Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Oct 2011

Vol. 211 No. 1

Adjournment Matters

Inshore Fisheries

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, to the Seanad to address this Adjournment matter. I also welcome and pay tribute to Ms Karen Dubsky and members of Coastwatch who supplied me with background information on this issue.

Regarding the recent opening of shellfish harvesting in Dundalk Bay, a Natura 2000 site, can the Minister of State provide detail on any quality issues encountered in exporting cockles from that site this season? The first batch exported apparently was black, and was rejected. This does not look favourable for us when we are trying to build up a good reputation. It raises questions about quality control. The general public and those fishing should be made aware of such matters. I ask that full records on the amount of cockles taken per week so far this season be made available to us. This is needed to keep the public informed on the number of boats and the fishing effort in the bay, a Natura 2000 site, which take from what is a commonage resource.

I urge the Minister of State to control razorshell dredging in this protected site, in particular because the Marine Institute's annual stockbook of 2010 highlighted the fact razorshell dredging has had a high impact and should be controlled. The largest razorshell beds in the country lie off the coast between counties Dublin and Louth and into Dundalk Bay. Razorshell fishing, as now carried out, is highly damaging because it hoovers up the seabed. The traditional alternative of hand-raking and diving, which has minimal impact, is not seen as worthwhile as there is no eco-label to highlight sustainable fishing. However, with the reform of fisheries, that should eventually happen. We should not wreck the stocks, therefore, but should seek to build up local markets and tourism for high value mixed fisheries that can be fished in a sustainable manner. As with cockles, the public has a right to know about its commonage and how same is being managed by the Government.

On the halting of the hand-picking of cockles for home consumption, I ask the Minister of State to consider the wording of the regulation, which states that only people with a licence are entitled to pick cockles for home consumption. However, only 20 licences are available. Furthermore, these licences were available only until 30 September. From that date, no member of the public has been entitled to pick cockles for home consumption, a fact concerning which the majority of the public is not aware.

I thank the Senator for bringing up this matter. I live not too far from Dundalk and have had one representation on this matter. If there are questions I cannot answer today I shall reply in writing to the Senator.

The European Communities (Habitats and Birds) (Sea-Fisheries) Regulations 2009 — S.I. No. 346 of 2009 as amended by S.I. No. 397 of 2010 — were enacted to provide a statutory process for the assessment of fishing activities in areas protected by the EU birds and habitats directives. Dundalk Bay is the subject of a Natura 2000 designation under these directives and as a result its cockle dredging activities underwent appropriate assessment. A draft five year fishing plan for Dundalk Bay, prepared by Bord Iascaigh Mhara on behalf of the Dundalk Bay fishing industry, was submitted to my Department on 9 June 2011. In keeping with the aforementioned regulations, the plan was appropriately assessed by the Marine Institute in accordance with the requirements of the EU birds and habitats directives and with guidance from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The appropriate assessment concluded that brown shrimp, scallop, lobster and crab fisheries can proceed as proposed in the plan while cockle and razor clam fisheries can proceed under certain conditions. It concluded that fishing for mussels should not proceed as there was insufficient information available to conclude that it would not have an impact on the site.

A one month statutory consultation was undertaken with views received from environmental non-governmental organisations, the general public and statutory consultees. Following on from this, the ad hoc, non-statutory, technical advisory committee was convened on 17 August 2011 to advise the Minister on the fishery Natura plan, the appropriate assessment and submissions received during the consultation period. The committee comprised representatives from the environmental pillar and representatives of the local fishing sector. It also included representatives from the Department, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, the Marine Institute and BIM. The committee did not reach a consensus. However, the views of the committee were submitted to the Minister, Deputy Coveney, together with the draft plan, the appropriate assessment and the results of the consultation process on 31 August 2011.

