I have received apologies from Deputy Charles Ward.

Before we begin, I want to bring to members' attention the note on privilege. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by members outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings. Members are reminded of their obligations 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.

The topic of today's meeting is the Revised Estimates for public expenditure, Vote 29 - Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment, and Vote 30 - Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We are joined by the Minister of State, an Teachta Dála Timmy Dooley, who is attending this meeting in an ex officio capacity in substitution for the Minister for agriculture, Deputy Martin Heydon, and the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment, Deputy Darragh O'Brien. From the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment, the Minister of State is joined by Mr. Jim Whelan, head of finance, and Mr. Joe Gallagher, and from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, he is joined by Ms Sinéad McSherry and Ms Siobhán Dowling. I remind members that while the Minister of State may call on those officials to speak briefly for clarification purposes during the meeting where a specific or technical point arises, the Minister of State is the witness whereas the officials are not. The officials can clarify issues for the committee but any follow-up questions from members should be put to the Minister of State directly, as he is the accountable person before the committee.

We have two Votes and it might be expeditious if we were to take both of them together and have both the statements at once. When we open the floor to questions and answers, we can take questions on both Votes, if the Minister of State is agreeable to that. The Minister of State can take as long as he needs to go through the two statements.

I thank the committee for affording us an opportunity as part of the Revised Estimates process to set out in more detail what was announced in the budget, to deal with the five subheads under programme C of the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment; and to deal with the subheads under programme D of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. In the first instance, I will deal with Vote 29 on the climate energy side and then just proceed from that to Vote 30.

The 2026 Estimates in respect of subheads C8 on foreshore, C9 on marine spatial planning, C10 on the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, C11 on the planning advisory and C12 on marine environment have increased by €1.44 million, or 7%, over the 2025 allocation.

The total gross provision for the Department in 2026 is just under €1.068 billion, comprising €834.9 million in capital funding and €233 million in current. This level of funding reflects the significant scale of ambition in Ireland’s transition to a climate-neutral and circular economy society. The Department’s 2026 Estimate represents an 8% increase over last year’s allocation.

For the purposes of the Select Committee on Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, I will now outline the key priorities across the circular economy programme areas insofar as they are relevant to the committee. Over €156 million is allocated to programme C, circular economy development, an increase in funding of 14% on the 2025 allocation. Of this, just over €22 million is allocated to those five subheads, which equate to 15% of the overall allocation for programme C.

A total of €1.67 million is provided to support the regulation of the Irish foreshore as part of the public estate through the assessment and management of the remaining elements of the foreshore regulatory process under the Foreshore Act 1933 as they pertain to the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment.

Just under €2.23 million is provided for the ongoing implementation of marine spatial planning for Ireland to deliver an integrated, responsive and sustainable marine governance system that supports Ireland’s environmental, energy, economic and security objectives. Some €9.6 million is provided for the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, the regulator for the maritime area. This is a slight reduction on the 2025 allocation, as one-off capital fit-out costs were included in the 2025 allocation, costs that obviously do not recur this year. This funding will support the agency to deliver on its remit through assessing maritime area consent applications for the maritime area, granting marine licensing for specified activities, conducting investigations and prosecutions, and enforcing maritime area consents, licenses and offshore development consents. Some €250,000 is provided for the marine planning advisory area, a technical support function in the Department that manages all aspects of interactions with the planning system. The area provides advice to all policy units in the areas of planning and associated environmental assessment implementation of marine spatial planning for Ireland.

Finally, €8.32 million is provided for the marine environment. This function transferred to our Department from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage in late 2025 to create a better alignment and concentration of the marine functions in one Department. The 2026 allocation represents an increase of €2.59 million over 2025. This funding will support a range of measures that deliver on Ireland’s commitments to implement the marine strategy framework directive; the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, the OSPAR treaty; and Ireland’s own national marine environment legislation, including forthcoming legislation on marine protected areas. I have outlined this legislation to the committee before. Our ambition is to have 30% of our sea area under the marine protection legislation that we hope to enact shortly.

I am happy to take questions on the Revised Estimates for the five programme C subheads. We will do that after I address the subheads under programme D of the Revised Estimates 2026 for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

I will take this opportunity to highlight the importance of the seafood sector to coastal communities across Ireland. The seafood sector consists of over 2,000 fishing vessels and aquaculture sites and supports over 16,800 direct and indirect jobs in coastal communities. The Chairman will be very familiar with those communities. I have had the opportunity to meet him in an area he knows well. The sector is essential to these coastal communities, most of which are rural. In 2024, it was worth €1.24 billion, accounting for 6% of coastal employment, with Irish seafood exports valued at almost €600 million in 2024, an 8% increase on 2023. As Minister of State, it is my priority to ensure that the substantial commitments outlined in the programme for Government are achieved over the lifetime of this Government, and I look forward to engaging with committee members on this, as we have done in recent months.

