Tag Archives: board

Delegated authority in the ESB

Just over a year ago, in June 2015, I wrote — at some length — about the right to navigate the Shannon through Castleconnell, Co Limerick. A member of the staff of the ESB fisheries department told me

The legislation empowering ESB to regulate activity on the Shannon is contained in the Shannon Fisheries Act 1935 – Section 9.1 (D).

That accorded with my own untutored understanding: according to Section 9 (1) (d) the Board is empowered to

(d) terminate, restrict, or otherwise interfere with, either permanently or temporarily and either compulsorily or by agreement, any easement, way-leave, water-right, fishing right, or other right over or in respect of any land or water[.]

However, I responded to the ESB pointing out that the existence of a power does not prove that the power has been exercised, much less that it has been exercised validly. I asked for information on (inter alia)

 

[…] what strategic decisions the Board has made on this subject, or what decision-making powers it has conferred on its fisheries staff […]

whether the Board has actually decided to “terminate, restrict, or otherwise interfere with, either permanently or temporarily and either compulsorily or by agreement, any easement, way- leave, water-right, fishing right, or other right over or in respect of any land or water”

if it has so decided, what the details of the decision are: details both of its making and of its application [.]

 

The Act gave the ESB a power, but the power has to be exercised properly and there must be a record of the making of the decision. I have had no reply to my queries, and my working hypothesis is therefore that the ESB has not validly terminated, restricted or interfered with the right to navigate the Shannon at Castleconnell. If I receive evidence to the contrary, I will of course change my view.

One part of the problem is that the Act gives the power to the Board and, in my view, employees of the Board cannot of themselves decide to exercise that power unless the Board has validly delegated the power to them. The fisheries department cannot close the navigation unless the Board explicitly gave them the power to do so.

A case at the Court of Appeal, reported in the Irish Times today [11 July 2016: the article may disappear behind a paywall at some stage], seems to support that view [although I am not a lawyer: please consult your own legal advisers]. The relevant paragraph is

The board was entitled to delegate the power to issue wayleave notices to its chief executive but was not entitled to “sub-delegate” to the chief executive power to authorise such other persons as he deemed appropriate to issue wayleave notices, Mr Justice Brian Cregan held. Any such persons had to be directly authorised by the board.

I suggest that the same may apply to fisheries and navigation. If the navigation at Castleconnell was validly terminated, restricted or interfered with, either the Board took that decision itself or it explicitly delegated the power to do so to the fisheries department (or someone else). In either case, there should be a Board minute on the matter and it should be possible for the fisheries department to cite that minute.

 

DCAL

I have been searching the website of Northern Ireland’s Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure [DCAL to its friends] for the minutes of the meetings of its departmental board. Unfortunately I have not been able to find any link to them on the site. The site search engine will find them, but in an unpredictable order. It may be best, therefore, to use these terms in your favourite web search engine:

dcalni “departmental board meeting”

The most recent minutes I found were those for January 2013.

I can’t find anything similar for the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, alas.

Northsouthery latest

The joint communiqué issued after the June 2012 plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council is available on the NSMC website. The waterways bits:

5. The Council noted the Progress Report prepared by the NSMC Joint Secretaries on the work of the North South Bodies and in the other NSMC areas for co-operation and welcomed the following key developments: […] preparation by Waterways Ireland of options for advancing the Ulster Canal project […].

I have asked Waterways Ireland for a copy of the options document ….

ST. ANDREWS AGREEMENT REVIEW

10. Ministers endorsed the following recommendations concerning North South Bodies:

Waterways Ireland

  • sponsor departments to consider options around the setting up of a Board that would deliver the benefits of improved accountability and governance for Waterways Ireland but comprising less than twelve members and to present proposals for consideration at a future NSMC Inland Waterways meeting;
  • sponsor departments to implement as appropriate, through changes to the legislation or other administrative means, a de minimis provision for dealing with Waterways Ireland disposal of a waterway or part of a waterway;
  • sponsor departments to review the current provisions in relation to Waterways Ireland’s commercial activities to ensure that these are adequate and to report to a future NSMC Inland Waterways meeting; and
  • taking account of the current economic and fiscal circumstances, no further action is taken at this time to extend the remit of Waterways Ireland.