Having considered all of the information provided, the Minister finalised the fishery Natura plan for Dundalk Bay on 2 September 2011, confirming a total allowable catch, TAC, of 510 tonnes of cockles in 2011. Going on the experience of previous years and the current market price for cockles, it was clear that demand for access to the cockle fishing in 2011 would be high. As the biomass of cockles in Dundalk Bay is quite variable from year to year, the TAC, which is set at 33% of the biomass, also varies from year to year. The Minister also signed Fisheries Natura Declaration No. 2 of 2011 (Dundalk Bay) on 2 September 2011, restricting cockle fishing in Dundalk Bay to permit holders only. The plan and declaration were made for the purpose of ensuring that the cockle fishery is consistent with the conservation objectives for these protected Natura 2000 sites. This is absolutely necessary for Ireland to comply with its obligations under the EU habitats and birds directives and with a judgment of the European Court of Justice against Ireland.

The restriction on fishing for cockles by permit only, accompanied by a call for applications for permits, was advertised nationally in the Irish Independent on Tuesday, 6 September 2011. The call for applications applied to vessel owners and hand gatherers. The call was also published online at the website fishingnet.ie. Fishing under permits for hand gathering ended on 30 September. This restriction was adopted on the advice of the Marine Institute. The restriction is intended to protect migratory wading birds from disturbance by the hand gathering activities on shore as the migratory wading birds arrive on our shores at this time of year. The hand gathering activities took place during low tide on the shoreline and the protection of migratory wading birds is required for this site under the terms of the birds directive.

The harvesting figures for cockles, which have been collected to date by BIM in compliance with the declaration, are as follows: for the period 15 to 16 September, it was 7.3 tonnes; for the period 23 to 30 September, it was 72.4 tonnes; for the period 1 to 7 October, it was 66.56 tonnes; and for the period 8 to 14 October, it was 41.15 tonnes. Figures have not been compiled to date for the period 15 to 21 October. Regarding the Senator's question on the quality of the cockles, I draw to the Senator's attention that Ireland has a shellfish safety monitoring programme in place to protect consumers' health. The programme ensures that shellfish containing biotoxins are not harvested and placed on the market. Biotoxins are naturally produced by phytoplankton in seawater. I am advised by the Marine Institute that samples from Dundalk Bay have tested negative for biotoxins, the most recent sample having been taken on 13 October.

In addition, the institute tests samples to monitor the bacteriological and viral contamination of bivalve shellfish as part of the routine monitoring programme to classify shellfish harvesting areas. Sampling and classification is conducted by the SFPA based on the analysis provided by the Marine Institute's laboratory. Dundalk Bay is classified as category B for cockles. Areas classified as such are those areas from which live bivalve molluscs may be collected and placed on the market for human consumption only after treatment in a purification centre or after relaying so as to meet required health standards.

With regard to razor clam fishing, as for all fisheries, a decision on a fisheries plan can only be made on each site based on the appropriate assessment for that site. For Dundalk Bay, the appropriate assessment concluded that the present level of razor fishing will not have significant impacts on the conservation objectives for the site. The assessment was based on a substantive body of scientific data. The assessment recommended that the level of razor fishing should be monitored and if a significant escalation is observed, that further appropriate assessment be conducted. Through the Natura declaration, long-term arrangements have been put in place for the ongoing monitoring of razor fishing activity. Similar arrangements are also in place for brown shrimp. I am satisfied that the fishing activities in Dundalk Bay have been subject to full and appropriate assessment and are being undertaken in an environmentally sensitive manner, fully in compliance with the EU birds and habitat directives.

I thank the Minister of State for taking this debate. Will he ask the Minister, Deputy Coveney, to draft a new policy of inshore shellfish harvesting? The Dutch and Spanish have led the way in this area and this should be prioritised for protected sites such as that in Dundalk Bay. Will the Minister consider inviting representatives of the Dutch and Spanish Governments to explain their new policy of inshore shellfish harvesting in protected sites as I understand that this sets out to maximise employment and cause minimum environmental impact?

There is only provision for a brief question.

Will the Minister give a clear public view of the statistics, etc.?

I will revert to the Minister and ask him to have a look at this. I know how beautiful Dundalk bay is and nobody would like to see anything going wrong in the area. I will revert to the Deputy in writing with answers to the questions.