The Revised Estimate the committee is considering today provides more detail on last October’s budget. This budget was directed at supporting the seafood sector by continuing the important supports delivered to the sector by the marine agencies of the Department but also at enabling the continued development of the seafood and fisheries industry. For 2026, the total Exchequer contribution to the Vote of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine amounts to €2.316 billion. This comprises €1.98 billion in current expenditure and €336.6 million in capital expenditure. The capital allocation excludes carryover of €29.091 million in capital funding from 2025. When appropriations-in-aid are considered, the 2026 net vote is estimated at €1.817 billion. The 2026 Vote provides the Department with resources to address the many challenges the seafood sector faces and with the ability to deliver on the opportunities that exist across the sector.

The contribution to programme D, which relates to the seafood sector of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine’s Vote, amounts to €157.7 million, comprising almost €104 million in current expenditure and almost €54 million in capital expenditure. I will only be focusing today on programme D, which relates to the seafood sector. My colleague, the Minister, Deputy Heydon, presented the other three programmes under Vote 30 to the select committee on agriculture earlier this afternoon.

This seafood funding will continue to provide existing supports across key capital infrastructure projects in our fishery harbour centres and the seafood development programme as well as support the essential work carried out by our marine agencies towards the economic and environmental sustainability of the seafood sector in addition to meeting our obligations to the EU under the Common Fisheries Policy. To support that ambition, the €157.7 million allocated to programme D will continue to support the fisheries, aquaculture and seafood sector. This funding will: provide for the environmentally sustainable development of fisheries, aquaculture and the wider seafood industry; enable the acceleration of the measures being funded under the seafood development programme; continue vital investment in the fishery harbour centres; and provide necessary funding to the marine agencies whose activities support the fishing and seafood sector. In the longer term, the investment builds on the essential foundations already laid for a more productive, sustainable and economically viable fishing sector.

Provision has been made in 2026 to fund the continued implementation of the seafood development programme and to ensure we fully access and utilise the EU funding available to us under the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, EMFAF, for the period from 2021 to 2027. This will support the important work undertaken by our agencies to support the economic and environmental sustainability of our seafood sector and ensure that vital funding supports to industry will continue to be available in 2026. The marine agencies have maintained their 2025 allocation and have received a small increase due to pay agreements. Bord Iascaigh Mhara received additional funds this year to implement schemes under the EMFAF funding. This is to ensure that, as we provide the necessary funding, the board maximises its capacity to draw down European funding. That explains the increase this year.

As the Chairman and members of the committee will know, the seafood sector is facing serious challenges in the years ahead following the outcome of the 2026 fishing opportunities negotiations in Brussels in December last year. The Minister, Deputy Heydon, and I have established a seafood sector group under the auspices of Food Vision 2030 to develop a framework of supports to address the challenges currently facing the sector. A first meeting of this group took place on 16 February. I will be frank and say that further support mechanisms will be required for the seafood sector when the Food Vision seafood sector group has completed its work and made recommendations for supports. That is obviously not included in this Revised Estimate.

This is a brief overview of the measures provided in the Revised Estimate to support the seafood sector for 2026. I will try to answer any questions arising across either of the two areas to the best of my ability. If I do not have all the details available, I will be happy to provide them to the committee at a later stage.

I thank the Minister of State for going through those subheads comprehensively but quite quickly. We will open the floor to questions. Would Deputy Scanlon like to put any questions?

The provisional outturn for the fisheries area in 2025 was €37.125 million. In the Revised Estimate, that is down to €32.627 million. Is that the result of fish quotas being cut? Why is there such a reduction there, particularly when fishers are struggling to survive?

Will the Deputy give me that question again? It is on the fisheries side.

It is subhead D3.

I thought that might be it. The Department had a total a capital carryover of €29 million. This is on the first page of the document we have prepared.

Looking at 2025 versus 2026, the last panel is application of deferred surrender. Some moneys were unused last year and we were allowed to carry those over. Effectively, these are moneys from last year that are not included in this year's Vote per se. These are moneys of some €7 million that have been ring-fenced, which go towards our investment in harbours. A figure of €20 million has been allocated under D.3, which is fisheries. In 2025, we had a total of €37 million, comprising €10 million in current and €26 million in capital. This year, we have €12 million in current as opposed to €10 million, which is a slight increase, and we only show €20 million on the capital, as opposed to €26.34 million last year. That is now accounted for by an additional €7 million added to that, which are moneys we carried over. We had the benefit of that extra €7 million, so we only needed to augment that with €20 million from this year's budget to make up the €27 million to keep us in line with last year.

