Before we begin, I have to read a note on the topic of privilege. This is for the benefit of our witnesses and members. I do this at the beginning of every meeting.

Witnesses who are giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts here in Leinster House are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence that they give to this committee. This means they have a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on any issue. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts should note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts.

Those witnesses joining us on Microsoft Teams may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside of the proceedings of this committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the parliamentary precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. I ask any member who is participating in the meeting via Microsoft Teams to verbally confirm before he or she begins speaking that he or she is on the grounds of Leinster House.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The agenda for today's meeting is capital and infrastructure issues. This is an issue that has come up time and again. It is a particularly important one that I have been campaigning on in my own right but one that is pertinent all around our coastline. The committee meeting will be broken into two parts. In the first part, we will hear from a number of witnesses broadly representing those who use ports infrastructure. In the second part of the meeting, we will hear from those who have responsibility for management of ports infrastructure, including the Department and representatives of the local government sector.

For this first part of the meeting, I say fáilte romhaibh, you are all very welcome. I will now introduce our witnesses. Representing the Royal National Lifeboat Institute, RNLI, we have Ms Anna Classon, head of RNLI Ireland; Mr. Francis Halligan, regional estates manager, and Ms Niamh Stephenson, communications lead. Representing the Seafood Ireland Alliance, and at this point no stranger to this particular meeting room, is Mr. John Lynch, CEO of the Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation. Representing the Irish Islands Marine Resource Organisation, in probably at least his second or maybe third time appearing before this committee in the last number of weeks, is Mr. Enda Conneely vice-chairperson; and, joining us on MS Teams, Mr. Séamus Bonner. Tá fáilte romhaibh beirt. The National Inshore Fishermens Association, NIFA, is represented by Ms Avril Egan agus Seamus Breathnach chomh maith. Tá fáilte romhaibh chomh maith.

Each of the witness organisations has already circulated an opening statement and to aid us in our discussions and in our debate here today, I will ask them to summarise those briefly, maybe, in two minutes. I draw the witnesses' attention and, indeed, the attention of the members to the clocks located below the screens all around the room. These count down in terms of time. The witnesses will be allotted two minutes per organisation to summarise their opening statement, if that is okay, and then we will go to a questions and answers format. I think we could probably go to seven minutes for our opening questions, including answers. In that case, we will take a number of rounds. That allows us to get through business efficiently.

With that all said, I invite Ms Classon, on behalf of the RNLI, to make her opening remarks.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. Good morning, members of the committee and invited guests. It is a privilege to be here today, with my colleagues, Niamh and Francis.

Last year the RNLI celebrated 200 years. As a charity that was set up with the mission to save lives at sea, we have come a long way under that banner with advances in technology and equipment changing the way we carry out our work. However, no matter what changes occur, there is one constant, namely, our volunteer ethos.

Our lifeboat crew are predominantly volunteers who give freely of their time with many hours spent training - over 4,000 hours this year. Our water safety volunteers are also visible throughout communities, providing advice prior to people going into the water.

In Ireland, we have 46 lifeboat stations with four situated on inland waters. These stations are home to 57 lifeboats, of which 24 are all-weather lifeboats and 33 are inshore lifeboats. Ten lifeboat stations are in Northern Ireland and 36 in Ireland.

We also operate a lifeguard service in Northern Ireland on 13 beaches.

We work closely with our colleagues in the Irish Coast Guard and a large network of local authorities and State agencies, in whose harbours and coastal locations we house our lifeboats. Close and productive working relationships are key to how we operate our service.

As we enter our third century in lifesaving, the way people are using our coast and inland waters is changing. We must evolve our service to ensure we have the right lifeboats in the right places. We are currently rolling out our new lifeboat fleet strategy, which has been developed from our findings that 98% of coastal services are less than ten nautical miles offshore, 1.8% are between ten and 25 nautical miles offshore and just 0.2% of incidents are more than 25 nautical miles offshore. We have used our own data, insights and specialist knowledge, coupled with industry expertise, to develop this strategy.

As I said, and importantly for this committee, we work closely with State bodies, authorities and regulators every day. Our relationship with the Irish Coast Guard is important and we keep it in regular contact at national and local level. However, we also work hard to ensure that where our lifesaving assets are housed and where our volunteers work from, is safe, effective and operationally right for the type of work we do. Many of our lifeboats operate from working harbours that need to launch at a moment's notice, often into darkness and weather that others are returning home to avoid. We are a charity that exists to save lives and we are grateful to our wonderful supporters and donors who not only support us to save lives but also ensure that our lifeboat crews are safe.

I thank Ms Classon. Next I call Mr. Lynch, if he would give us a two-minute precis of his opening statement.

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. My business here today is to raise this committee's awareness of the issues around the safety in the harbour of Dunmore East Fishery Harbour Centre. It is, I suppose, widely known in the fishing industry that this harbour is not sufficiently secure or safe during adverse weather conditions and the vessels have to be attended, day and night, when the weather is bad at any time of the year. It can be poor there in the summertime, as during the recent period.

In the last couple of years, one fishing vessel has been lost; it sank in four minutes inside the harbour in a storm. Last year one yacht broke its mooring in the harbour during the storm in the late summer. This poses a serious risk to life and property. It is becoming a bigger issue as the climate issues change the weather patterns around Ireland. It is sometimes so severe that it is impossible to even get aboard the vessels while they are in the harbour in these conditions.

In the past year, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has undertaken, due to the request that we have been making, to review an engineering study that was done on the harbour some years ago and between the harbour users and the Department, a potential project has been selected. It has gone forward to a further engineering analysis and it will, hopefully, be ready to apply for planning permission within the next year. The request from our organisation is to ensure that once the planning permission is obtained, the Department is sufficiently prepared, financially and operationally, to undertake this project as soon as possible. We think any further delay in the project is a serious risk to life. It should be brought up to standard with the rest of the fishery harbours.

Most of the other fishery harbours in Ireland are up to a very high standard of safety and Dunmore East should be treated in the same manner. Like all the fishery harbours, it is in excellent condition. It has been looked after well. It has good services and good facilities for boats when they get in. It is just this issue in bad weather is continuing and it is making the harbour difficult to use in the winter.

We also have the lack of access to Waterford Port for safe berthage and the lack of access to Cheekpoint. The options for a safe berthage have run out as these ports become busy in their own right. It is the only fishery harbour between Howth and Castletownbere, the only fishery harbour centre on the south and east coast to service the fishing fleet directly. There are other local authority harbours but as fishery harbour centres go, this is the main one between Howth and Castletownbere.

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the invitation. I will try to go through our main points swiftly. I refer to recommendation 22 from the 2014 report of the Oireachtas committee. The problem is that all of our stuff is currently very fragmented. There are four local authorities involved. The Department owns the Oileán Chléire harbour. The Department of Defence owns Bere Island. We need to consolidate these into some kind of manageable logical programme.

We still do not have the basic services. We need power, light and water in every local authority harbour but specifically on the islands. We should have a repair and maintenance schedule. There should be timely damage repair after storms. These are vital for access to the mainland. There are lifeline services to the piers on the islands. We have ferries, emergency services and lifeboats, and some islands have fire services. They need access to these places. Furthermore, the harbours are multiple use. There should be a system whereby if the lifeboat comes in it gets priority. The fishing community needs to get in there along with cargo and ferry services. That management has to come in.

For fishing, we need to get involved in short supply chains. All that stuff is needed on the islands to have access to processing and basic stuff like that. Some piers are operational. They are currently thinking of going ahead with one on Inis Oírr. There are ongoing works on Inis Meáin. The onshore piers in Mayo for Clare Island and Inishturk need to be upgraded as well. I am out of time but we can come back on anything else the committee members need.

Earlier this year, funding was announced for the repair and development of piers around the country. I contacted a number of local authorities about this funding, hoping to highlight some of the safety and infrastructure issues our members face daily.

What I found was deeply concerning. Many local authorities were unaware that they even had a marine section. Others redirected me from one department to another. Despite written submissions outlining basic safety issues, I was repeatedly told that the councils had their own plans and would not include our concerns in their submissions.

Recently, I visited a pier in County Cork where I watched a 75-year-old man lifting fish boxes by hand because there was no winch, no lighting and no safe working space. That image has stayed with me. In most workplaces in Ireland, people are trained in how to lift a cardboard box safely, yet our fishermen are forced to lift heavy loads in dangerous, outdated conditions, often with no assistance and no support.

The inshore fishing community is not asking for luxury. We are asking for basic infrastructure that allows people to work safely and with dignity.

I invite any member of this committee or the Government to spend a single day with one of our fishermen to see at first hand how detached current policy has become from the reality on the ground.