Fur Farming

This matter relates to the fur farming industry in Ireland and I am glad to see the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, in the Chamber to take the matter, which is a burning issue in my own area. There are five fur farms nationally, with two of them from my part of the country.

Fur farms last year exported 200,000 mink pelts to the value of €7.5 million, produced from local raw materials. The Irish fur farming industry receives no subsidies either from the EU or the Government. There are five fur farms, with three located in Gaeltacht areas and two in my own area. These farms are a natural and important part of the agricultural sector and contribute to maintaining vibrant rural communities. In these areas there are few alternative opportunities of employment available, and total employment created directly from the five fur farms is 80 jobs, with a spin-off of at least another 80 jobs from food, transport, engineering, refrigeration and construction works. Last year €1.6 million was spent in direct wages between the five fur farms and as an example, one farm in my area spends €35,000 per month on electricity to keep the freezers going. That is over €400,000 per year.

Consumption of by-products is an additional benefit. The farms are valuable purchasers of animal by-products, with the fur farms in Ireland receiving approximately 2,000 tonnes of fish offal and 7,000 tonnes of poultry, pork, cattle and sheep by-products from Irish processing plants. These processing plants can make cost savings on not having to pay rendering charges.

Farmed fur animals are not wild and like any other farmed species, they differ markedly from the wild strain of the species. These cannot be kept successfully in domestic conditions. There is EU legislation dealing with fur farming, particularly the manner in which they are kept, and mink farms have been in operation within Europe for over 150 years. The Irish Fur Breeders Association is a member of the European Fur Breeders Association, an umbrella organisation for fur breeders in 21 European countries. The European Fur Breeders Association has introduced its own code of practice for the care and handling of farmed mink, fitch and fox, which completely reflects the recommendations of the Council of Europe. All members of the European Fur Breeders Association have adopted this code of practice. Animal welfare is paramount at national as well as EU level and fur producers here have the greatest interest in the well-being of their animals. Veterinary inspectors from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, as the Minister will know, make regular and unannounced visits to Irish fur farms.

In Europe there are 7,200 fur farms operating, with an annual production of 31 million fur pelts, almost 58% of world production. What the fur farming industry needs is an assurance that it will be allowed to continue. The former Government, led by the Green Party, was seeking to have fur farming banned in this country by way of not renewing licences. To take an example, the licence of one fur farm in my constituency, and by extension all the other fur farms, will run out in June of next year. The farm requires forward planning because the owners must buy in raw material such as food for the mink. In addition, they must reinvest to develop their own business model. They cannot do that without a guarantee that they will have a licence after next June.

The headline figure for employment in the fur farming industry is 80 jobs provided directly and an additional 80 indirectly. That is 160 jobs. The State has a production capacity of €7.5 million which is growing at a fast pace. Given the current economic climate, it would be foolish for any Government not to renew licences. While the Green Party may have its own view on fur farming, I can assure the Minister that it does form part of the agricultural development of the country and meets all the standards laid down by veterinary officers in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The five fur farms in Ireland are highly compliant and meet all the required standards. I hope a pragmatic approach will be taken in renewing these licences and providing continuity for the industry.

If the Minister of State is not in a position to give a favourable response tonight, although I hope he will be, I ask that either he or the Minister, Deputy Coveney, meet the representative body of the industry in the next week to ten days, if at all possible, to provide reassurance and a direction for those involved in the industry.

I thank the Senator. We seem to be meeting up all the time when I come to the Seanad. Like me, he is from the rural end of Ireland and it is crucial that we protect our way of life. If I do not give the Senator the blunt answer he requires, I ask him to approach me again. I am aware there are deadlines and I know exactly what the Senator is saying about people planning their future. We might have to push things a bit further.