So the Newry and Portadown folk will be disappointed and those on the Lagan will be relieved. WI will get a bit more freedom in property and commercial operations but will have a Board (whose relationship with the sponsor departments will be interesting).

The communiqué also says:

11. Ministers noted that work is progressing on a review of the Financial Memoranda of the North/South Bodies with the aim of having the review completed by end-December 2012. In relation to shared services, it was noted that work has commenced on exploring the potential for providing efficiency savings within the North/South Bodies with a view to a report to the NSMC in Autumn 2012.

That will be nice, though the southern government seems to have ignored the provisions of the existing memorandum in its proposal (which ran aground in the property crash) to grab some of WI’s assets to pay for the canal to Clones.

Finally, the communiqué says:

12. The Council noted that the First Minister, deputy first Minister, Taoiseach and Tánaiste will reflect and consult on Terms of Reference 2 and 3 with a view to decisions being taken at the November 2012 Plenary meeting.

That’s about another part of the St Andrews Agreement Review. The report that made the four recommendations discussed earlier was a report on the first of three terms of reference; the other two have not yet been tackled. They are:

2. To examine objectively the case for additional bodies and areas of co-operation within the NSMC where mutual benefit would be derived; and
3. To input into the work on the identification of a suitable substitute for the proposed Lights Agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission.

The review was agreed upon five years ago, so speed doesn’t seem to be of great importance in these matters.

The NI Assembly discusses waterways

The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure,  Carál Ní Chuilín [Sinn Féin], reported to the NI Assembly yesterday on the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) inland waterways meeting held in Enniskillen on 14 February 2012, which I reported on here. The minister’s statement didn’t add anything to what the NSMC minutes [PDF] said, but some interesting points came up in the discussion afterwards.

Disposals

[Karen] McKevitt [SDLP, South Down]: One of the four specific recommendations considered at the meeting was a change to the legislation for the disposal of a waterway or part of a waterway by Waterways Ireland. Why does Waterways Ireland need that power? Does it have any plans to make such disposals?

Ms Ní Chuilín: We want to give Waterways Ireland the authority to dispose of small areas of land without needing approval from both Departments. That provision will be de minimis and will cover the disposal of land that is worth less than £25,000. It will also allow for good practice and good governance, and will ensure that there is a clear understanding of what Waterways Ireland can and cannot do. The creation of such a provision has been raised before and we said that we would bring it forward. Therefore, this is progress and, through it, we are providing clarity.

This is sensible: WI shouldn’t have to bother ministers about such minor disposals.

The Clones Canal

Perhaps the penny is beginning to drop. Mr McCarthy [Kieran McCarthy, Alliance Party, Strangford] said:

I thank the Minister for her statement. The Minister said that the next NSMC waterways meeting will set out “options for advancing the Ulster Canal project.” Is there any hint that that project may be curtailed or that less will be done than was formerly envisaged?

The minister’s answer:

[…] Some time ago, the Irish Government made a statement that their budget for developing some of the capital works that they had committed to was under threat. The Ulster canal was mentioned in that statement.

At previous NSMC waterways meetings, we agreed to progress that project as much as possible. One of the first stages of the programme of work was to seek leave for planning permission, and that has happened. The project will be kept under constant review at each stage, and the Ulster canal project is firmly at the top of the agenda of NSMC waterways meetings and other meetings that I have with Minister Deenihan. Any progress on that project will be reported at the next NSMC waterways meeting in June.

The minister has shifted the focus to the planning application as the mark of progress. She did not tell Mr McCarthy that there is no money in Waterways Ireland’s budget for any substantive construction work before 2014.