I thank all the witnesses for their opening statements and brief summaries. We will now go to questions and answers, starting with Deputy Ward.

I appreciate the Chairman letting me in given that I am not normally a member of this committee.

As representatives of the RNLI are appearing before the committee, I wish to acknowledge the work it does as the charity that saves lives at seas. In so doing, I also want to declare that my wife is a volunteer for the RNLI in Dún Laoghaire. Thankfully, I have never needed its services but as somebody involved in water sports in Dún Laoghaire, I am acutely aware of the good it does.

Having spoken to Ms Classon outside, I acknowledge that the Dún Laoghaire Harbour master plan has involved the RNLI. I think some work needs to be done around the country to acknowledge not just the presence but also the importance of emergency services in harbours and in the infrastructure around the country. We need to ensure that they are included in development works and development plans and that they are consulted on any proposed changes to infrastructure. All around the coast of Ireland, there are RNLI lifeboats with different inshore and outshore capabilities. They carry out a massively important function in keeping people safe in addition to the educational function of the RNLI. What they do is really important. We should never allow an infrastructural change to impede the work it does.

I wish to record my thanks to the RNLI and acknowledge all the good work it does and the many thousands of lives it has saved in Ireland since it first started operating over a century ago. Are there any particular things the representatives of the RNLI would like to say to any chief executive of a local authority or anybody involved in harbour infrastructure that they should be taking on board in the context of facilitating the lifesaving work that the RNLI does?

On behalf of all of our volunteers, supporters and donors I thank the Deputy for his kind words. I hope that they will hear them. We are always very grateful when we are included. We are an independent charity. We work very well with all of our stakeholders. The example the Deputy has just mentioned in Dún Laoghaire is a lovely example of that inclusive bringing together of all the stakeholders, asking us what our needs are and listening to us. We still have a journey to go there because there is a big development plan for Dún Laoghaire. It is really exciting to be in at the beginning, to be heard and to be asked to join the consultation. I highly recommend the behaviour of leaders in a community like Dún Laoghaire to all of our colleagues and stakeholders. We are very willing to work with anybody to improve life for our volunteers.

I thank the witnesses for coming here today. I echo Deputy Ward's comments about the RNLI. We are very proud of our RNLI teams. As a Donegal TD, I am very familiar with its work over many years. I am very proud of the volunteers and everything they do. It is a tremendous organisation, but it needs to have more than congratulations from the committee members today; we need to deal with the issues here.

My questions are for the IIMRO and NIFA representatives jointly. Ms Egan's comments were very powerful in inviting departmental officials and Ministers to go out on the boats with the fishermen and see the issues for themselves. Is there an issue with the funding model? Six harbours are under the control of the Department of the marine and are funded as such. Everything else is under the control of local authorities. Apart from the - let us call it what it was - redundancy money that came from the Brexit adjustment reserve fund, I have not seen any major infrastructure investment.

What troubles me is that we are told we have windfall taxes from corporation tax and the Apple money that should be spent on infrastructure and capital investment rather than on ongoing current expenditure. I accept and agree with that. Unfortunately, though, piers and harbours are not getting their share of that investment. What are the views of the witnesses on the funding model? I am thinking of piers and harbours that are not under the control of the State that a lot of RNLI inshore island boats would be on. Do we need to look at a different model? I ask this because it is clearly not working in terms of the investments required. I would like to get an answer from the three organisations. If I have time then, I would still like to talk to Mr. John Lynch about Dunmore East too.

I thank the Deputy for the question. He asked specifically about the funding model for the harbours run by harbour authorities and county councils. This funding model is not something we involve ourselves in. Our role is to make sure our crews have a safe system of work, can access their lifeboats, can leave their harbours to rescue or train and can return safely. If there are any specific questions, however, I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. Halligan.

Is it Mr. Halligan's assessment - I am pretty confident what the answer is going to be - that there needs to be a significant increase in investment in the infrastructure that the RNLI operates out of?

We face some particular issues. Let us take the example of the situation at Helvick, where there is an awful siltation issue. We do not do dredging. Historically, that is done by the local authorities and the Department of the marine as they hold and own the foreshore licences there. Having said that, we have worked tirelessly with the local authority there for the last 18 months to get an interim solution that will allow us to continue our service uninterrupted. With that, the local authority has facilitated an alongside berth on the quay wall, close to the harbour mouth, where there is a consistent depth of water to enable us to launch our boat at low tides. Again, this is an interim solution. The long-term solution needed for this issue is to dredge the harbour. I thank the local authority for its assistance with this issue. It invested in and installed fendering systems for us on the pier wall. In this instance, these are large rubber planks that stop the lifeboat from tearing on the side of the quay wall. It has also installed ladder access for us, to our design and specification, to allow the crews to safely get up and down onto the lifeboat. Also put in were mooring cleats for us along the wall. Again, though, this is an interim solution. We need a long-term solution, and we will continue to work with the local authority on this issue.

I will pick up on a few of the points. My colleague, Mr. Bonner, may want to come in as well. The short answer is, no, it is not fit for purpose. The Brexit fund showed this. The funding was available for the county councils to do works on county council piers and harbours. These included even minor works like the ones we were looking for, but they were not in a position to fill in the forms on time because they did not have the staff. I am aware that Galway County Council has increased the local property tax with a view to hiring somebody to do this work.

Returning to my second point in the introduction, we do need an overall strategy or somebody to pull all these strings together. We have the Department of Defence, the Department of the marine and the county councils involved, and we have four county councils in our area. The shore side of all these island things is also important. Space is being shared now by cargo vessels, ferries, fishers, the RNLI and everyone else. Like when you see an ambulance coming around a corner, everyone will make way for the RNLI, but there is a need to have a slightly better system than that in place. Mr. Bonner may have something to say that I have forgotten.

I will add to Mr. Conneely's point about emergency services. We have the lifeboats and the Coast Guard on the islands. We need investment in very basic infrastructure on some of them, including helipads with associated lights. Some of the islands do not have fire services, which are badly needed. Basic things, like a designated lifeboat berth when there is a call, are needed on piers and slipways on the islands and elsewhere too.

The question is about the funding. The main point we see concerns local harbours and piers. The nature of the work of members means they operate from small harbours and piers. Some of our members may work from the fishery harbours, but the majority of them work from small harbours and piers. We find there is a gap in responsibility. Is it the county councils that are responsible, the Department or Roinn na Gaeltachta? I come from a Gaeltacht area and it has an input too. We find that different county councils have different emphasises. Some are really positive about working with the local fishers and communities on their harbours while other county councils simply ignore the local fishers and local communities. We would, therefore, need a sort of national programme for the repair and upkeep of small piers and harbours. They are assets to our communities, fishers and the tourism industry. People like to come down on piers to see how fishers work.

We also find there is a need for basic infrastructure such as water and hoists on piers. Many of our members are not in the full flight of youth and assistance is needed to take boxes out of boats and to put engines into boats. The basic needs of the local fishing industry are safe harbours. These are harbours that can be used within the constraints of tides, on the tide or as the tide comes in and out. I already mentioned basic simple infrastructure such as water. Where possible, electricity would be included as well, although I know this is a different situation that brings in the ESB. Decent roads to the piers are also needed. I work from a harbour along with three of my colleagues. These are substantial boats. We have to travel 1 km or 2 km to deliver our fish to a buyer because the truck cannot come onto the pier. These are just basic rights for people. People complain about roads. Piers and harbours are our roads as well. I reiterate the point made by my island colleagues. A harbour is like a road to them too.

Overall, then, there are two main points. One is about who has responsibility. This must be defined. The second is a need for a national programme for the repair of small harbours and piers along the coast. This would ease the problems we have in the fishing industry. These piers and harbours are also an asset to our communities. My colleague, Ms Egan, may have something to add.

We need clearer responsibilities so that harbours are not left in limbo between agencies and we need proper engagement with the people who use them - the fishers - and not just the administrators.

I thank Ms Egan. Turning to Mr. Lynch, I have been down to Dunmore East as part of my role as spokesperson for my party on this issue. I saw plans when I was down there for what needs to be done. How come this was not done as part of the Brexit reserve fund investment in harbours? I absolutely agree with what was said. To me, that plan and that infrastructure should be implemented urgently. I would like to get Mr. Lynch's sense of these issues.

As I said earlier, it is a good harbour. It is a good facility for fishing and tourism. It is a very good area but the unfortunate thing is the harbour is just not safe. If there is any kind of bad weather at all, it is just not safe. Back around 2010 there was a plan to build a larger pier outside the existing pier. That was a massive project and a massive commitment financially for the country. As we all know, we had a bad economic turn in 2011 and that project fell off the agenda. It had received full planning permission. It all fell by the wayside because we had the financial downturn for several years before the country recovered. Now that the country has recovered Dunmore East harbour has not recovered and the weather is still affecting the boats for much of the year. The current project that is being looked at is a smaller project and less financially restrictive. That needs to be pushed ahead as soon as possible to make the harbour safe.