My Department is responsible for the licensing of mink farming in Ireland under the Musk Rats Act 1933 and the Musk Rats Act 1933 (Application to Mink) Order 1965, which prohibits the keeping of mink except under licences issued by my Department. Licences, which are usually issued for three years, are issued only if the applicant is found to be compliant with a number of key conditions following an inspection by officers from my Department. These conditions include a requirement that mink farmers take adequate measures to prevent the escape of the mink from their premises. Licence requirements include a provision that mink shall be kept only at the premises specified in the licence and must be kept in cages or other containers to prevent their escape. All buildings or enclosures where mink are housed must be bounded by a guard fence built to prevent their escape. Mink farmers are also obliged to ensure that trees, shrubs or undergrowth do not grow in such a position in relation to boundary fences that they would facilitate the escape of mink. Any holes or drainage channels must also be effectively blocked.

There are five licensed mink farms in Ireland. All five licences expire in the course of 2012. Between them, the mink farmers farm an estimated 225,000 mink. The industry claims to be responsible, as the Senator said, for 80 jobs directly. Mink farmers do not receive any State or EU support for their farming activity.

I am aware that fur farming is a significant agricultural activity in many European countries, notably Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands. The European Fur Breeders Association, which represents breeders' associations in 15 countries, estimates that there are 7,200 fur farmers in EU member states, who are responsible for 64% of worldwide mink fur production. The association estimates that the fur sector creates up to 60,000 full-time jobs in Europe and that the value of EU-farmed fur came to €1.5 billion in 2010. It also points out that the industry provides an efficient use for more than 1 million tonnes of animal by-products each year from the fishing and meat industries.

I am aware that although the farming of mink is carried out in many European countries, there is a body of opinion which believes that a ban on the farming of animals such as mink for their fur should be introduced on ethical grounds. I am in the process of having a new animal health and welfare Bill drafted in line with the commitment in the programme for Government. Work on drafting this legislation is already under way in consultation with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. The Bill is a complex one but when drafting is concluded, it is my intention to publish the Bill. I have been considering the future of mink farming in the context of that process. I am conscious that mink farmers have a critical interest in the outcome. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, has established a group within my Department to review all aspects of fur farming and I expect this review to be completed shortly.

In giving consideration to future of mink farming, I am conscious of the concern felt in some quarters about the ethics of raising mink for the manufacture of fur. I am also taking into account the fact that the mink farmers licensed by my Department have been engaged in this legitimate activity as their source of livelihood for many years and that the industry claims to be responsible for 80 jobs and generates export revenue from the sale of fur pelts.

The slaughtering of mink takes place on the farms and is subject to the provisions of European legislation at the time of slaughter. Inspections by my Department have confirmed that the methods used by Irish fur farms are in compliance with the aforementioned legislation. The Irish fur industry is fully aware of animal welfare requirements and it has displayed a willingness to comply with the requirements of my Department with regard to the keeping and slaughtering of mink.

I thank the Minister of State. I fully appreciate his point of view, but the difficulty the industry is facing is that the operators do not know whether they will have a future. They need to know one way or another because they wish to invest in their farms to build the industry up to the level they desire. If they invest in raw materials over the winter, when they are available, they could be left with those raw materials next year. I ask the Minister of State to consider this and to meet fur farming representatives in the next couple of weeks, if possible, to hear their views and give them a clear picture of what the future holds for the industry. It is important and it would be appreciated by the fur farming sector.

I know exactly where the Senator is coming from. I will say it directly to the Minister tomorrow and if he is not in a position to meet the industry representatives I will give a commitment to meet them on the Senator's behalf. I will go up to Donegal. I make no apologies; I will do it. It is crucial that we have that meeting and that the fur farmers get the guarantees they are looking for.

Vocational Education Committees

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, to the House and thank him for taking this matter on the Adjournment. This is an important issue which has become more so in recent weeks since the announcement of the decision on the locations of VEC headquarters.

Having spoken to managers, tutors and administrative staff who work in VECs, I have found the general reaction, not just to the amalgamations but also to the decisions on the location of VEC headquarters, has been that it may cause more trouble and cost more money than it is worth. The biggest grievance I have heard is that there is a complete lack of transparency in the decision-making process, especially with regard to the criteria used for the decisions on the locations of headquarters.

