Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have not received any apologies for this meeting. Before we begin, I need to bring to members' attention the usual note about privilege. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by members outside committee proceedings of any matters arising from those proceedings. Members are 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 a person or entity.

The topic of the meeting is Further Revised Estimates for public expenditure - Vote 29. It relates to the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment. We are joined by the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, who is attending in an ex officio capacity. He is joined by the following officials from the Department: Mr. Rory O'Leary-----

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is actually Mr. Conall O'Connor. Mr. Rory O'Leary sends his apologies. To protect me, I brought Mr. O'Connor closer, so he is sitting in Mr. O'Leary's seat.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To protect you and confuse the Chair. My apologies. We have Mr. Conall O'Connor, assistant principal officer, and Mr. Joe Gallagher, assistant principal officer.

While the Minister of State may call on his officials to speak briefly for clarification purposes where a specific or technical point arises, I remind members the Minister of State is the witness for this meeting and the officials are not. The officials can clarify issues for the committee but any follow-up questions should be put to the Minister of State directly as he is the accountable person before the committee. The Minister of State has five minutes to give his opening statement, or he can give a briefer summary if he prefers. Then we will proceed to questions and answers.

As our joint committee meeting will be convened at 11.30 a.m. and there is need for a 15-minute break between meetings, I request that members keep questions concise and targeted to the matters at hand.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have given members the opening statement so, rather than read through it, I will give a number of introductory remarks. This is a housekeeping exercise in terms of our requirement to go before the committee. When the Government was formed earlier this year, there was an effort to bring together some coherence under a Department of the marine. Marine activities had been spread prior to this over three different Departments: fisheries in agriculture, marine planning in the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment and marine environment in the housing Department. The decision was taken to take the unit of marine environment and place it with marine planning in the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment.

We seek the committee's approval to take the remaining funding which has not been spent in the Department of housing, transfer it to the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment and set out the continuation of the activity already provided for. It is a technical exercise following the decision to bring coherence to the marine entity. It is set out in detail. I am happy to answer any direct questions on that but that is in essence what we are asking members to do. It requires the approval of the committee, as a committee of Parliament, to give effect to that decision on the virement of the money from one Department to the next.

From a policy perspective, there is no change. In terms of the way the money is spent, there is no change. The programmes supported under the funding previously provided to the Department of housing all follow. All the lines of governance are there and the funding for the various agencies remains the same. There is no policy shift or change other than moving a unit from one Department to another to give better coherence to the overall governance of fisheries and marine activity. I am happy to answer any questions on that.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Unfortunately, I do not have the Minister of State's opening statement. I am trying to get it on the system. When will the transfer of staff happen?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To the best of my knowledge, it has already happened.

The staff of the marine environment section are physically in different locations but their chain of command and line of governance is now within the Department of Climate, Energy and Environment. They are working really well as part of that team. I see the benefits already. I recognise it is a culture shift for some in the Department, having been used to working in a different chain of command, but I recognise and thank staff for their effort in making it seamless. I can assure the committee it is working well at the moment anyway. If anything changes in that regard, I will be happy to report it to the committee.

It brings coherence to what we are trying to do in creating a virtual Department of the marine, with all of the important aspects that are now relevant from the Deputy's perspective, as she knows well, and what we are trying to do on the marine protected areas, MPAs, and the crossover between that and marine planning. We often talk about that spatial squeeze, together with the fisheries component. They all need to be around the table together and that is what we are trying to achieve here. Hopefully it brings clarity to that.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In relation to the MPA legislation, when will we have sight of the heads of that Bill?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have a specific date for the Deputy but as she knows, the Government took a decision very recently. Work had progressed on the legislative approach. Many of the provisions that were included in the original legislation will be part of the overall architecture. My best guess is it will be mid-2026 when we see them. It is important from both the Deputy's perspective and my perspective because we are well aligned in terms of what we need to do and when we need to get there. We will be pushing that. It depends on drafting but it is kind of in the ether for mid next year.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have shared my concerns that I am worried about a watering down of the legislation if it will be an amendment to existing legislation as opposed to what was previously proposed, which was stand-alone legislation. I am going to ask the Minister of State formally whether he will make the previous piece of legislation publicly available? We want to be able to see what has not made it from the previous piece of legislation into the new legislation because that will show where some of the gaps are. Would the Minister of State be open to making that previous piece of legislation publicly available?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I can look at that and work through it with the Deputy but for me, there are two things. The first is the character and nature of what the previous legislation set out to achieve is really important. I made that clear, and there was certainly no resistance within the Department, and ensured that formed part of the new Bill. We are taking the approach by way of amendment. Oftentimes, the word amendment - the Deputy is around here a while so she knows what I am talking about - gives the impression that it is a minor change to an existing provision. That is not it at all, in this case. There will be a substantial amendment to the legislation to give us the capacity to designate around the kind of headings we would have wanted in the previous legislation.

It is important that it ties in with existing legislation, the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021 or MAP Act, and has the capacity to utilise that DMAP tool. It appears to be a successful way to do a designation, based on the DMAP for ORE off the south-east coast. In that instance, it was a designation for offshore renewable energy. In this instance, it will be a designation for marine protected areas. Of course, within that, we have to be very clear in the kind of elements that we want to protect. That is why a major part of the ultimate legislation - when it is amended - will have this public consultation piece. That is what takes time. We are working towards 2030 so it is very clear that has to be part of it.

As I said, the main objectives of the previous legislation included extensive and meaningful public and stakeholder engagement.

