into the bog from which it had emerged.

But they had failed to legislate for the power of the Irish diaspora, the post-World War Two generation of Irish emigrants, ‘the long distant kiddies and the tunnel tigers’, the men who built the railways, the motorways, the subways, the metros, the dams and the power stations of Britain, Canada, America, and Australia.

So, when the call went out for funding to bridge the deficit and finish the airport, it was that generation of Irish emigrants who rallied to the cause with their hard-earned money.

They did this, not just out of a sense of loyalty to the ‘old country’, but because they had witnessed first-hand how critical infrastructure could transform societies and economies, how it could become an agent of change and generate critical mass and sustainable communities.

They understood that building an international airport in the west of Ireland made perfect economic sense.

It is a pity that Ernst and Young (EY) did not consult with that generation of Irish emigrants before drafting their recent flawed review into the Western Rail Corridor (WRC). They just might have learned a thing or two.

But despite the negative EY review, the case for reopening the WRC is more compelling today than it was ten years ago.

There have been six major developments that have pushed the WRC to the top of the political agenda.

Firstly, there is the generous grant aid available from the EU for low carbon transport infrastructure such as rail, up to 60% of capital costs, plus a generous package of soft loans and other fiscal instruments that could reduce the State’s net contribution to as little as 25%.

The objective of this funding is to ensure that the EU will become a low carbon economy by 2050 and that no region will be left behind or put at a competitive disadvantage.

Indeed, in the context of such generous fiscal incentives, the case for opening the entire rail corridor all the way to Sligo is utterly compelling.

Secondly, the opening of phase one of the Western Rail Corridor which gave connectivity to Limerick and Galway is already a proven success with almost 550,000 passengers travelling between Galway and Limerick in 2019, outperforming all initial projections and strengthening the case for the immediate opening of rest of the corridor.

Thirdly, the re-classification of the northwest of Ireland as a region in transition by the EU Commission.

Based on all available data the Commission is of the view that the northwest is rapidly transitioning to becoming one of the least developed regions in the EU and has expressed serious concerns about its long-term sustainability.

It also cited the lack of a targeted government investment strategy in circumstances where the new transition classification will mean more generous EU co-funding rates.

Fourthly, the establishment of the Atlantic Economic Corridor (AEC) in 2016. The AEC region has a total population of 1.7 million people and covers nine counties.

It is now the preferred blueprint for the delivery of critical infrastructure and balanced regional development by creating sufficient scale in the west of Ireland to match other areas, including Ireland’s thriving east coast.

The other two significant developments are climate change and Brexit.

In 2019, the government declared a climate change emergency, and made a commitment to make major investments in sustainable transport infrastructure.

In that context we are fortunate to have a critical piece of ‘turnkey’ low carbon infrastructure such as the WRC, which can make a significant contribution to ensuring that our region will be sustainable and competitive in the decades ahead.

As perpetual economic growth is a luxury we can no longer afford, sustainability will be the benchmark by which all development and growth will need to be measured into the future.

The objective of the generous grant aid packages currently on offer in Brussels for low carbon transport is to assist regions like the northwest to successfully make the transition to a low carbon economy.

Thus, the question is not, "Can we afford to open the WRC?" but rather, "Can we afford not to?"

In terms of Brexit, Britain is no longer a common transit area and so exporters are left with no option but to seek alternative routes.

In the next decade long haul HGV transport will neither be affordable or sustainable, and exporters, particularly bulk manufacturers, will need viable routes to international markets.

The Western Rail Corridor, when opened, will be able to offer a tariff-free, low-carbon and low-cost route right to the heart of the European market via the ports of Waterford and Foynes, making towns along the route attractive locations for both indigenous and foreign direct investment.

The Department of Transport and Iarnród Éireann commissioned the EY review in the expectation that the finished product would be sufficiently robust to take the WRC off the political agenda once and for all.

But considering the aforementioned arguments, it was always going to be an extremely difficult task for the consultants to construct a credible and sustainable rationale for not opening the WRC.

The EY review is riddled with a litany of inaccuracies and, far more seriously, there are significant omissions designed to produce a negative result.

There is only one cost benefit analysis, and that is based exclusively on exchequer funding. Remarkably, there is no cost benefit analysis based on the availability of EU funding, and a range of other fiscal measures that would reduce the capital cost of the project to the state and might have given the review a different outcome.