What criteria were used in deciding on the location of the VEC headquarters, or were the criteria decided retrospectively after decisions had been taken? Most important, who made the decisions? I know the ultimate responsibility rests with the Minister but I would like to find out, if possible, what advice was relayed to him and on what basis. Such big decisions and actions garner public acceptance not through secrecy and shady dealings but through transparency.

We all know that no two VECs do things in the same way. It will be some time before any merger will result in a smooth operation. The current angst over the criteria and the decision on the location of headquarters will make this merger process even more difficult.

The an bord snip nua report recommended the number of VECs be cut from 33 to 22. The previous Government decided to go further and cut them by more than half. The four VECs that will remain without change are Donegal, Cork city and county and Dublin city. At the time of the announcement, questions were raised about the decision to retain those VECs, particularly Donegal's and the fact the then Minister was from that county. Calls were made for the release of information on that decision to ensure transparency.

The yardstick by which the success of the VEC amalgamation programme will be measured is whether the new structures will enhance educational opportunities and provision. However, the amalgamation of Cavan and Monaghan VECs raises some concerns. The decision to put the headquarters in Monaghan is strange, considering the education campus has not yet been built and its planning application contains no reference to a VEC headquarters. Cavan VEC already is leading in ICT infrastructure and the deployment of technology in supporting three non-VEC schools in the county.

I am not in the business of playing counties off each other as such parochialism only leads to trouble. However, there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the amalgamation process in Cavan and Monaghan, particularly the decision on the locations of headquarters. If there were greater transparency around how these decisions were made, it would reduce the tensions.

How does the Minister envisage maintaining excellence and good practice while engaging in this rationalisation? Where will savings be made, particularly considering the cost of building new facilities and rebranding costs? How has the amalgamation process fed into the comprehensive spending review? Will the Minister publish the cost-benefit analysis of this process? We need to have more information on the number of students and schools in each VEC. This would assist in understanding some of the decisions made in certain amalgamations. In the absence of transparency, the process will not be easy. There are outstanding issues surrounding criteria used in the process and costs. These need to be addressed before drafting any enabling legislation.

Restructuring should not be introduced to save costs or reduce the number of VECs. The purpose should be to realign the VECs in a manner that addresses the weaknesses in the system and results in a properly resourced system that meets the needs of teachers, students, staff and parents. Was there any dialogue between the committees and stakeholders in the amalgamation process?

I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills.

I welcome the opportunity to outline to the House the decision taken by the Minister in early October on the locations of the headquarters of the new education and training boards following the Government's decision to revise the configuration of VECs. In January 2011, the Department invited submissions from all of existing VECs on possible headquarter locations when the mergers took place. To facilitate submissions, the Department gave the following guidance to VECs.

While a number of considerations may come into play a fundamental requirement will be the need to ensure that the location of a VEC headquarters will, to the greatest extent possible, facilitate the distance requirements under which staff to be redeployed to that location can be redeployed under a redeployment scheme, allied to the need to operate at lowest cost having regard to the accommodation available in existing locations.

The key criteria of redeployment and cost-effective accommodation solutions continued to be dominant in considering the locations that were finally determined by the Minister. However, as the commercial property market is likely to remain weak for the foreseeable future, the likelihood of achieving savings that might defray any costs incurred in consolidating into one single headquarters became less significant for the short to medium term.

It would be difficult to accurately predict the costs or savings which will arise from any one particular merger or relocation, given the range of options to be considered with regard to use or disposal of existing property interests in those locations which have not been selected as either a head office or a sub-office.

Any costs in property acquisition, upgrading or refurbishment which may be required at those locations which have been selected as head offices will also have to be taken into account. The VECs involved and the new merged bodies when established, in conjunction with departmental officials, will work through these details in the coming period. Since some of the likely savings from the restructuring of the VECs, including the relocation of headquarter functions, will come from the sale of some existing VEC buildings, these may not be realised in the short term.

The potential revenue to be raised from the sale of these assets is closely linked to the current state of the property market. It may not be possible to dispose of such properties satisfactorily in the short term and we must proceed in such a manner that does not give rise to new or additional costs in a manner that prejudices realising the savings that are targeted.