I assure the Deputy that for the projects identified in the Department for which we sought funding, we have that money available to us. It is based on some savings from last year, which is a standard procedure that is used where we can carry over a certain amount of that money.

I thank the Cathaoirleach; my apologies for being late. I will get into the issue of the task force led by Michael Berkery. One of the key challenges for the State will be how we financially compensate the industry in the time ahead to help it get through this period - we dealt with this at length yesterday in the Dáil - in terms of the challenge of engagement with our European counterparts and third parties to try to resolve the overfishing that continues. Mackerel is of particular concern. I want to get a sense of this. Whatever about the Estimates the Department would have planned anyway in a normal year, is there an additional parcel of funding that the Minister for public expenditure and the Taoiseach would agree to, as recommended by Michael Berkery? I want to thrash that around with the Minister of State.

I fully understand that. I will not go back into the history of the establishment of the thing. The Deputy is very familiar with it and has been on this every day it has arisen in the Dáil. What I expect to happen is that the task force will receive submissions from the various parties. As a result of the first meeting, the chairman has written to the various interested parties and asked for submissions by next Monday, 2 March. They are working on that. It might be a little tight for some but we will show flexibility there. That is going towards our next task force meeting, which will take place on 23 March, or maybe earlier. I am not sure as I heard two different days but we will confirm that to the committee. In any event, my expectation is that there will be, at some point, an ask from Mr. Berkery by way of a chair's report. It will set out a series of measures that I suspect may not all relate to this Department. It may have issues in relation to the Departments of social welfare and rural affairs, or it may have demands of elsewhere. I am very clear, however, that if we are to make good on our commitments, we are going to have to find additional resources outside the remit of this Department.

In reference to Deputy Scanlon's question, moneys that were unspent last year were carried over. That may well be the case this year, so it may be a combination of moneys that are unused and moneys that are further required. That will come at a later stage in the year, but I am very clear that this budget and these Estimates do not include anything towards addressing the significant loss to the sector, or the challenge put to the sector, as a result of the reduced fishing opportunities for the year ahead. How we will ultimately fund that is yet to be decided. We need to understand what the quantum is, what is realisable from a state aid rules perspective, what we can look at in terms of capital supports and what we can do through other Departments. That will have to be thrashed out and will be a debate the Deputy and I will have later on.

One of the questions that arose in the context of the first meeting, part of which I had the opportunity of attending, was whether it is going to be like the Brexit adjustment reserve fund, whether there would be a quantum of money, and whether we could tell people what it will be so they can figure out what to do with it. Unfortunately, that is not the case. It is to try to assess, to the greatest extent possible, the loss resulting from this and then not necessarily how we can replace that loss but how we can mitigate, to the greatest extent possible, in a manner that helps to get the fleet through that difficult transitionary period while we go through that conservation phase on the other side.

I said to the Minister of State, during an exchange at Question Time, that if we had spoken to inshore fishermen five years ago it would have been different. I spoke to a lot of them at piers and harbours around the country. I talked to them about the likes of the single farm payment that was available to farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy. It occurred to me that financial supports may be helpful, but I always got the push-back that fishermen just wanted to fish. That was always the mentality but we now hear their organisations coming forward saying that they need a fund. That needs to be thrashed around, which it will be at the task force. I am looking at it from a policy perspective. There has been a serious change. I am not hearing fishermen around the country asking what those guys in the National Inshore Fisherman's Association, NIFA, are doing talking about this. There is now a realisation that while they still want to fish and maximise their opportunities in a sustainable way, there will have to be some support. That support would be long term.

It is not perfect but I welcome the principle of the basic income for artists, for example. That might be a model. I understand there is no provision in the Common Fisheries Policy for something like the single farm payment and it would be a challenge in terms of state aid. I do not want a definitive response from the Minister of State today. I just want to flag it, have the dialogue with him and ask him to think about this; he may need to look at something similar to the basic income for artists. What we are talking about, and he knows this because he represents a coastal county, is a noble tradition. This is a tradition that goes back hundreds of years. I have met with inshore fisherman. One stays with me, in a certain part of the country. He told me, and the other guy with him was the same, that they fish single-handedly, which is not great practice but they had no choice. There is no future for his son and there is nothing there any more. His family had fished for hundreds of years in their community, and he just broke down.