They also included the identification of species, habitats and ecosystem services that are at risk and which require protection or restoration, an ecosystem service being a benefit derived from the environment. Also included is the identification of optimal locations to protect these features and, based on this information, the designation of marine protected areas with clear conservation objectives. There was also the appointment of management authorities for the MPAs, a requirement for management plans for the MPAs, a requirement for bodies authorising, licensing or permitting an activity in an MPA to have regard for its conservation objectives and, where necessary, the regulation of harmful activities in an MPA, with associated offences and penalties, as appropriate. From our perspective, our plan is that these main objectives of the previous legislation will form part of the new MAP Act through amendment. We will then use the DMAP tools for this designation.

I want to work with the committee on this because I know it has a lot of expertise and interest. We have to decide how we do this and how we get it on the Statute Book more quickly. We must consider whether we will have pre-legislative scrutiny or whether we do it by way of other engagement. The evening after the Government took the decision to proceed in this way I met the NGOs, with which I have regular engagement, and spoke to them about the importance of getting it done as expeditiously as possible while, at the same time, having good input. Whether it is done through pre-legislative scrutiny or through some kind of designated workshop, it is about getting the best work done as quickly as possible and being able to progress to bringing the legislation through both Houses. I am happy to engage with the committee on this as we progress.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will be very important to have pre-legislative scrutiny.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not at all against it. I am just trying to get there as quickly as possible. It is not something I would force through or try to guillotine through. I am throwing it out as my thinking at this stage on how we get there as quickly as possible. I will engage with all parties. We would only do it if we had broad agreement that there was a consultative approach we could take which we could do off-line. This might be quicker than requiring pre-legislative scrutiny, which can take time based on committees and all they do. I very much want to work with the committee on this.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Subhead C13 on the marine environment has an allocation of an extra €975,000 when we do the changeover. What do we hope to spend this on?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Maxwell will have to point it out to me because I do not see it.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is under subhead C13 on responsibility for the marine environment. There is a budget increase to bring it to €5.725 million. The amount of €4.8 million was allocated under the equivalent subhead but there is now a difference of €975,000 in funding.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask Deputy Maxwell to bear with me while I get that for him.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No problem.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is money that was transferred from one section to another. It is referred to as PEACEPLUS funding. Responsibility for this funding transferred from the water quality section to the Department of Climate, Energy and Environment as part of the transfer of the marine environment function. PEACEPLUS is an INTERREG ERDF funding scheme managed by the special EU programmes body. It represents a funding partnership between the EU, the Government of the UK, the Government of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive. The strands for funding projects include marine protected area climate change action plans, community and citizen participation initiatives and education and awareness training programmes. As I understand it, they were under another subhead in the Department of housing. While the marine environment sat in that Department the funding was all provided for it under the guidance of the marine environment section.

It had responsibility for it, but the money was coming from another section within that Department. Once we took the marine environment section over, we brought its funding , which was specifically aligned to it, over to us.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Okay.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We had to take the funding that unit had responsibility for and governance of together with it too. That is what has happened there. It was vired, which is the term we use for moving funds from one section to another, from subhead B3 under water quality over in the Department of housing to subhead B8 in our Department. Unfortunately, it is not additional money I can spend on something else.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Right.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is already committed.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is okay.

On subheads C1 and C2, the administrative costs are set to rise by €1.549 million for programme C. Can the Minister of State explain those changes?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is administrative changes that come with it. It is staffing generally, and the general cost of administration coming across from one Department to the new Department in line with the transfer of function. It is the salary costs.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Are there any savings to be had because we have this new Department? Do we know at the minute or will this take a year to work through and see?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Unfortunately, or fortunately, whatever way we look at it, there is no change to the effort expended by the State. It is purely about taking a function, a group of people working on various projects under the guidance of one Department, and effectively, for the want of a better word, taking that block and bringing it over to another Department. It has happened in a number of cases, because other sections are moving around between Departments. All the section's costs, programmes and policy areas come with it.

The purpose behind this is to bring greater coherence within the Department, as I touched on at the beginning. We have marine planning, responsible for identifying opportunities for development in our oceans, which is particularly relevant at the moment in relation to offshore renewables. At the same time, we are trying to identify areas in our oceans that should have species and certain elements protected. It makes more sense to have the planning and the protection areas together under the one departmental governance so one is not moving ahead of the other. This is why it also makes sense to have the two of them provided for under the Marine Area Planning Act 2021 and this is why the decision has been taken to amend that legislation. A better way to put it would be that the remit of the legislation will be substantially enhanced or broadened rather than it just being amended, but those are the terminologies. This means there are no cost savings or increases and it is purely a like-for-like change. It is aimed at bringing better governance within the Department and more coherence to the challenges and opportunities we face in our marine area now.

David Maxwell (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy and the Minister of State. Before we conclude, I just want to ask two quick questions. One is in relation to what Deputy Maxwell raised there and the PEACEPLUS funding around water quality. Perhaps the Minister of State could provide a note to the committee on what exactly this is. I think this is something we are all quite conscious of in the context of aquaculture in terms of water quality in particular. I refer to just seeing what this money is being spent on. The question relates to the transfer of responsibilities with that unit. We understand that unit within the Civil Service is moving from one Department to another. Are any agencies, boards or other bodies similarly transferring their responsibilities and line of reporting from one Department to the other?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. I will have to check but I am not aware of any. I am informed we did not bring any agencies. No agency sits under that function.

It is a very technical function. The people in there have a high degree of expertise in this area. There are highly qualified personnel, many at doctorate level, so it is a specialist unit in itself. There are some relationships between that unit and the Marine Institute. In some of the funding lines it can be seen where that fund supports work carried out on that unit's behalf by the Marine Institute and there is a service level agreement between the two. That is the only relationship that exists and that transfers with it.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State. Unless there are further questions I propose we draw this meeting to a conclusion. On behalf of the committee I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their contribution to today's meeting.