On the funding issue, the Deputy mentioned the Brexit adjustment reserve. We slipped up on the Brexit adjustment reserve, mainly because it was time bound and had to be spent within the two-year time period. We ended up not utilising €213 million of that fund. We could have done a lot of harbour work with €213 million.

Absolutely.

However, we could not be shovel-ready within the time period that was allowed. Whether we could have got flexibility on that is irrelevant now. However, that indicates to me that we should not slip up for a second time. We must not repeat the same mistake. I am talking about the community benefit fund that will eventually come from the building of offshore renewable energy, ORE, around the coast of Ireland. A large portion of that community benefit fund, CBF, should be ring-fenced. There is no ring-fencing within that community benefit programme at the moment. A large portion of the CBF should be ring-fenced for the seafood industry. That would accommodate harbour development. We have the six fishery harbour centres. They have central funding. The local authority harbours could benefit greatly from funding from the CBF when the ORE comes on stream.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their contributions. The RNLI is an organisation that Ms Classon stated was established just over 200 years ago. We know from our history that the first one was established on Arranmore Island in 1889, not at Leabgarrow that we are familiar with now but the first, which Mr. Bonner will be familiar with, was over in Rannagh, on the other side of the island but changed to Leabgarrow after that. It was there until the new station was opened some years ago by Daniel O'Donnell and his wife was to have launched the Myrtle Maude, which is the most recent boat there now but for some reason she was not able to attend. It was a big day on the island at Leabgarrow when the Myrtle Maude was launched. I am anxious to find out what the cost of the Myrtle Maude was at the time.

The cost of running the RNLI on the island of Ireland, particularly in this jurisdiction, never ceases to amaze me. I became familiar with the workings of the RNLI when I went to Poole under my mandate in the Department of transport between 2006 and 2008 at the request of Ms Classon. I witnessed first-hand what the organisation does. It certainly was most impressive. The question is: what needs to be done? Others have outlined what needs to be done. I suggest that the committee writes to all the local authorities involved to ask them what plans they have to improve the infrastructure within their jurisdictions. That is so important to life-saving by the RNLI. Whether it is the harbours or helipads, the provision of fire services and so on, the local authorities have a responsibility. There is no one-stop shop.

The Department of the marine has responsibility for all of the harbour centres, be it Killybegs or Rossaveel, Castletownbere or Dunmore East. I have a soft spot for Dunmore East because I lost a lot of sweat in Dunmore East many years ago curing sprat there, sugaring and spicing them. That was at a time some people might remember, you could walk on the decks of the vessels from the main harbour over to the co-op. Unfortunately, it is not like that now. That was in the good days when many of our boats came down from Donegal to fish the famous Baginbun. Mr. Lynch is quite right that it was agreed in principle that we proceed with the development there. That should be looked at now. It might not have to be of the same magnitude but I am sure it will be more expensive now than it would have been then.

Many people in this country would think the UK or Ireland share funding. It all comes, as we know, from donations and legacies. We are contributing little or nothing. The time is right for us at the harbour centres and on the other piers to step up and provide the necessary. There is a view that the volunteers just rush down onto the boat when they are called. Of course, it is not as simple as that. It is much more involved. I ask the Cathaoirleach to write to all the local authorities and ensure that the basic infrastructure that is required is provided. It cannot be done overnight but we should have a plan. We should plan a way forward.

The Brexit adjustment fund in relation to Dunmore East was of course time limited. If a project was not shovel-ready then the money could not be spent within the two years. That was wrong at the time, or maybe it was clever on the part of those who were providing it, knowing that it could not be spent. The money was there and it should have been available since then. From Dunmore or from Howth around to Castletownbere, there is a lot to be done in that area. I would like to compliment all, in particular the one that I am most familiar with. That is the one on Arranmore Island. We have the Coast Guard in Bunbeg that I was involved in during my time in the Department. I also remember those in Killybegs and Buncrana when there is a change of the guard there at the moment from the Donegal man of the year, from John to Joseph Joyce. I take the opportunity to wish Joseph well in his capacity in charge of operations. Time is limited but in short, I thank the RNLI so much. Whoever can answer the question about what it costs to run it in this country.

I thank the Deputy for his kind words and also for his support over many years. We have opened a new station on Arranmore Island at the cost of €1.5 million. We have also recently put in capital infrastructure in Lough Ree at a cost of €1.5 million. They are our two new recent stations. We are embarking on a new capital plan in the next five years, which will see many millions of euro invested in infrastructure, upgrading a lot of our stations. A total of €12 million is what it costs annually. That is running costs, including maintenance, diesel, training and staff. That does not include assets, including the lifeboats. In the 2026-27 plan we have three new Shannon class lifeboats coming to Ireland. We will have one in Fenit, one in Ballycotton and one in Howth. Those Shannons cost €2 million each. I commend and thank all our crews who are going to take part in changing the way they work because they are moving from a Trent class lifeboat to a Shannon class lifeboat. The investment in Ireland of the RNLI is substantial.

The investment of our crews is also substantial and the support we receive is amazing.

I apologise for being late. I thank the witnesses for being here. I fully support the points made by the National Inshore Fishermens Association. No amount of harbour development will matter if all our fishers are forced to quit the industry due to what is coming. It is important to keep in mind during the course of these meetings that infrastructure is completely useless unless there is an industry there. We need to make sure the industry is not wiped out.

My first question is for Ms Egan. I was shocked to hear during her submission that some local authorities were unaware that they even had a marine section. This is very concerning and shows that current policy has become detached and far removed from the reality. How can the committee support and ensure local authorities are informed in performing their role and on the ground?

Fishermen need to be in contact with the local authorities. No one seems to want to take responsibility for them. The Department says it is not their responsibility and the county councils say they cannot do it. There needs to be a marine section in each county council that knows what it needs to do.

My second question is for the RNLI. As an Arranmore man, I know all too well what issues we have. We have a pier in Arranmore that is out of date and the RNLI is forced to use that facility. In the summertime, we are left with severe challenges. We have a ferry pier that comes in and lands, boats come off and cars disperse all over the place. Emergencies happen throughout the summer in Donegal. There were incidents in Bundoran and Buncrana, but I was present when an incident occurred on Arranmore. When the emergency happened there were cars parked everywhere and there was no order. The delay this caused could have been critical. This problem needs to be addressed, particularly in Donegal because when we get good weather everybody comes out. This happens all of the time and it will cost a life. We need to highlight it. How can we tackle this issue? I am asking in particular from the point of view that we are dealing with facilities that need to be updated, such as in Arranmore where the pier needs to be updated. We need proper facilities for the RNLI to be able to land. The lifeboat lands in Arranmore and it is challenging for it to come in when there are cars everywhere. As far as I can see, there is a danger to life.

I thank the Deputy for the question and for his support for our RNLI crews and Arranmore lifeboat station. I think it is about awareness. To be fair, most people are very supportive of the RNLI and the emergency services and want to do the right thing. However, good weather brings anxiousness and delight. We have had well-publicised issues at Ned's Point in Buncrana and in Bundoran. The first thing we need is awareness. It is very challenging. If we are alerted by the Irish Coast Guard and our pagers go off, we will proceed to the station in a safe fashion. Putting barricades up slows us down. It is about working with the general public, who do support us, and making them aware that, yes, it is a lovely day and we may put something out. In Buncrana, we are looking at maybe putting out cones and things like that to allow people to take a moment to stop and think, and to ask why the cone is there. It is there because it is a hashed area and if they look to their left, they will see the lifeboat station, so it might mean something to them. Putting up barriers and closing areas off will only slow us down. It is complex. It is about behaviour and asking people to think before they act.

Could the RNLI engage in some form of media campaign to educate people?

What I saw on the day in question was that everybody who came wanted to be near a beach, so they basically parked their cars and went off. What happened then was there was an incident, pagers went off and an appeal had to be made to get people to go to the piers. This happens all the time. A situation will arise where we have a life-threatening situation and there are not proper protocols in place. This is deeply concerning.

My colleague, Ms Stephenson, works with what we call LPOs, our lifeboat press officers, who are also volunteers. We have one in every lifeboat station in Ireland. These are the people who, very consciously, raise awareness. That was done in the Donegal media in regard to the stations that had the issues. We have to work with our community gardaí, who are very helpful to us as well, and if we do have a call-out, our colleagues in the emergency services are very quick to act to help us to get access. We will work on that issue next summer and we will work with our colleagues in An Garda Síochána and the county councils to see how we can make this better for everybody - those who want to use the sea and those who may need our services in a hurry.