We never want to live in a world without artists. Artists give us joy and speak to our soul but, sadly, it is very hard to earn a living. Similarly, inshore fishermen are so crucial to those piers and harbours. The Minister of State knows them and knows the terrain as it sweeps down into a wee pier; there are small piers all around the country. It would be a really wonderful thing to do. There is a lot of thrashing around to be done, and a lot of costings and measurements, but socially, and this would be tremendously popular with Irish people, we should get to the point where we give a level of support that allows them to fish sustainably..

The joint committee talked about crayfishing yesterday. There is the challenge of the tangle net and the by-catch. The fishermen were trying to come forward with solutions working with the Marine Institute and the Department, but a big help for that would be to have a degree of financial support that allows them to breathe. I get a sense that quite a few of the problems we face are that they just cannot breathe.

The Minister of State knows this; he is talking to them. They are keeping the wolf away from the door. The mortgage, the payments on the boat or whatever it might be have to be met. I just want to have a dialogue with the Minister of State today to hear from him that he is open to it and that the dialogue will continue. He carries responsibility for this. It is such a crisis and there was such bad faith in the big picture by member states that should have known better that we just need to be imaginative and get our people through this period. I have some other questions around other aspects of the Minister of State’s brief other than fisheries in a second.

I thank the Deputy. I am at one with him in terms of recognising the crisis that is faced. It is probably a crisis that has faced the inshore fishermen for quite some time. What we have tried to do, and I was not the first to try to do it but I was anxious that we would expedite it as much as possible, was to remove the larger vessels inside 6 nautical miles. That was to give the inshore fishermen a shot at catching the sprat in a more sustainable way. It was not done from a conservation perspective because there was no threat to the sprat as such. Some have a different view on that but the science suggests there is an abundance of it. I was anxious that we would do it as an economic measure to support the inshore fishermen. I understand we are going to be challenged in the courts on it but I have been resolute in the past that we will not shirk our responsibility and we will fight this to the nth degree in the courts. We are putting the weight of the State behind it because we believe in those coastal communities and in the multiplicity and diversity of that fleet. It is not just the preserve of a small number. I can understand why those who would seek to challenge it are challenging it from their perspective, but we have to be fair about how we allocate the resources and what is in the best interests of the greatest number of people. That is what I am motivated by in this.

There are challenges arising from the increased cost of mackerel as a result of the scarcity and reduced quotas. That is putting pressure on the inshore fishermen for bait, etc. Some of those who will be catching with hook and line will have had some upside in the sense that the price for mackerel has gone up considerably because of the scarcity. There is a little benefit for them there but I am not blinded by that at all - I know the challenges. I was very anxious that the task force would take into consideration their concerns too. Even though they are not major pelagic players, they have impacts and they have been there for a while. That is why I wanted to ensure that the broadest possible voice would be on that. Therefore, in additional to its national federation, we have included a representation from each of the regional groups, which I think they would accept is a positive from their perspective. Of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the outcome of that. Support for them will be more medium and long term rather than an immediate response. While they will need an immediate response, they will need broader support. While I do not want to be prescriptive at this stage, the Deputy was talking about continued support because of their intrinsic linkage to communities. There are opportunities too and they need support in transitioning. Whatever about their opportunities in relation to catching species that are no longer there, there might be opportunities in the future if we can manage through revision of the CFP to get a bluefin tuna quota at some point, for example. That is an opportunity they would relish, and there are others. There is movement of species as a result of climate change as well. That is challenging us on the top because they are moving into colder waters, but those that can manage in more ambient temperatures are moving from southern areas as well, so there may be opportunities there. However, that would involve a revision of the CFP.

There are opportunities posed by offshore renewables. There are also difficulties because some of the areas that may or may not be identified at a later stage may be on traditional fishing grounds that will impact on where stock ultimately will move to and so on - that is a vexed position we are working through with the seafood ORE group - but there may be opportunities there. Their big skill in addition to targeting fish is that they are very good mariners. They understand the waters and the skill set required; they are boat people. I think there will be opportunities there as well. We have to look at all of that. When you talk to fishermen, they say, “Yes, that’s great but when’s that happening?” It does not pay what they owe on the boat or put diesel in it today, or petrol for those still caught on petrol, and it certainly does not educate the kids. If we are talking about 2030, 2032 or 2033 and longer to 2040 – on the other side of the House, we talk about climate targets, which are really important – telling a fisherman that there will be a great opportunity here in seven or eight years’ time, when they have two kids in the final stages of primary school and they are looking at secondary school and college, they will say that does not butter the parsnips. I get that. We have to look at how we help them through that period as well because I am very conscious that we do not want to lose that skill set. I see the use of that skill set at a time not too far away, but it is about how we get there and putting in place all the caveats about state aid rules and the kinds of supports etc., but the Taoiseach made it very clear to us in the very early stages of this that we should not be shy about muscling in and pushing into the Commission on this. It is a recognition that the state of the stock is such that we have to put that out front and centre and suggest we have to find a way to transition. No other industry will have had to suffer such a dramatic hit at that particular point.