What we get from the EY consultants are grossly exaggerated capital costs, in tandem with narrow economies of scale in order to produce the desired result.

But even within the confines of that particular straight jacket, they have to concede that significant economic benefits can be delivered. Which explains why the consultants could not countenance economies of scale with broader and more credible parameters.

In July of 2020, the Department of Transport decided to commission a peer review of the EY review, in what might be best described as a rather naïve and somewhat foolish attempt to shut down any expectations or prospects of European funding for the WRC into the future.

Even though the allocation of such funding is an exclusive competence of the EU, Jaspers, an agency of the European Investment Bank, were recruited to offer a second opinion, in essence a desk top study.

In hindsight, maybe the department should have quit while they were ahead, as their strategy of ‘game, set and match’ only served to expose major information deficits in the EY review.

The Jaspers study would be confined exclusively to the EY review, there would be no assessment of the key position papers submitted by local authorities, business organisations, and regional development NGOs.

Jaspers would not be allowed to ascertain whether the review accurately and faithfully considered all such submissions.

To fully appreciate the Jaspers study, one must view it in the context of the nature of the relationship between the EU institutions and its nation states.

In all such engagements, the institutions tend to tread rather carefully and diplomatically, so as not offend the ‘delicate sensibilities’ of national governments, who all too often cite sovereignty and competency as defence mechanisms whenever the thorny issue of their rapidly declining rural regions is raised in Brussels.

So, criticisms and rebukes from the EU institutions tend to be implicit and couched in deferential language. The Jaspers study is a case in point, and at its core is a very nuanced critique of the Department of Transport and Iarnród Éireann’s contrived narrative.

Though Jaspers duly concurred with the conclusions of the review, they did so through the department’s narrow lens of feasibility and in the absence of the fundamental principles that drive and underpin economic growth.

But Jaspers also added a number of very significant and pertinent health warnings.

They noted the absence ‘of clear economic objectives’, a jaw dropping omission even by Junior Cert standards, and further stated: “If it is considered that the project will generate a fundamental change in the regional economy, then the investment should be presented as part of a broader strategic concept for the corridor.”

But the WRC was in fact presented in the context of the development of the Atlantic Economic Corridor (AEC).

This was the key stone in the arch, a fundamental component on the road to securing exchequer and EU funding, and by implication the sustainability of the WRC.

The AEC is one of two corridors identified by the National Planning Framework (NPF) as major development hubs and engines of economic growth.

While the AEC covers the western seaboard, the Dublin-Belfast Economic Corridor (DBEC) covers the upper eastern seaboard.

Most of the submissions to the EY review referred to the AEC, and indeed the AEC group itself, submitted a comprehensive position paper, putting the WRC in its proper economic context as a driver of regional and economic development.

So, when Jaspers lamented the absence of such a strategy, it was because they never caught sight of the AEC position paper, it did not even make it to the appendix of the EY review.

Instead, what we got was a passing condescending reference to the AEC by EY, describing it as a ‘cross county initiative’ which ‘aims to mirror the success of the Wild Atlantic Way’.

But the Wild Atlantic Way is a marketing strategy for tourism, not a blueprint for economic development.

Out of a 140-page review, the AEC is only deemed worthy of three sentences.

The fact that the department was quite happy to preside over this sleight of hand is further evidence that it is not an honest broker in terms of the assessment and roll out of critical infrastructure to the northwest.

This view is widely shared in Brussels. They knew perfectly well the status of the AEC in the context of the NPF. In short, Hamlet without the prince! That is what the Department of Transport served up to Jaspers.

But fortunately, Jaspers are well acquainted with the strategies deployed by nation states to justify the woeful neglect of their respective regions.

While nation states tend to view their declining regions through the narrow lens of feasibility, the European Investment bank, the parent organisation of Jaspers, and the EU commission view them from the broader perspective of sustainability and the economic strategies that are necessary to reverse their terminal decline.

The AEC is one such strategy by which we can address the east-west divide and, and at long last, deliver meaningful balanced regional development.

Though Jaspers never caught sight of the AEC position paper, such a strategy was always going to be conspicuous by its absence, and so, the ever-resourceful Jaspers managed to retrieve ‘The Prince’ and put him back centre stage, as it were.