Will the Irish Islands Marine Resource Organisation outline for the committee what island fishers currently have to do in the absence of processing facilities or equipment for landing or handling on the islands? Where do they go when they land their catches?

I am familiar with the situation in the Aran Islands. We either land to buyers in Doolin or Rossaveal. Sometimes we can put stuff on to the boats in Rossaveal, mainly crab and lobster. There is a big tourism industry there in the summer that could be serviced by the local small fleet. It used to do so but the fleet has now been pushed away from the pier, over to the slipway, and the facilities are not there. We have said all along that when the RNLI moves in we will all help. Everyone helps in that way. That is not the problem; the problem is the infrastructure. We never have a problem with anyone in the RNLI, the Garda or anyone else. When we call them, they do their best and they will come.

We do have a problem, however, with the State agencies and county councils. They must have a special drawer containing excuses, because they have 65 different reasons they cannot do something, as opposed to one reason they can. If the RNLI acted like that, its members would say it is misty out and they will not go out tonight. That is not what we need. We set out the target in the recommendation from the committee in 2014. We have county councils, the Department of the marine and the Department of defence and we need to have one agency to make them do something.

Deputy Mac Lochlainn made a point about windfall taxes. Usually, what happens when things collapse is that Governments move in and build infrastructure while they can. It creates employment during the downtimes, and, when we start to move ahead it will be there for people in the future to work with. There are basic things that could be done. Pontoons would be handy at some of the piers. They are there in most places in Europe and the United States. We do not have navigation lights in some areas. If the committee could do anything, it should push forward the recommendations from 2014 and get somebody to say they will build A, B and C.

It is interesting that Ranagh Pier on Arranmore, where the RNLI was, is on the list as requiring urgent work done. Mr. Bonner may have something to add.

Yes, works on a number of piers are pending since the last downturn. Rannagh Pier on Arranmore is one.

Work also needs to be done on Inis Meáin. The Sherkin breakwater is due to be improved to provide access to a better ferry service for local users, for tourism and for fishing. East End Pier on Inishbofin has been badly damaged in a storm. It has been mentioned that storms are getting worse - they are of increased severity, probably due to climate change - and are becoming more frequent as well.

We need to consider that some administrative solutions are needed. For example, the Sherkin breakwater is in Roaringwater Bay SAC, which means that an extra layer of requirements has to be done to get projects approved and all the permissions needed. We need to put a mechanism in place to ensure this does not cause a blockage for essential services like ferries and emergency services and for other users. To give another example, Magheroarty in County Donegal is not a designated landing port for fish, which is causing difficulties for local users. That could be solved easily by somebody in the Department who could designate it as a designated port.

I have a number of questions. As other members have already spoken, I will put them now. Deputy Mac Lochlainn set out the context to this discussion when he said it is about the infrastructure at our ports and harbours. The wider context is that the failure to invest over many years in regional infrastructure has hampered economic development and economic diversification and has put livelihoods at risk. I fear that the lack of infrastructural investment when it comes to ports and harbours is putting lives at risk as well as livelihoods. It is certainly putting the lives of coastal communities at risk. The other context in which this discussion takes place is the depletion of our offshore and inshore fishing industries over many years. There are fewer boats and fewer people employed. The Brexit deal copper-fastened a massive decrease in the fishing opportunities available to our fleets. That context is important for this discussion.

I have already spoken about Cé Heilbhic at this committee. I have spoken about it in the Dáil. I have spoken about it for many years. I spoke with some of our witnesses about it before we came into this meeting. It is a case in its own right that needs to be resolved but it is also a really good example of the failure of the current funding mechanism. For those who do not know, Cé Heilbhic is a small local authority-owned fisheries harbour in the west Waterford Gaeltacht. It is a couple of miles from my home and is a place I am proud to live in and represent. However, because of siltation it is impassable at low tide for all sorts of vessels. A small inshore fishing fleet operates out of there. Of course it is also the home of the Helvick Head and Dungarvan RNLI station. The local authority, Waterford City and County Council, has told us that it does not have the money to pay for the preparatory work required to make an application to the Department for funding to dredge the harbour. We will have the local authorities in for the second half of this meeting. It is a classic catch-22 situation in that the Department is refusing to fund anything but a shovel-ready project. All the preparatory work on the foreshore licence, on planning and on the environmental impact must be done before an application will even be considered for funding. In most cases, that work costs more than the actual work of dredging the harbour. That is certainly true in this case. To my mind, this seems to be an arbitrary rule because it does not apply to the development of housing. It does not apply to the development of an enterprise centre a couple of miles from Cé Heilbhic where different Government Departments and agencies are happy to fund preparatory work. It only seems to apply to local authority ports and harbours.

My question to each set of witnesses relates to that particular case, but also to the wider example. There are many piers like Cé Heilbhic around the coast. There are many local authority-owned ports and harbours in the same situation.

Do the witnesses agree that the system is not fit for purpose and is out of step with other funding mechanisms, that it is potentially putting livelihoods and lives at risk, and that perhaps we need a new way of funding these local authority harbours? That is particularly for the IIMRO and the NIFA, but also for the other witnesses.

Especially during Brexit that showed itself up as being a big problem. It was in general an arbitrary rule. We need a new system. The old one is not working. What we are talking about is a minor thing, given that the RNLI can run its annual operations for €12 million. We are familiar with the level of service it gives, what it does and what it is capable of. We need something that does not give a county council an excuse to give the Department an excuse to give the Department of public expenditure and reform an excuse. Everyone has a drawer full of excuses. In our experience, dealing with most Departments is like swimming through treacle. I see why people will gladly accept an AI system telling them what to do if they keep going on like this. You need to get some kind of system in place. This committee, with the Minister, probably has a unique opportunity to co-ordinate all of this. We are not looking for an awful lot. As Mr. Breathnach said, a lot of it is administrative stuff that needs to be streamlined. The system at the moment is not fit for purpose. The evidence is in front of you if you go to any pier around the coast or on any island. There is only one that is functioning. The Inis Mór one seems to have developed okay. It is a system that runs. Unless you invest in these things now, the costs will go up with inflation, etc. You are better off to do it now and we will live on it for the next 100 years.

I take Mr. Conneely's point on inflation. In the example I gave of Cé Heilbhic, the costs of the preparatory work have increased astronomically to the region of €300,000 since I started advocating for that work to be carried out. Perhaps Mr. Breathnach or Ms Egan might comment on the questions about the dysfunctionality in the funding mechanism.

I take the point on board. It struck me when the Chair mentioned that different planning is needed for piers and harbours than for enterprise centres, etc., that a local harbour with four, five or six boats is an enterprise centre on its own. Some €800,000 or €900,000 worth of fish could be landed there every year. Six or seven people, or more, could be employed there. In this country, why is the marine sector is an exception to everything else? We encounter bureaucracy when we deal with the local authority and the Department of the marine. Then we run into planning issues and matters relating to special areas of conservation and foreshores. That is before a digger gets a chance to dig out part of a pier. That is the biggest stumbling block.

The other stumbling block in our opinion is the lack of engagement from the local authorities. As I said in my previous statements, some local authorities are positive and co-operate with the local fishing and tourism industries. Other people, such as kayakers, use the harbours as well. Harbours and local piers are a gem in local areas. At my own harbour, for example, we have been looking for basic infrastructure for 12 or 13 years. The last bit of work, bar one piece, was done by the congested districts board at the beginning of the 20th century. Through sheer perseverance, we have managed to get some sort of traction but there has to be a national policy. There is a national policy for every other thing. How will I put it? There just needs to be a national policy for piers and harbours.

They are basic infrastructure for coastal communities, for fishers who are using them and for other users too, including the RNLI and the local Coast Guard station. You would need those facilities. We are not back in the dark ages, but what if you have no water in a harbour, no hoist on a pier or no slipway to draw up your boat if you need to do some maintenance? They are basic infrastructure. The local authorities have a national body themselves. Why can they not have a national policy on coastal infrastructure? That is what is needed so that our coastal communities can live there and work safely rather than, say, going down a step that might have no railing. It is the whole thing of community, sustainability of coastal communities, safety of fishers and the basic things. I mentioned bureaucracy before. I have four points here - bureaucracy, planning, shore-side electricity, SSE, and foreshore – before anything happens.