Statements are great but the devil is in the detail. That is why I am conscious we have to get this task force report. There will be a lot of work to do domestically and at European level thereafter. The Deputy’s input will be central to that, as will Deputy Scanlon’s. Deputy Scanlon knows it well too. From his’s county’s perspective, there are small-scale fishermen and women whose livelihoods depend on it. Dare I say it, they are a dying breed in terms of numbers. While we are a coastal county in Clare, there are only a small number now who are largely involved in the small-scale activity, which was much greater at one stage. We are conscious of that. I am very understanding and receptive of the points the Deputy is making.

We had a very good session some weeks back on marine protected areas. A consensus is emerging which is probably being helped by the offshore renewable energy seafood task force, chaired by Captain McCabe. A welcome acceptance is emerging that we do need to have marine protected areas but on the basis of cocreation. It would not be a case of stating to the various stakeholders, “Here is what we are going to do about marine protected areas" and asking fishermen what the think about that. They would be around the table. It was very interesting that all the environmental campaign groups that have long sought for us to meet our 30% by 2030 targets were very clear that co-creation was the way to do that. I know the Minister of State is looking at the DMAPS model that has emerged. We made mistakes on the east coast. We got the balance badly wrong and ended up with protracted conflict and legal challenges, judicial reviews and so on. That can be avoided. From an Estimates point of view, the Minister of State will introduce the legislation later in the year and hopefully we can get it passed, and then we go to the implementation phase. It probably will not kick in as much as a financial challenge this year but it is a case of looking around the corner. In particular, the Minister of State will need to resource the oversight of these areas, which will be a big challenge, to make sure that what has been agreed is enforced.

When the Minister of State has the buy-in from the fishermen, there will be a challenge there moving forward. I want to get a sense of the Minister of State's plan around all of that.

There are two aspects to that. There is the identification of the zones that will be defined as marine protected areas, as the Deputy rightly identified. We are working our way through the legislation and at this stage, I believe there will be an amendment to the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021. The plan is to use the DMAP tool as a methodology to define those locations. I have been very clear that identifying an area as a marine protected area should not be give that area a title that excludes everything. We have to understand in those areas what it is we are protecting. If we are protecting something, as defined, what else can reside there with it? It should not necessarily exclude. It might exclude bottom trawling, but it may not exclude mid trawling. It might protect a sea grass or some other characteristic on the seabed that could still be maintained while having some other device there, whether that be a fixed bottom wind turbine to generate electricity or some other, yet to be defined piece of kit for generating electricity. It is what can work in harmony. In the first instance, it is about what it is we are trying to protect, and then what can still reside there at the same time as providing that protection. There is certainly a belief that putting certain structures on the seabed, for example, bottom tethered wind turbines, can create a shelf and that affords an opportunity for other sea elements to reside around it. It can be helpful in generating a recovery of some aspects that may have been lost heretofore.

That is the first thing, and it will be a challenge, potentially, with regard to fishermen. We have commitments that we have to meet in that respect, however. It is also challenging because defining a marine protected area means it will not generate any income. On the other hand, the challenge with the seafood offshore renewable energy working group is that there is significant potential for financial gain for developers who seek to put turbines or whatever else in a particular zone. In addition, there is funding available for community gain, as there is on land.

If the fishermen see they are being excluded, they rightly have to be compensated. There are various models in place in other jurisdictions, which are more advanced than this jurisdiction, that have been somewhat successful or less successful depending on which side one looks at. As the Deputy knows, the seafood ORE working group is working on this. It has done a lot of good work, but I feel, and I hope I am not speaking out of class here, that the next phase of that needs to come to fruition. That probably requires arbitration. As is said about peace talks or talks generally, people need to get into the tunnel of resolution, conciliation and facilitation. At this stage, the broad principles have been established as regards where everybody resides here. When I talk to the fishing community, fishers want to see the colour of the money. They want to understand what the impact of this will be for them in the longer term and what the potential losses are.