“Such a plan could set out how the corridor is expected to grow, its relationship with the main centres of population, the nature of activity that it is expected to attract, proposals for clustering or for new industries, with this then driving the resulting population, employment and industry growth forecasts.

“It would also address how the development of a new transport corridor would support such a development concept, thereby capturing the broader economic effects of the transport corridor itself,” they wrote.

Of course, one could be quite flippant and talk about ‘regional development for slow learners.’

But as we know to our cost, the department and Iarnród Éireann have nothing to learn, and in terms of the WRC, and indeed rural Ireland, they are both clinical and calculating in their strategy and narrative.

The result is, by any standards, a premeditated act of economic discrimination against the people of the west and northwest.

When we talk about schools, post offices and bank closures, lack of employment opportunities, abysmal broadband coverage and boarded up streetscapes, we need to realise that these are the symptoms of major infrastructural deficits and decades of discrimination.

It does not have to be like this and there are solutions. But economic growth cannot be conjured up out of thin air, nor can it be manufactured by PR consultants.

In the words of the European Investment Bank: “Investment in modern and well-functioning infrastructure is regarded as the foundations for sustainable and inclusive development and growth.”

Not only that, but it is how we can accumulate the kind of critical mass that is necessary to ensure that the generation coming after us will have a sustainable future.

This is the philosophy and strategy behind both the AEC and the WRC. They are not abstract concepts.

In essence, you cannot have economic growth in your regions without major investments in infrastructure.

This as a fundamental principle of economics and an indisputable fact.

But it is also ‘the elephant in the room’, and for nation states to navigate their way around that fundamental principle, elaborate strategies, narratives, and myths need to be constructed.

To this end, bring on the consultants and public relations companies, with senior civil servants leading the charge and offering themselves up as sacrificial whipping boys for the-powers-that-be, regardless of the reputational damage to their own public service, not to mention to the democratic process.

During the drafting of the Regional and Economic Spatial Strategy by Northern and Western Regional Assembly, the elected members proposed a regional policy objective advocating the opening of the Western Rail Corridor.

This is the standard rail development objective that is always included in the regional plan and is subsequently transposed into the county development plans of Mayo, Sligo and Galway.

In a submission to the draft plan, the Department of Transport recommended that all the rail development objectives pertaining to the WRC should be deleted and that the project should be subject to a review.

It was an extraordinary request and is a measure of just how desperate the department were to take the issue off the political agenda.

But regardless of the outcome of any review, the legal status of the rail development objectives would remain the same. Hence, the department’s demand for their removal.

It was a surreal moment; senior departmental officials requesting the elected members to act against the interests of their own people and region by dispatching a critical piece of sustainable infrastructure into the abyss.

Despite the department’s intervention, all members voted in favour of the rail development objectives without a dissenting voice in the assembly.

All of the counties of Connaught, plus Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan, voted for the reopening of the Western Rail Corridor.

Once a county or a regional development plan is adopted it must then be approved by the government of the day, to ensure that it complies with its policies and all the relevant legislation.

In April 2020, the government signed off on RSES without amendments and deemed it to be in compliance.

In a normal functioning democracy this would usually be the end of the matter, apart from the subsequent lobbying to ensure that government and political parties would follow through on their commitments.

But in July of 2020, Transport Minister Eamon Ryan announced two greenway feasibility studies for the WRC, in direct contravention of the rail development objectives that the government had signed off on three months previously.

The minister was either acting in ‘bad faith’ or in ‘blissful ignorance’, but the department had a statutory obligation to inform him of the legal status of the WRC development objectives, and to advise him accordingly. (The status of development objectives in regional and county plans have long since been copper fastened courtesy of the Supreme Court.)

They did neither. Thus, making an absolute mockery of the democratic process.

But in circumstances where the EY review was fundamentally flawed, and the Jaspers study a far cry from the ringing endorsement that they had anticipated, the prospect of a greenway/cycleway would provide the department and indeed their political masters with the ideal mechanism by which they could navigate their way around ‘the elephant in the room’, those fundamental economic principles.

By deploying the right strategies and peddling the usual myths, they could bring an end to the WRC by default or by stealth.