Thank you. I have two more very short questions myself. One is for the RNLI in particular and again with regard to Helvick. The Minister, to be fair, came and visited Helvick with me some weeks ago, quietly, just to give himself some context for our frequent conversations on this matter. We saw the work carried out by the local authority in partnership with the RNLI. It is a really good job but it is a temporary measure. As I said to the Minister on that visit, it is like having a fantastic, fully kitted-out fire station but having the tender parked half a kilometre down the road and expecting the retained fire fighters to don their gear and then leg it down to climb up on the tender. It is the same kind of thing. I think he understood. The funding did not come to dredge Helvick but I think he got the point with that analogy. From the point of view of the RNLI and the important and fantastic life-saving work it does, how much of an impediment is it to its work if harbours, in the general sense, become silted up?

I will pass the detail of the conversation over to my colleague, Mr. Halligan. One of the challenges that any passionate volunteer feels when things are not right for them is frustration. I can only commend the passion and commitment of our volunteers in Helvick whom I have worked with for the last three years to bring this interim solution about with my colleagues, and for their absolute determination that they would be on service for spring low tides as well as spring high tides and that nothing was going to step in their way in delivering a service to their community and that part of the sea. I will hand over to my colleague but I really wanted to commend all of the volunteers in Helvick as well as the fundraisers. They raise €50,000 a year down there. Their passion made sure that an interim solution was found.

The biggest impact we find is the frustration of the crews and the volunteers at stations. As and when these issues arise, we do our best to engage and work with the local authorities to get an interim or workaround solution to allow us to maintain service. Once that interim solution is put in place, we will continue to work with the local authorities and the Department of the marine to put a long-term solution in place.

Another case in point is Howth where siltation is also an issue for our D class launching at low tides from the station ramp. At low tides, we have worked our solution ourselves to put the D class on the end of our all-weather lifeboat, ALB, pontoon so as not to affect service. Again, it is about working with the local authorities to get the long-term solutions in place.

I thank both witnesses for those responses. I have a very quick question for Mr. Lynch on Dunmore East. My colleague Deputy Cullinane and I have been raising this for the past number of years.

Were the works to be carried out next year, assuming that planning came through and the Government made a decision to fund it, what difference would that make to the members of ISEFPO fishing out of Dunmore East? How would it assist them and make their lives easier and fishing safer?

The commitment is there to bring the project forward for a planning application. That commitment is there. My intention today is to ensure that commitment also follows through to develop the project.

Of course, it would make a massive difference safety-wise, particularly for the crews who may stay on board boats during periods of bad weather. Two years ago, one vessel sank in less than four minutes in the harbour in Dunmore East during a bad storm. You do not have to think too hard or have too much forward vision to see what possibly could have happened in that case. Indeed, my colleagues in the RNLI could quickly describe what might happen and how fast things can go badly wrong. Our ambition is to avoid a situation developing where there is a potential, or actual, loss of life and to have a safe harbour for everyone, including the fishing and leisure industries and the RNLI crews. It is an important project for everyone’s safety.

From listening to the contributions of Mr. Bonner and Mr. Lynch, the approval of foreshore licenses takes so long. I saw it in Burtonport. I know what is going on there.

It is a disaster.

That is only a microcosm of what is going on around the country. While the committee has a full agenda between now and the end of the year, we should invite the section of the Department responsible for approving foreshore licenses before this committee when we have an opportunity some time next year. It has to be dealt with more expeditiously. When I think of SACs and the fact that we have to go through all of that rigmarole to do small jobs when we are talking about saving lives, we should ask those responsible to appear before the committee. Such jobs should be fast-tracked. In fact, there should be a one-stop-shop for all of those. Let us invite them in, with the approval of the committee, to find out exactly where the difficulties are arising.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta. We have reached the end of our time allotted for this part of the meeting. Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe go léir as a bheith inár dteannta agus an díospóireacht. We will have another meeting between now and Christmas looking at the topic of saving lives at sea, safety at sea and water safety. I have no doubt I will see some of the witnesses back at that meeting, along with other agencies and voluntary organisations active in that space, to look at that whole range of issues. I thank all the witnesses for their contributions today. We will be putting some of the points raised, and some of the ones that have come to us in our respective roles, to both the Department and local authorities after a short break. On behalf of the committee, I thank witnesses again for their contributions. I propose to briefly suspend the meeting to allow the next group of witnesses to take their places.

Tosnóimid an dara leath den chruinniú seo. As we are in public session, I wish to give witnesses and members a note on privilege. Witnesses who are giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts in Leinster House are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to this committee. This means they have a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on any issue. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts. They may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside of the proceedings of this committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members have already been reminded of their obligation to be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex and of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity.

Our agenda item is a discussion on capital and infrastructure related to the subject matter of this committee, which is fisheries and maritime affairs. The committee has already heard from a number of witnesses broadly categorised as harbour users. We have heard from several of the fisheries organisations and the RNLI.

For this meeting, we have a number of witnesses broadly representing the Department and the local authority or local government sector. I will go through the witnesses now and then I will ask them for two-minute summaries of their opening statements before we begin the question-and-answer session. We will go for seven minutes per member of the committee and that will include both the questions and the answers. That should allow us to get around the houses with all five members who are currently present to have our opportunity.

From the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, we are joined by Ms Sinéad McSherry, assistant secretary general, Ms Eimear Coughlan, principal officer, and Mr. Noel Clancy, chief engineer; and from the County and City Management Association transport infrastructure and networks committee, we have Mr. Barry Kehoe, chair of the committee and chief executive of Westmeath County Council, Mr. Tom Prendergast, senior engineer at Galway County Council, and Mr. Cathal Sweeney, resident engineer at Donegal County Council.

I invite Ms McSherry or one of her colleagues to deliver a two-minute summary of the Department’s opening statement.

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak to it today. The Chairman has introduced us so I will not do that again. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine owns, operates and maintains six designated State-owned fishery harbour centres, located at Castletownbere, Dingle, Dunmore East, Howth, Killybegs and Ros an Mhíl. We also have responsibility for North Harbour at Cape Clear Island, as well as the maintenance of a small number of specific piers, lights and beacons throughout Ireland. Investing in our marine infrastructure is particularly important to the resilience of our seafood sector. The Department, subject to project feasibility and the prioritisation of resources, administers the annual fishery harbour and coastal infrastructure development programme, consistent with the objectives of the NDP. The strategic objective of the programme is to contribute to, from an infrastructure perspective, the future viability of the fishing industry and the sustainability of our coastal communities.

Between January 2010 and December 2024, the Department has invested almost €356 million in publicly owned marine infrastructure through a mix of national Exchequer and Brexit adjustment reserve funding. The Department’s engineering division profiles a five- to seven-year capital work programme and prioritises those projects that will bring the infrastructure for which the Department has responsibility up to best international standards. Each year, the Department also carries out approximately 50 projects of various sizes. Some projects may be scheduled over a number of phases to take account of the available annual funding, competing national priorities and the capacity of the Department to deliver.

Since 2020, €138.5 million has been invested in capital works in the fishery harbour centres in Cape Clear, delivering projects such as the Dinish wharf expansion and breakwaters at Castletownbere, the middle pier at Howth and the Smooth Point pier extension at Killybegs. In March, the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, announced a capital investment package of €23.4 million as part of the 2025 programme. The allocation included capital commitments for ongoing projects and the commencement of some new projects. In addition, the programme provided limited discretionary funding for small-scale shovel-ready development and the repair of local authority-owned harbours, piers and slipways subject to available Exchequer funding. This year, the Minister of State announced an allocation of €4.33 million for 57 projects across the 11 coastal local authorities. Between 2020 and 2024, the Department reimbursed total funding of almost €56 million under the local authority marine infrastructure and Brexit adjustment local authority marine infrastructure schemes.

It should be noted that the Department is not the responsible body for the development and maintenance of local authority-owned infrastructure. This lies in the first instance with the local authorities and with their parent Department, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

My colleagues and I will take any questions members may have in respect of the Department’s infrastructure.

I thank Ms McSherry. I now invite Mr. Kehoe or one of his colleagues to give a two-minute summary of their opening statement.

I thank the committee for the invitation to appear. Irish local authorities manage hundreds of piers, harbours and slipways and support local coastal economies. They are critical not only to our fishing industry but increasingly to tourism, aquaculture, marine leisure activities and the broader blue economy. The challenge we face is maintaining ageing infrastructure around the coast, where the capital cost of maintaining and improving that infrastructure is enormous.

We face a number of key challenges, the first of which relates to financial and funding constraints. The investment places a significant strain on those local authorities that have a large number of harbours and piers. That investment competes with other priorities within the councils and it makes it difficult to ensure that the appropriate investment is in place. Second, the infrastructure is deteriorating, as committee members will know, and it is suffering increasing damage due to more intense storms and the effects of climate change. Third, we have delivery challenges. We have very complex consent processes that we need to go through. These involve multiple agencies and lengthy timeframes. We have procurement challenges, supply chain constraints on marine grade materials and a very limited weather windows in which work can be carried out. There are also issues with timing in terms of getting work done during peak seasons. As the committee will understand, there is a change happening in the whole fishing area ,and there are now lots of other competing uses for our piers and harbours, be they leisure related, aquaculture or whatever. It can be difficult to manage those competing demands in our harbours and piers. We also have an issue with getting appropriate technical expertise and resources in place because there is a very limited pool of people with that kind of expertise.