On the other hand, the offshore renewable people want to know what the cost will be for them. We have to get to a point where we understand what the costs are for both sides, in other words, the cost of the potential dislocation for the seafood sector and the cost for the other side. There is a bit to go there. That is where the issue will get resolved and it is why the working group was established. A lot of really good work has been done. Captain Robert McCabe has done a great job. I met him recently and he is still very engaged and involved. This is going to be difficult, but we need to get there. The way to through the next piece is to get people into the tunnel, have the arbitration and move on. I hope that answers the Deputy's question.

My final question is on piers and harbours. As the Minister of State knows, six harbours are under the control of the State. The rest are under the control of local authorities. There was a period when, under the Brexit adjustment reserve, BAR, resources were available to the Government to start to address some of the underinvestment in this area. I appreciate the Minister of State is directly responsible for only six harbours, but is there an audit or spreadsheet of piers and harbours, a local authority wish-list, if you like, that gives the Minister of State a picture of them? I can only speak with authority about my county. Progress was made in a number of areas as a result of the BAR. That was very welcome, but there are still challenges. I want to get a sense of the dialogue the Minister of State has with the local authorities. They will have obviously submitted applications under the BAR at the time. Maybe a lot of work was done through that process, but I would like to get a picture of what remains to be done and how the Minister of State can assist local authorities to get that sorted out.

I am very conscious that there is a significant need from the State's perspective, the detail of which I will get into in a minute. In terms of responsibilities, I do not want to speak out of turn or encroach in another Minister's area. I am not putting this on the record to divest myself of responsibility. Ownership resides with local authorities which are funded principally through the Department of housing. As such, responsibility resides there. We will move backwards now because I have been given responsibility, as a Minister of State in two Departments, to try to bring some coherence to the notion of a virtual Department of the marine. We succeeded in getting responsibility for the marine environment section transferred into the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment. As such, we have that area across two Departments, with more coherence.

We use the funding from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to provide some support for the smaller piers and harbours in local authorities. This year, €4.3 million was allocated for that in the Estimates. We have a scheme in place, involving small amounts of money. I think it provides funding of 75% of €275,000, so it amounts to €100,000 or €150,000 per scheme. It is small in scale. It is just about keeping places safe. A lot of small boats operate out of these harbours so the scheme will provide security, buoys, ladders and those sorts of things. Sometimes it covers floating pontoons. This work is done over a number of years. Local authorities that are proactive are doing really well because they are getting a churn every year. They get an allocation, which might be only €30,000 this year but it might be €70,000 next year. The combination of payments over five years means they get a lot of work done, with engineers and so on being engaged.

I was with the Cathaoirleach in Helvick recently. I have also received significant representations from the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, and others in that area who continue to raise these issues. We do not have a fund per se for that. Rather than walk away from it, what I have asked my adviser is to engage with two other Ministries. The first is the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, which has some capital moneys. We are also looking at Fáilte Ireland, which has some capital moneys for marine tourism. I am giving the Deputy my early stage thoughts on this. I have no approval for this, but I am thinking in terms of policy development and a committee is a good place to talk about that. I would like to try to bring together a number of Departments which have responsibility in certain areas, in spirit at least. If we take Fáilte Ireland, there is marine leisure.

With regard to the Department of rural affairs, these areas are all in rural communities and then there is my Department from a fishing perspective, albeit small scale. I was in Rossaveal last week and I met people from Cleggan. We own part of the harbour there. The local authority owns the other. One is saying that we divest ourselves and responsibility as well and let the local authority figure it out. I have a view on that. All we are doing is divesting ourselves, but there is still going to be an expectation that somehow the State has to fund it. I am of a mind to hold on to our part and try to find a way to collectively find a pool of money at Government level. None of these harbours are commercially viable on their own. The one in Cleggan has a couple of fishing boats. It is small scale and will not generate enough money to do anything. We can fund that for small-scale stuff.

There is a ferry that goes out to Inishbofin. That is critical to the people of Inishbofin. The lads showed me pictures that indicate it is dangerous there at different tides. We have to find a way to address that. I do not want say this is not my responsibility or it is no one's responsibility. If we can find a way to get collective responsibility and get it delivered, let us do that. That might also form part of a submission to the task force. An outcome from that may be that we identify a co-mingled fund across Departments. My officials are starting to look at me here now-----

They are writing furiously there.

-----particularly Ms Dowling who minds the purse. She never thought we were going here today.

For completeness, I am just giving the committee my thinking in this area. It is far from a proposal, but it reflects an effort to identify where there is key infrastructure that we do not want to see crumble. There is a harbour on Achill Island, at Purteen, that I visited recently. It is in a very poor state and a chunk of it may fall into the sea during the next storm. When it falls in, everybody will be jumping up and down. In fairness to the local councillor down there, Paul McNamara, he has been touch with me to say he is an engineer and understands this. This is not a big vote-getter for anybody, but if we allow it to fall into the sea, it will be gone. Some leisure craft come into that harbour as well and it is also part of a tourism offering. There are some fishermen there too and they could probably find somewhere else to come in. That is not the point, though. The point is we do not want to let key infrastructure effectively be washed into the Atlantic Ocean.