Tom Elliott [Ulster Unionist Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone] asked about costings for the whole of the Ulster Canal:

[…] She mentioned the Ulster canal and, in particular, the Clones to upper Lough Erne portion of that canal. Will she give us details of the costings of the entire Ulster canal project and, in particular, the Clones to upper Lough Erne portion, for which planning permission has now been sought? Have those costings been reviewed recently?

The minister confirmed the figure of €45 million, reported here on 16 December 2011, for the Clones Canal, but note her inclusion of the word “currently”: there might be more increases before construction could begin in 2014. She provided no information about updated figures for any canal from Clones to Lough Neagh:

The 2006 business case indicated a capital cost of £171·5 million for the restoration of the entire canal. That included site navigation, an environmental impact assessment and project management and construction costs. The estimated costs to restore the Clones to upper Lough Erne section is currently €45 million. The construction costs for that section will be entirely funded by the Irish Government, and, when it is built, my Department will contribute ongoing operational costs that are estimated at £37,000 per annum.

If the same 29% increase were applied to the rest of the canal, the total cost would be £220.5 million, just under €350 million.

Tha Boord o Watterweys Airlann

The other discussion of interest was about the proposal to have a board for Waterways Ireland. Robin Swann [Ulster Unionist Party, North Antrim] asked:

Can the Minister provide clarification on the option to set up a board that comprises fewer than 12 members to present proposals for consideration at a future NSMC meeting on inland waterways? Would that not be the establishment of a further North/South quango to advise the North/South Ministerial Council? If that board is established, what would it discuss, who would decide its remit, and who would be on it?

The minister replied:

[…] In my statement, I said that proposals are being brought forward on the board. Waterways Ireland is the largest of the North/South bodies, yet it does not have a board. Bringing forward proposals for a board does not suggest that there are any issues. However, for the largest body not to have a board is not in keeping with good practice in governance. To that end, it will have a board. Proposals for it will be brought forward at the next NSMC meeting. I am happy to share the outcome of that meeting with Mr Swann, other members of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure and, indeed, other Members.

And Jim Allister [Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim] asked:

[…] Is that for an advisory board or a management board? Given that Waterways Ireland has been running for many years without a board, why is it now thought necessary, or is it just jobs for the boys that will add to the expense of Waterways Ireland?

The minister replied:

I am sure that the Member heard the answer that I gave to Robin Swann about setting up a board. One of the recommendations of the St Andrews review report was that a 12-person executive management board be appointed to direct Waterways Ireland’s affairs. Waterways Ireland is the biggest of the North/South bodies with no board; therefore, it is in keeping with good policy, practice and governance that options and proposals to establish a board will be brought to the next NSMC meeting.

The minister is quite right: there should be a board.

 

 

 

NSMC

The joint communiqué issued after the last North–South Ministerial Ccouncil  Inland Waterways Meeting, held on 14 February 2012, is available for download here [PDF]. Perhaps the most important part is the set of four recommendations from the review of Waterways Ireland under the St Andrews Agreement:

ST. ANDREWS REVIEW – WATERWAYS IRELAND RECOMMENDATIONS

6. The Council considered four specific recommendations concerning Waterways Ireland and agreed to refer the following recommendations for endorsement to the June 2012 NSMC Plenary:

– Sponsor departments to consider options around the setting up of a Board comprising less than twelve members and to present proposals for consideration at a future NSMC Inland Waterways meeting;

– Sponsor departments to implement as appropriate, through changes to the legislation or other administrative means, a de minimis provision for dealing with Waterways Ireland disposal of a waterway or part of a waterway;

– Sponsor Departments to review the current provisions in relation to Waterways Ireland’s commercial activities to ensure that these are adequate and to report to a future NSMC Inland Waterways meeting; and

– taking account of the current economic and fiscal circumstances, no further action is taken at this time to extend the remit of Waterways Ireland.

Given that British Waterways is to become a trust, with various user representatives on its board, it is hard to see why Waterways Ireland should have no board. I was not convinced by the reasons that Éamon Ó Cuív TD gave me when I asked him about it some years ago.