We have a number of recommendations in our opening statement. The first is that there would be enhanced funding mechanisms giving multi-year certainty and flexibility for large projects. These would include advanced funding to plan, design and get the necessary consents for projects. Second, that there would be 100% funding for climate adaptation projects because it is important that we preserve this infrastructure for future generations. We also recommend 100% funding for large-scale dredging projects and that work be done to streamline the consent processes. A group in the Department of public expenditure is working to ensure that the various planning and marine consents operate together rather than one after the other. We further recommend that there would be strategic harbour classification to recognise the varying levels of national, regional and local harbours and that there would be integration with marine spatial planning to ensure that harbour development aligns with broader marine and coastal zone management objectives. Finally, we recommend the development of pontoons, including for impaired mobility access.

We are committed to working in partnership with the Government and our coastal communities to ensure that these vital assets are maintained, developed and climate-proofed for future generations. I look forward to members' questions.

I thank both witnesses for those summaries of their opening statements, which were circulated to members prior to the meeting. I will now open the floor for questions. I remind members that they have seven minutes and that this time is for both questions and responses.

I will start by repeating what I said at a previous meeting. No amount of harbour development will matter if fishers are forced to quit the industry because of the forthcoming cuts. That is vital, and I wanted to get that statement out there. Do the witnesses acknowledge that local authorities are struggling to maintain piers and harbours, with many not even aware that the Department has a marine section? Do they believe that a national audit of piers, harbours and slipways should be carried out, in light of this?

Deputy Ward and I come from a similar background, and I do recognise that we are struggling. All of the coastal communities and counties are struggling to maintain the infrastructure we have. We are trying to maintain an awful lot of infrastructure, and we are struggling. It is obviously more difficult and challenging now. Even though we have seen a serious decline in fishing, we still have to maintain the infrastructure. It has to be maintained to a standard whereby it is safe and can be used.

The funding required to maintain it a few decades ago was only a fraction of what is required today because of construction inflation and so on. All of the infrastructure is in complex locations. Any marine construction work is seriously complex, and it is extremely demanding to maintain what we have.

The Deputy mentioned a review of the entirety of the infrastructure. I would certainly suggest that some infrastructure would be identified as being crucial to the fishing industry. Obviously, we have our fishery harbour centres and all of the local authority harbours but maybe it is not necessary to maintain them all to the same standard. Certainly, we should be considering that some of them are in significant locations and require particular investment. We should consider a tiered structure, where we focus on certain fishery harbour centres and local authority fishery centres.

I ask departmental officials to outline the infrastructure projects it plans to fund in Killybegs that will support the fishing industry, as well as those not related to fishing given that the industry is currently in decline.

I am the chief engineer in the marine engineering division of the Department. We have a number of roles but primarily our role as regards the fishery harbour centres is to identify the projects that are crucial into the future. In Killybegs, there are two key projects which are nearing completion and should be completed by the end of this year. One is the Smooth Point project, which has been done on a phased basis over the past number of years. It has delivered over 120 m of additional berthage in the harbour. The other is the development of pontoon infrastructure, which is directed towards new business that seems to be developing in Killybegs involving leisure fishing, angling and the likes. Those facilities will also be used by local clubs, including the rowing club.

Going forward, there are major ambitions for Killybegs in relation to the southern pier extension. That is quite a large project. It is in its infancy in terms of our thought process. The previous Minister funded a cost-benefit analysis report on it. That was done on the basis of catches in 2023 and 2024 which may differ going into the future. It is in our plans, but like every plan that we have, it will be predicated on available funding. We work within an annual programme in the Department. Our budget is annual but certainly on the larger projects, we use what is called a contractual commitment system. If projects are started, they are the first projects that will be funded into the following year. They are the major projects in Killybegs. There are many other smaller issues that we deal with too. For every harbour, we have a safety and maintenance budget which is for things like maintaining ladders, bollards and so on but they are the major projects on our radar at the moment.

That is good. I would like to ask the CCMA whether it is true that funding which could have been allocated to infrastructural investment was not fully drawn down in the past.

I apologise, but I do not have that information to hand.

That is okay.

I will start with Mr. Clancy's final comment. First, what ongoing works in Killybegs are in the final stages?

Second, what is the justification for the southern pier extension at the moment? Mr. Clancy referred to it being based on landings for 2024-25. I wish those were the landings we could anticipate for 2025-26 but from what we are hearing, it does not look like that.

There is also the issue of foreshore licences. Whose responsibility is that? The foreshore licences take so long. Maybe it is rocket science, I do not know. However, I know from Burtonport that the ongoing works there are not necessarily being funded by marine, but by Deputy Calleary's Department. That is a combination of Arranmore and Burtonport. We have been told it is being looked at and will take some time. It is not that alone. Generally speaking, who should we be speaking to about trying to expedite? If the works are in the area of an SAC that takes longer again. We had the RNLI with us and there is an absolute necessity to carry out some emergency works. If it is an SAC, life is not important. Birds and bees in the SAC are more important. It is obviously not the witnesses' responsibility, but if we could be directed, we will invite those people in at a later stage, hopefully in the new year.

I have to admire my county of Donegal, which I am familiar with, and many other coastal counties. I do not think the local authorities there have ever refused grant aid on the basis of a local contribution. However, it is a bit difficult and is putting a lot of pressure on the local authorities. I know that Mr. Kehoe has referred to the 100% funding that will be required for some. We should be thinking of 100% funding for all infrastructure projects on the islands. What is the percentage? Is it the same, or is there flexibility there? We know some works were carried out in places last year, and it was 100% funding. I might be wrong, and I stand to be corrected, about a project in Donegal that was 100% funded. What is the general percentage required? Ms McSherry made a reference to the funding that would be spent this year. I think €4.3 million was announced by the Minister. I am not sure what that is. Will they send us a breakdown, not today but at a later stage? We do not expect them to have all the information here. Our Donegal friend who is now responsible for overall marine in Donegal might have got some assistance recently, and not before time. We should never forget, when we think of infrastructure works, that Roinn na Gaeltachta plays a part as well in providing funds. An application went in to it recently for assistance towards another marine engineer. We will be talking to the Minister, Deputy Calleary, with a view to approving that. Can we perhaps have answers to those few general questions?

I will take the Killybegs questions first, because the Deputy started with them. The key project we are finishing in Killybegs Fishery Harbour Centre this year is the Smooth Point project. It has been done over three phases. Phase 1 dealt with some contaminated material that had to be removed and treated. The second phase built the pier itself. It had a slightly troubled history because the contractor that started it got into financial difficulties, and we had to terminate that contract and engage another contractor to finish it. They finished the works. The section completing this year is a breasting dolphin. What we do in Killybegs with the larger refrigerated seawater, RSW, trawlers is berth them stern on. It gives far more room in the harbour when they are berthed stern on. However, because they are long and big vessels, they need a breasting dolphin to secure them at the bow. That breasting dolphin is complete. As for what we are completing between now and the end of the year, we want to be able to cold iron all the vessels in Killybegs.

It is already on the town pier. It essentially means they can plug into power and water. The vessels there are very large. They are pulling between 70 kVA and 80 kVA. It needs a major power infrastructure. As it has worked well on the town quay, we want to have it on the Smooth Point section too. A lot of the reason for that is there are large vessels - the Deputy probably is aware of it in Killybegs, that berth on what is known as the Blackrock pier. The Blackrock pier was never designed to accommodate the size of vessels that are there. We hope that, between the town pier and the Smooth Point pier that we will have adequate room to accommodate them. On the southern pier extension, the Deputy is right that the work we have done on that so far and any cost-benefit or economic analysis done, was done on the basis of fisheries. It was done on the basis of fisheries landing in 2023. We revised it upwards for 2024. We have not looked at 2025 yet, as we are in 2025, and yes, there is a concern about quotas going forward.

I will take the two questions on consenting and the local authority programme. With regard to consenting from the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, his authority under the Foreshore Act is confined to within the fishery harbour centres and aquaculture, as well as for specific projects with regard to fisheries. All other consenting in the marine space is a matter for the Marine Area Regulatory Authority, MARA. The Deputy asked where it sits. It sits with the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment. The second question related to the breakdown of the €4.3 million local authority marine infrastructure scheme this year. We have that available and can pass it to the Deputy after the meeting, or we can send it through the clerk.

I thank Ms McSherry.