I am anxious to find a solution to this over time, one that looks at our marine infrastructure around our coastline, some of which has been there for hundreds of years. It would be a shame to see it fall. Members of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, RNLI, cannot get to their craft at a certain time, and our scheme does not meet it. I can walk away and say, "Sorry, our scheme doesn't meet it", or I could decide to look at a scheme collectively through something else. I apologise for going on a bit long there.

This is an important conversation. I am conscious the Minister of State covers two Department now, and rightly so. As he knows, trying to get dredging done at a pier and harbour is exasperating because you have to deal with two or three Departments and talk to council engineers. This is an issue of health and safety. I appreciate that dealing with the marine environment is not straightforward. It can be very convoluted. I encourage that dialogue across Departments and co-operation in the marine space. The Minister of State's very role is an example of co-operation across Departments on the marine space and having a joined-up approach. The committee will continue to engage with the Minister of State. As my party spokesperson, I will also engage with him in different ways. We need to know that if it is the case that the committee has expressed a desire to advance a certain set of objectives, but the Minister of State is limited in his scope, we would like to help. We would like to reach out to Ministers in other Departments because we want to break down the barriers.

The silos.

Yes, that is right. Every Department is engaging with the Minister for public expenditure and his Department for its financial parcel every year. I strongly welcome this committee - it is a game-changer - and the Minister of State's appointment. We now need to run with it and break down the bureaucracies and silos that have hurt the marine communities over the years. I will leave at that.

I am not looking for a response, but I appreciate the Minister of State's openness that this area crosses Departments. As the committee makes requests, brings in witnesses, does its reports and makes recommendations, we would appreciate guidance. As the Minister of State knows, in politics, once one knows the nature of the problem and everyone accepts what the nature of the problem is, one can start to try to address and resolve it in whatever way possible.

I accept the Deputy's bona fides on this. In addition to bringing coherence to what already exists, when I was appointed the Taoiseach was very clear. He jokingly made the point that we need to ultimately create a blueprint for what a Department of the marine might look like for a future administration. He said it would not benefit me, in terms of it being a Ministry, but some future government may ultimately decide to re-establish a Department of the marine. He was anxious that we do that work almost in parallel, so get the work done but also have a blueprint for a future administration. In particular, we should see the opportunities in marine protection, the importance of our oceans, the ocean pact and the ocean Act that will come from Europe, the importance of the ocean from a marine protection point of view and in terms of climate change, and also the opportunities from an Irish perspective, not just in terms of the continued fishing effort but also of offshore renewables, which will move centre stage at some point in the future. We should do some work to have a plan in place for the future, quite apart from addressing the areas we already address on an ongoing basis. That is the guiding thing.

I am sure I am driving officials mad about this. That is why we are trying to look for other elements that should fall within marine but do not currently. We should not just say, "Well, we can't go there." I welcome the Deputy's offer to use the committee to advance that. We are thinking about it and trying to find solutions, so we can ultimately bring it all together under one Department.

I thank the Minister of State. I also thank the Deputy because he asked almost all the questions I had jotted down. To be fair to the Minister of State, he answered them. There are only a couple of unasked questions, which relate to the €16 million MARA underspent or returned to the Exchequer last year. I do not if it is reflected in those figures but I understand the authority sent money back for a number of reasons. That is not the crux of my question. If that money is returned to the Exchequer, is it available to the Department for another use or is it gone at this point? We had a conversation about dredging and small local authority harbours. As the Minister of State knows, I am very keen to see an expanded, different or new scheme - whatever we might call it - to enable local authorities to undertake the preparatory work. In many cases, that work is the biggest barrier to them undertaking the much-needed works. The €16 million was in some way ring-fenced for the maritime planning area. Is there something that can be done with it?

I will give the Chair the good news. It is money that was collected from licences. It is not money that MARA did not spend. It was money it collected on behalf of the State and remitted to the State. Its allocation of funding to carry out its programme is in line with what was projected. The sum in question is money the State gets back.

On the preparatory work, I thought the Chair would raise this matter. The Chair and I met with council officials in his area on this. The environmental assessments that are required to carry out work are costly. Some local authorities have access to funding, for example, if they have large rate bases. Lads in the Chair's area explained to me that they did not have funding. While I do not have the capacity under the current scheme, that is part of what I am trying to get to with a new scheme that would look at potentially bigger and more costly projects and ones that require environmental assessments and preparatory work.