Thus, ensuring that this government or any future government would never have to adjudicate on the fate of the WRC, thereby clearing the pitch and eliminating the competition, and making sure that the only rail application that makes it to Brussel for funding will be one for the Dublin Metro. And as for the west of Ireland, it will be the usual medicine, ‘the long acre.’

But this time, both literally and metaphorically.

The usual reaction by the political establishment to such disgraceful and shambolic shenanigans is to lay the blame firmly at the feet of ‘the permanent government’, thus perpetuating the myth that they are dealing with an out-of-control bureaucratic monster that is above and beyond all democratic accountability.

Needless to say, our senior civil servants are always happy to take the rap and to do the heavy lifting for a shameless and spineless political class, and so this vaudevillian farce keeps on revolving.

So feed the regions a diet of myths; make exaggerated claims for ‘petty cash’ investments; give them everything and anything as long as it’s cheap and cheerful and leave them to wither on the vine.

The little infrastructure that is rolled out is done so begrudgingly.

More often than not, it is drip fed and of substandard design, and rarely, if ever, is it adequately and properly future proofed.

A case in point is the alleged ‘new highway to the west’ which will commence construction very shortly, 35 km of single carriageway between Ballaghaderreen and Strokestown, with five roundabouts and no less that sixteen T junctions. Second-class infrastructure for second-class citizens and the accident black spots of tomorrow.

When you speak to development activists from across Europe’s rural regions you soon discover that the strategies deployed by our nation states are more or less the same, the cycles and patterns never change.

Wear them down, wear them out, and run these regional rednecks into the ground.

That is how Dublin, Madrid, Paris, Lisbon and Rome deal with their declining rural regions, and even when generous matching funding is available in Brussels, they are still not prepared to meet the regions halfway.

They cannot say no but they will not say yes. So, what you get are the reports, the reviews, the appraisals, the subsequent rebuttals, press releases, media interviews, campaign meetings, plans, policies, deputations, and delegations. But never a fiscal commitment.

The reward for active citizenship and civic engagement is to be sucked into a low-key protracted war of attrition against a system that consistently discriminates against your region and its citizens.

It is a battle a day and it can be soul destroying.

But if you are determined and still standing, and your development campaign has momentum and your arguments traction, they then unleash the heavy gang.

The government experts, the alleged advisors, the compromised economists, the flexible consultants, the PR mercenaries, and the metropolitan schools of cut and paste journalism.

The net result is the tyranny of the sound bite and a race to the bottom in terms of political and economic discourse. And because the devil is in the detail, the name of the game must be to spin and to win. Of course, the Nation States always win, and the regions always lose, but arguably, the biggest loser of all is democracy itself.

It is as measure of the indifference of the EU’s nation states to the plight of their regions that in the Committee of the Regions in Brussels, representing regional and local authorities from across the EU, one of the main demands of its members is to be allowed to bypass their respective governments and apply directly to Brussels for infrastructural funding.

Like so many of our counterparts across the EU, the northwest of Ireland is now a region in terminal decline.

But in order not to offend ‘the delicate sensibilities’ of national governments, the EU commission have diplomatically bestowed upon us the rather benign title of ‘regions in transition’.

And there are no prizes for guessing as to where we are transitioning to.

For those who marvel at the rock-solid cross-party consensus in the northwest, where all parties and none support the opening of WRC, the answer is quite simple.

Regional development at a snail’s pace and in tandem with the usual PR stunts is no longer an option, and just like that post-Second World War generation of Irish emigrants, we do not need a degree in economics to know the actions and strategies that must be undertaken if we are truly serious about saving the west.

No doubt our senior civil servants in the Department of Transport will appreciate the irony, and I suspect that our good friends in Iarnród Éireann are sufficiently discerning to note that within the pages of the Jaspers study lies the template for balanced regional development.

It is all there; the terms of reference, those ‘missing’ economic objectives and the strategies to deliver a sustainable future for the west of Ireland.

But as we all know it’s not a new or major revelation by any stretch of the imagination.

In the 1960s, John Healy called it out, in the 1970s Father Micheál Mac Gréil, in the 1980s Monsignor James Horan and again in the 1990s the Bishops Council for the West, in the vain hope that the penny might eventually drop.

But then, as now, all that is lacking is the political will.

(Gerry Murray is a Sinn Féin elected member of Mayo County Council and a member of the Committee for the Regions in Brussels).