On the question of funding to the local authorities from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the local authority marine infrastructure, LAMI, funding sent over the past two years was received at a rate of 95% versus 5% from the local authorities. We are grateful to the Department for making that change. When that scheme was originally announced it was 75% versus 25% but during the course of the scheme that was increased to 95%. The percentage of funding has since been reduced back to 75% versus 25% for the €4.33 million available this year. We also receive funding from the Department for rural regeneration. That funding is available to us, particularly for the islands. They are currently funding a pier in Galway for €35 million. I understand that is at 100% funding. That €35 million is just for an extension to a pier, and that is the scale of funding required to maintain our piers. That is at 100%. We still require further assistance because getting those projects shovel ready is onerous. For a local authority, having to fund that step of the project is an onerous and demanding task.

Did Mr. Sweeney say that last year the local contribution was reduced to 5% and this year going forward has gone up to 25%? Did he mention 95% and 75%? Maybe I got him wrong.

That was it exactly. Part of the LAMI funding received was at a rate of 95% versus 5% to the local authority. This year, it has gone back to the normal funding programme from the Department of agriculture, which was 75% versus 25%.

Maybe this is for the Department providing the money, but what was the justification to go from 75% to 95% and back again?

I thought that would have been a deterrent. Local authorities are under enough pressure without having to find that extra 20%.

The Brexit adjustment local authority marine infrastructure scheme, BALAMI, funding was for such an unprecedented amount compared to what local authorities had been used to previously, there would have been a difficulty providing matched funding for funding of this scale. If we look at our own county where the typical funding was €500,000 annually, that suddenly went to upwards of €10 million or €15 million. There was obviously going to be a massive contribution required by the council. We welcomed that decision taken at the time by the Department to increase the funding to 95%, leaving the local authority to provide 5%.

I have a couple of questions. We will then go Deputy Mac Lochlainn when he returns as he indicated that he wished to speak. My first set of questions is for the departmental officials. They relate to the requirement that projects, particularly those to improve local authority-owned ports and harbours, be shovel-ready. It does not seem to follow logic. The shovel-ready requirement seems to be an outlier when looking at schemes administered by other Departments where public money is provided on a shared basis to local authorities to conduct different projects. It does not include the preparatory work such as securing appropriate consent, planning permissions, environmental impact assessments and the rest of the licensing required to carry out works. Is that part of the scheme? Is it a diktat or a direction from the Department of public expenditure and reform? I discussed this with Minister of State, Deputy Dooley and I made the political ask that it would be changed. I do not expect the departmental officials to give a political answer. However, where do the underpinnings and criteria behind it originate from? They seem to be totally out of step with other funding models employed across the public service.

The local authority marine infrastructure scheme that we operate is a discretionary funding allocation within the Department. It is capital funding and therefore it must be assigned to capital works on an annual basis. We get our Vote on an annual basis and we have to manage within that. For projects to be shovel-ready, we open the scheme as early in the year as we can on receipt of the Vote and the allocation. We work with local authorities to ensure that they will get the scheme done by the end of the year because we cannot roll over that money. If it is not claimed in the year in hand, the money is lost to the local authority and the Vote. It does not get spent.

In terms of the preparatory work, that is all current spending and takes time. In order for us to ensure the most appropriate and efficient use of the moneys we have to allocate to local authority schemes, it must be ready to go. It must be done within the window and we must be able to pay within the window. That is the rationale behind it. These are capital moneys. They have to be engaged in capital works. It is a single budget. It is not a multi-annual budget. It must be ready to be initiated and completed within the calendar year. That includes us receiving all of the information from the local authority, conducting our due diligence and assurance checks and making those payments.

I understand. I thank Ms McSherry for her response. This may be more of a political point, but it is a false economy in many respects and it is a dysfunctional scheme. Earlier some of our witnesses described the frustration brought about by how difficult it is for local authorities to utilise this scheme. It limits what it can do. I have referred to Cé Heilbhic several times during this meeting. It is a really good example because Waterford City and County Council drew down significant funding over many years under that scheme for very important works, including new breakwater strengthening works and safety improvements. Excellent work has been done yet the fisheries harbour is not fit for purpose because of the lack of dredging. There is a dire need for that as lives and livelihoods are at risk.

The message I want to get across is that the system and the funding scheme need to be looked at again. The scheme ticks a number of boxes but it does not address the multitude of issues raised by fishermen and other users of ports and harbours.

I heard Ms McSherry say very clearly – I heard the Minister say it as well – that local authority-owned ports and harbours are not the responsibility of the Department. I challenge that in the sense that while they might not be under the ownership and control of the Department, certainly the provision and maintenance of safe fishing opportunities for the fishing fleet and the industry as a whole are within the purview of the Minister in particular. While he might not own the infrastructure, I would have thought the development and investment in same are a matter of serious responsibility for him.

In regard to Brexit and the Brexit adjustment reserve, I understand a little over €30 million of that fund was diverted into the local authority ports and harbours. It was a missed opportunity that it was simply plugged into the existing methodology that we have just discussed for disbursing those funds. That meant lots of the long-standing works that were required to take place, for which there was a significant demand, could not fit into it. There was a huge windfall. Extra money was put into the scheme over two years and it could not be availed of by the likes of Waterford City and County Council or other local authorities for the work they thought really needed to be done. I understand €213 million was handed back to the European Commission. How much of the €30 million that was specifically earmarked for local authority ports and harbours was handed back?

The initial allocation was €35 million and that increased to €55.3 million. Over that two-year period, I believe €40.4 million was drawn down, inclusive of VAT. The key issue to reflect on is the Brexit adjustment reserve had very particular terms and conditions and timelines. All the moneys had to be spent by the end of 2023. There was no provision within the regulation to spend beyond that. The Department worked very closely with the local authorities to maximise the drawdown. However, we did have to ensure that the project could be commenced and finished in order to draw the money back from the EU. Over that two-year period, €55.3 million was made available to the local authorities. Mr. Sweeney spoke about the fact that we raised the co-funding amount from 75%, which is the standard over the years for the local authority marine infrastructure scheme, to 95%. That was to enable local authorities to draw down as much as they possibly could. Many of them had consents in place. We were able to process many of the consents quickly. However, as Deputy Gallagher mentioned, one has to go through the assessment process and meet all the environmental requirements in order to gain a consent. The local authorities were faced with that time challenge as well.

In terms of handing money back, the Brexit adjustment reserve was an amount of money we could draw down from for schemes. The Department of public expenditure – I cannot remember the full title – managed the scheme on an overall basis within the Exchequer and we drew down from the scheme. For all the schemes that we had, we maximised the amount that we felt we could realistically draw down and that our stakeholders were in a position to draw down and finalise.

To go back to the point the Chair makes, there was a very finite cut-off point for the time that we could utilise that funding.

I thank Ms McSherry. To confirm, there was €55.3 million in total from the BAR allocated to local authority ports and harbours and €40.4 million was spent. A little under €15 million went unspent.

The issue with a lot of the local authorities that were seeking to make applications was not the time constraint but the money constraint. It was having money upfront to tender for and carry out all the work required to get consents, licences and all the rest. There is a huge level of disappointment across the board within local authorities.

They might not say it outright but, when speaking to engineers, I can see that there is a level of disappointment that the opportunity was not taken and the money, while it was not physically sent back, was not availed of to do the works that needed to be done.

Could I clarify one point?

Yes.

Stage payment processes were made available to local authorities to enable them to manage their cash flow.

Was that for preparatory work such as the licensing and surveying work?

To go back to the original point, the Cathaoirleach's question was if we handed back money. The issue is that we did not draw down the money. We did not have a pot of money, so we did not hand it back. It was available for us to draw down.

On the Cathaoirleach's point that he felt the 5% co-funding was a strain on local authorities, stage payment processes were put in place for local authorities in order to enable them manage their cash flow.

What I am trying to establish is whether Ms McSherry is telling me that there was a facility where credit of some kind or staged payments was available to local authorities to carry out the preparatory work, specifically licensing and survey work. That is where the issue lies, in particular with the case I am talking about in Cé Helvick, but in lots of other cases as well, because the preparatory work costs far in excess of the actual dredging or other work that takes place. Therein lies the problem with this scheme. That is the nub of the issue.

This is a capital scheme and those preparatory works are current. I know that might sound-----

Jesuitical.

-----discrete, but they are the rails within which we operate in terms of funding.

I understand that. I am veering into the political now. I do not wish the witnesses to offer a political opinion or anything like that but my political sense of it is that the scheme needs to be reformed, as it is dysfunctional and it is not fit for purpose for those precise reasons.

