Conor D McGuinness on Returned £16m and Local Harbour Funding

Deputy McLaughlin, because you asked pretty much all the questions that I had chatted down here, and some with it, and to be fair to the Minister, you answered them as well. There's only a couple unasked, and it relates to the £16 million that Mara underspent, or that returns to the Exchequer last year. I don't know if it's reflected there in those figures, but I understand that they sent money back for a number of reasons, and that's not really the crux of my question. That money is returned back into the Exchequer centrally. Is it available to the Department for another use? Is that money gone at this point? Because we had that conversation about dredging and small local authority harbours, and as you know, Minister, I'd be very keen to see an expanded scheme, a new scheme, a different scheme, whatever way you might look at it or call it, to enable local authorities to undertake the preparatory work, which is the biggest barrier in many cases to them undertaking the much-needed works. So that £16 million, it was in some way ring-fenced for the Maritime Planning area. Is there something that could be done with that? So I'll give you the good news. It's money that was collected from licences. So it's not money that they didn't spend, it was money that they collected on behalf of the state and remitted to the state. So their allocation of funding to carry out their programme is in line with what was projected. So this is money that the state gets back. On your, and I thought that you would raise this, on the preparatory work, and you and I had met with your council officials on this, the kind of environmental assessments that are required in order to carry out work is costly. Some local authorities have access to funding where they have large rate bases, et cetera. The lads in your area were explaining to me that they didn't. So whilst I don't have the capacity or under the scheme that currently exists, that's part of what I'm trying to get to with a new scheme that would look at potentially bigger, more costly projects, and ones that require environmental assessments and preparatory work. So any new scheme that we manage to develop with new monies or with co-mingled funds from other departments, it would be aimed at those kind of projects. So those that require more fundamental involvement, there's Union Hall in Cork, I know is another one that has been mentioned to me, Helvig for sure. We talked about Porcheen, we talked about Clegan, and there are a myriad of others. And for completeness, Deputy McLaughlin asked me if we'd had an inventory of them. I don't think so. We certainly have access to all the information that applied previously, but in any new scheme that I'm 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's involved in that. I think I can speak for the committee and saying that we'd absolutely welcome that. We've had sessions here specifically on coastal infrastructure, particularly as it pertains to fishing, but we're not blind to the notion of combining effort with maritime tourism as well to secure other pockets of funding. But we'd welcome that and anything I think this committee can do to expedite that, to help craft that and also to help build the political argument for it. Please don't be a stranger and let us know, because I can definitely see how that would help. There was a cut last year to capital, and that was explained in terms of fisheries. And I think it's lost on very few of us that the only negative change is under D3 fisheries. And I understand a good portion of that relates to capital. Last year, there was obviously the bar funding was no longer reflected in that, but this year that's not the reason. What is that decrease in capital? Yeah, so the decrease in capital is 7 million, right? Okay. And it relates to the fact that we had a capital carryover across the department of 29 million last year, which under the depender rules, you can carry over a certain percentage of your underspend. In discussions with our finance team in advance of the budget, I received commitments for 7 million of that 29 million would be assigned to the capital budget for Marine. So that meant that out of the pot for next year, so in other words, that which was voted on the budget, all I needed to meet our commitments was 20 million, because we were carrying over 7 million. So it amounts to the same, I have the same amount of money available to me as last year. And if on that, you will even see the breakdown there on the page towards the end. So it says 20 million in, there's 20 million at the top, which is identified, but further down the sheet, I think on the first page, whoops, the first page, it shows, just so that you don't, just in case you think, Chairman, that I'm slipping you a line here, you will see it at B5, I think it is, no, B4, D3, Fisheries, no, it's, yeah, yeah, so it's, okay, there's a 7 million a line there, just get it, okay, so it's the development of agriculture and food and marine, so the box at the end which says subheads under it is intended to apply an amount of 29 million in unspent 2025 approximations to capital supply services, so you will see B5, development of agriculture and food farm, that amounts to the 7 million that has been carried over. Could I ask, Minister, that you would just provide a short note on that, that we could circulate to members as well who aren't here, because I think it will be… Just for completeness, it's actually 8 million and it's in D3 Fisheries, but it's 7 million, 7 million, but there's a typo in the, there's a typo in that, but I'll get you a note on it. Would you mind just to circulate and just have the facts all in one place? So to be clear, there is 7 million of the, of the 29,901,000 that was allowed to be carried over, 7 million was assigned to fisheries on capital, but I'll get you a note on it just so that it's complete, but it's presented in these figures. Perfect. No, thanks for that, Minister. A final question is just the, there's 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 perhaps the accurate figure, is the totality of that taken up with pay and pensions, or are there some other items that are being funded there that weren't funded previously? My understanding is that it's a pay agreement and a small increase due to the pay agreement, and you'll notice in the SFPA there's a small reduction on the capital side, I think it goes down from 900,000 to 600,000, but I just need to find that for you, but there's certainly a slight reduction there on the capital monies for the SFPA, yes, it goes from 950 to 600, Sea Fisheries Protection Authority, yes, that's it. The only increases there for the SFPA is in line with wage agreements. And finally, just because it occurs to me, the first question I put in about the 16 million from Mara, I should have put it at the time, but I was eager to move on, but it occurs to me to put it now. Is it correct to say that that's income generated through licence fees? Yes. And how is that? Is that ring-fenced, or is it effectively sent to the Exchequer, is it kept within the Department? So my understanding is that it goes straight to the Exchequer, it's not a dividend, it's a direct transfer, so unlike some of the state, so our semi-state companies, as you know, the likes of the ESB and others will have an arrangement with the government that a certain percentage of or a certain portion of that which they may have as profit, which much of it of course gets reinvested, et cetera. In many cases, there's a set dividend, so there's a decision by the Board in consultation with the Department of Finance as to what they transfer. In this instance, everything transfers, it's just on behalf of the state, Mara, it just collects that quantum of money and they have no discretion, or the agency has no discretion over its spending. Their arrangement is to be funded by the Department. Yes. Thank you very much. You Thank you very much. Thank you. Iwiat Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you Thank you very much. Remember, I started to move your way. Thank you very much. Shredgy We have a hard pay. Please take too many sway.