Any new scheme we manage to develop with new moneys or with co-mingled funds from other Departments would be aimed at those kinds of projects that require more fundamental involvement. Union Hall in Cork is another one that has been mentioned to me. There is Helvick, for sure. We talked about Porteen and Cleggan harbours and there is a myriad of others.

There are many others.

For completeness, Deputy Mac Lochlainn asked me if we had an inventory of them. I do not think so. We certainly have access to all of the information that applied previously. In any new scheme I am thinking about, in advance of even fashioning that my plan was to write to the local authorities and ask them to give us a clear picture of where their priorities are and what is involved in that. The Chair could speak to Waterford.

I can speak for the committee in saying it would absolutely welcome that. We have had sessions specifically on coastal infrastructure, particularly as it pertains to fishing but we are not blind to the notion of combining effort with maritime tourism as well to secure other pockets of funding. We welcome that and anything this committee can do to expedite that and help craft and build the political argument for it, please do not be a stranger and let us know. I can definitely see how that would help.

There was a cut to capital for fisheries last year and that was explained. It is lost on very few of us that the only negative change is under subhead D3, fisheries. I might have the title wrong. I understand a good portion of that relates to capital last year. The BAR funding was no longer reflected in that. This year, that is not the reason. What is the reason for decrease in capital funding of €6.34 million I think?

The decrease in capital is €7 million and relates to the fact that we had a capital carryover across the Department of €29 million last year which, under the rules of the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, a certain percentage of underspend can be carried over. In discussions with our finance team in advance of the budget I received commitments for €7 million of that €29 million to be assigned to the capital budget for marine. That meant that out of next year's pot, that which was voted in the budget, all I needed to meet our commitments was €20 million because we were carrying over €7 million. It amounts to the same. I have the same sum of money available to me as last year. The breakdown on the page towards the end of the document we have prepared shows there is €20 million at the top which is identified but further down on the sheet, in case the Chairman thinks I am slipping him a line, he will see at subhead D3 there is €7 million aligned there. With regard to the development of agriculture, food and marine, it states it is intended to apply an amount of €29 million in unspent 2025 approximations to capital supply services. Subhead B5, development of agriculture and food, farm, amounts to the €7 million that has been carried over.

Will the Minister of State provide a short note on that which we can circulate to members who are not present?

For completeness, it is actually €8 million and it is under subhead D3, fisheries. It is €7 million but there is a typo in that but I will get the committee a note on it.

Would the Minister of State mind doing that so we can circulate the note and have the facts all in one place?

To be clear, of the €29,901,000 that was allowed to be carried over, €7 million was assigned to fisheries on capital.

I understand.

I will get a note for the committee just so the information is complete. It is presented in these figures.

Perfect, I thank the Minister of State. There is a little short of €400,000 additional funding towards the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority this year. I imagine most of that is taken up with pay and pensions. Is the totality of that - €395,000 is the accurate figure - taken up with pay and pensions or are there some other items that are being funded there that were not funded previously?

My understanding is that it is a pay agreement, and a small increase due to the pay agreement. The Chair will notice that in the SFPA there is a small reduction on the capital side. I think it is reduced from €900,000 to €600,000 but I need to find that. There is certainly a slight reduction on the capital moneys for the SFPA. Yes, it is reduced from €950,000 to €600,000. The only increases for the SFPA are in line with wage agreements.

The first question I asked about the €16 million, it occurs to me I should have asked at the time but I was eager to move on, is it correct to say that is income generated through licence fees?

It is.

Is that ring-fenced or is it effectively sent to the Exchequer? Is it kept within the Department?

My understanding is that is goes straight to the Exchequer. It is not a dividend; it is a direct transfer, unlike some of the semi-State companies. The likes of the ESB and others have an arrangement with the Government regarding a certain percentage or portion of that which they may have as profit. Much of it gets reinvested, etc. In many cases there is a set dividend. There is a decision by the board, in consultation with the Department of Finance, as to what is transferred. In this instance, everything is transferred. On behalf of the State, MARA collects that quantum of money and the agency has no discretion over its spending. Its arrangement is to be funded by the Department.

I thank the Minister of State. Does anybody have any further questions? I do not believe there any further questions. Does the Minister of State wish to add anything before we conclude?

I thank the committee for its ongoing discussions and co-operation with me. I am very pleased to be working with the committee.

I thank the Minister of State and his officials on behalf of the committee. As there are no further matters for discussion, the committee will stand adjourned sine die.