I have run out of time. I am not good at chairing myself. I thank the local government sector and our three witnesses in particular for their really comprehensive statement. I concur with all the points they make in it. Multi-annual funding is crucially important. Recognising the lack of in-house expertise and technical knowledge within the local authority sector is an important detail. Some of the witnesses we had in the first part of the meeting made the point that there could be some kind of a shared services system that is already a tried and tested model in the local government sector, but for marine infrastructure. Is a shared services model for managing that expertise and knowledge something the witnesses have discussed or would be interested in pursuing?

It is not one that has been discussed so far but it is something we will bring back and see if it might work. I will talk to my colleagues in the coastal authorities about that at committee level.

County Meath, famously, does not have a long coastline.

I will be a bit Donegal for a moment and acknowledge Mr. Sweeney. I thank him for the excellent job he does with the resources and challenges he has. He is respected by the communities he works with.

The presentation from the local authority County and City Management Association is excellent in understanding the challenges. The vast majority of the State's piers and harbours are under the control of local authorities.

I ask that the presentations from IIMRO and NIFA, the organisations representing inshore fishermen and island fishermen, be circulated to the local authority witnesses and to the Department. There clearly is significant room for improvement in terms of a basic safety audit of all piers and harbours. One of the persons who attended the initial session showed me a photograph of a pier submerged in water. A fisherman would have to swim out to get to his boat.

A tiny minority, of course, would be that serious but we all know of issues with cranes, lifts and ladders. People should be able to come safely off their boat and lift their fish onto the pier or harbour across the State. I want to get the views of both the Department and the CCMA on an audit of all piers and harbours to get a sense of where we are at - the big picture from up in the helicopter - and a full sense of what is going on out there, and then to have a national programme to address this. I would like to get the witnesses' feedback on that.

I can address that. I will speak from a Galway perspective in terms of my experience and knowledge. We had a significant audit carried out probably 20 years ago at this stage. We updated that recently. We have a pretty good handle on all of our piers and harbours and the condition and status of those piers and harbours. I would refer back to what Mr. Sweeney said earlier about maybe tiering the piers and harbours within the local authorities from a funding perspective. There are piers that might not be in great condition but are very lightly used, maybe with little or no fishing from them, whereas other ones are in need of significant investment. The funding mechanism is the same irrespective. Some of the larger piers would benefit from a strategic look, given the larger piers and harbours would need funding in excess of the limits that are on the BALAMI scheme, whereas for other ones, the BALAMI scheme is appropriate. In answer to the Deputy's question, a national audit would be helpful. It is always good to have a comprehensive audit. However, I would not see that as being something that is the major deficit. I think-----

Why? If there is a pier where a fisherman would have to swim out - by the way, I am not suggesting this is in Galway; Mr. Prendergast cannot speak with authority for the entire State - then why would a comprehensive audit of all piers and harbours across the State under the auspices of the Department not help?

There is no reason it would not help. Of course, it would be beneficial, but I think we have a reasonably good handle on the issues that are there. That is not to say our piers and harbours do not need significant investment; they do. An audit may help. It will add to the information base that we have. However, that information base is not necessarily problematic from the experience I have. That would be my view. Obviously, however, if there was investment in a national audit, which would give us a better and more up-to-date picture, then we would certainly avail of that and see that as being beneficial.

Similarly, the second-last audit that was carried out in Donegal was in 1999. That was from an economic perspective and it looked at the 153 piers and harbours throughout the county. It was a very detailed report. It talked about the economic investment, what works and where development-wise we are required to bring them up to standard.

I in 2017 and 2018, we carried out a safety review of all of our piers and harbours. That identified a number of the types of issues the Deputy just mentioned. It made a whole list of recommendations and we followed up with those recommendations. We drew down capital funding to carry out measures that were identified in that review. That was in 2018. Since that, and before that as well, what we rely on are just visual inspections carried out periodically by our outdoor staff, harbourmasters, engineers and so on. As the Deputy will be aware as well, we have the communication with most of our harbour users. They all have an open line to us. As soon as defects are identified, they are raised and brought to our attention. We do get to them fairly quickly, particularly where there are safety concerns.

Would a national audit be of benefit? Yes, it certainly would. It would be even from an economic perspective as well as from a safety point of view to identify those harbours that need particular attention - for example, in the Deputy's own locality in Greencastle and Glengad - where there is a large amount of fishing activity and where they need substantial investment. Therefore, yes, I do agree.

In terms of the Department's response to the proposal for a national audit, to be clear, I am not talking about a huge amount of money spent on economic appraisals and all that. I am talking about basic health and safety audits to make sure the piers and harbours are workable for people.

One thing that infuriates me is the issue of dredging of piers and harbours and the absolute bureaucracy people have to go through. It is just shocking. This is the basic safe maintenance of a pier or harbour. Until recent times, two or three Departments were involved in the process. It was the Department with responsibility for planning, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and possibly the Department of the environment and climate too. I just want to get a sense of the Departments involved. Obviously, the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, now is in play in having to deal with this. How do we fast-track permission to dredge a pier or harbour so people can access it and leave it safely?

Those are two questions then on a national audit and the whole issue of how we can tidy up the bureaucracy and give people permission to keep these places safe.

I will take the second one first. As the Department and the operators of the fishery harbour centres, we are subject to the same consenting requirements to dredge as every other party in the country who wishes to dredge. The length of time is a source of frustration for us. I will ask Mr. Clancy to perhaps speak a little more to the experience we have had, particularly in Howth, and the impact it has had on our ability to get consent to dredge.

The second question was about an audit of local authority-owned piers and harbours. To be frank, Minister, the local authority-owned piers and harbours-----

I was enjoying that for a second.

Carry on.

I apologise, Deputy.

That is no problem.

To be frank, this Department does not own those piers and harbours and it would be remiss of me to suggest that we would engage in an audit of them. What we do respond to on an annual basis are the requests from the local authorities. The Deputy mentioned specifically cranes, lifts and ladders. They are things that we fund. When we go out with the scheme on an annual basis, the local authorities have done their assessments and made the prioritisations, and they submit their projects in a prioritised fashion. Then, we allocate the funding that is available to us. We are not guaranteed funding every year. We are not guaranteed the same level of funding every year. However, we are in a position to aid those local authorities. The prioritisation and identification of those needs are a matter for the local authority. Sometimes we are in a position. Mr. Sweeney spoke to the BALAMI scheme and Donegal. Donegal was obviously very badly impacted by Brexit. However, we were able to assist Donegal and fund them to the tune of €25 million over two years. That has made a significant impact on those piers and harbours there, but we do not have that opportunity of the Brexit adjustment reserve fund every year.

I will ask Mr. Clancy to take the Deputy through the dredging challenge.

Howth would be our case in point as regards the dredging experience and so forth. Any fishermen who use Howth have had a problem, particularly going into the trawler base now over the last number of years. The harbourmaster is restricting the size of vessels coming in there. I recognise that the committee had representatives from the RNLI at the previous session. Howth is one of their bases and we have a problem maintaining a clear exit from the harbour for them as well. On where the dredging is Howth is at, it is approximately three, going on four, years since we started on what I would call the dredging journey. We applied for planning permission to dredge the material and then rather than export it all to Sutton to a tip or whatever, our plan was to reuse it and extend the pier, which we felt was the more climate-friendly solution.

On the planning application, we were successful in getting planning but it was appealed and it went to the board, as it was at the time. We got planning permission from An Bord Pleanála in August 2024 but to reuse the material, we need a waste licence from the EPA. It speaks to what the Deputy is talking about that the EPA cannot really consider that until the planning is in place and that kicks off another process. We are waiting for the outcome of that waste licence and then we will be starting. It is three or four years in a process in a harbour that is severely restricted at the moment and possibly approaching health and safety issues with the RNLI. It is a concern we would share. I am not sure it is within my remit to deal with it but I would welcome if anything could be done with it.

If I may add something to that, the Deputy asked was there a process under way to try and streamline and enhance it. It is something that we have contributed to. There is a project under way with the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, which is looking at infrastructure consents and trying to streamline those. We would have fed in our own feedback. Mr. Clancy's work involves a large amount of civil engineering and he is au fait with the process. We would have brought to their attention some of our experiences and some of the thoughts we had on how to resolve those. That is ongoing work with the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation.

I thank Ms McSherry.

Sin deireadh ár gcruinniú. Everybody who indicated has had an opportunity to speak. That brings us to a conclusion in terms of the discussion for this meeting. I thank all our witnesses for being here, for their contributions and for answering our questions forthrightly. I thank the members, as always, for their conduct in the meeting and for their contributions as well.

With all that said, the meeting stands adjourned. As a reminder for those who joined us a little later, we are meeting tomorrow in private session at 11 a.m. via Microsoft Teams as we have a lot of housekeeping to do.