The special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes suggested savings of €3 million could be realised. The reconfiguration to 16 VECs can, over time, yield such savings in the recurrent cost of the headquarter functions of VECs which, at present, is €40 million in total.

I thank the Senator for affording me the opportunity to respond to the House on this matter.

We have been advised by a departmental official that Cavan and Monaghan VECs were tied in the amalgamation process until the decision was made for a new education campus in Monaghan. The current plans for this campus do not even include a VEC. Will the Minister provide information on the criteria used in the amalgamation? What were the two VECs tied on? Cavan was leaps and bounds ahead——

Does the Senator have a question?

Is there more detailed information on the criteria used rather than this quote about the advice to the VECs? Were the criteria uniform for all VECs or were there differences by location?

The Senator has said no two VECs do things in the same way. This was acknowledged by those involved in advising the Minister on final headquarter locations when this amalgamation process began. While there were many factors playing into each decision in each geographical area, the overriding considerations were the need to facilitate the staff to be redeployed and the need to operate at lowest cost having regard to the accommodation available in existing locations. I am not aware of the minutiae of the final elements of the decisions made in Cavan-Monaghan or elsewhere. I assure the Senator that each area was forensically analysed and the Minister, Deputy Quinn, is more than happy to stand over the decision taken on the location of the headquarters. I have no doubt that when the amalgamation process is complete the decisions taken will prove to have been correct.

Garda Stations

This motion, with regard to Kilbrittain Garda station, speaks for itself. A review of many rural Garda stations is being conducted by the Department of Justice and Equality. Kilbrittain Garda station has been earmarked as possibly being one of the 200 rural stations which may very well close. This issue has come to the attention of the public in west Cork and meetings have been held. Yesterday, I attended a public meeting attended by 300 people including representatives of various groups, including those representing the elderly, community alert and neighbourhood watch groups, the West Cork Community Partnership and many others. They are concerned that if Kilbrittain Garda station closes, other stations in the constituency such as those in Goleen, Ballydehob, Adrigole, Kealkil, Drinagh and Ballyfeard may very well be for the chop.

I am not a carrier of doom and gloom policy but I am concerned about some of these areas, particularly Kealkil, Adrigole and Goleen, about which I had to make very strong representations in the past to ensure when the garda retired that the local station remained open. One can make the point that it is not the stations which are at issue but the gardaí, but I have always advocated the importance of a garda living in a local community. I criticised the previous Minister because none of the eight gardaí at a particular station in west Cork, which shall remain nameless, lived in the town or community. This was regrettable. Last night, it was stated that the local garda in Kilbrittain actively works in the community. Approximately two years ago, unfortunately a woman was kidnapped and murdered in the Kilbrittain area. Thanks to good detective work by the station in Bandon the culprit was apprehended and is now serving a prison sentence.

I come from Kilcrohane on the Sheep's Head Peninsula in a very rural constituency and we are concerned the closure of rural Garda stations is penny wise and pound foolish. In some cases it has been shown that approximately €3,000 per year will maintain a station. I am concerned about cutbacks in rural Ireland. Previously, I criticised my party in government for closing local post offices. I know these are very difficult times but Garda stations serving very peripheral areas such as Goleen, Kealkil and Kilbrittain should be maintained.

The Minister of State is aware that one of the greatest drug hauls made in the State was off Mizen Head and it received wide publicity. The launch of the culprits came from a little pier in my home village of Kilcrohane. Were it not for the fact that at dawn that day the people involved put diesel into a petrol engine they probably would have got away with it. For ten years I have been making the point that drugs come through areas such as west Cork. In other instances drugs were dropped off in Schull and other areas. Local vigilance is very important and a local garda in conjunction with community alert and neighbourhood watch groups can be very effective. I urge the Government to be very careful when making decisions on closing Garda stations.

Last night at the meeting, Superintendent MacEoin stated that as far as he was aware no decision had been taken on any station. The community in Kilbrittain is very proactive and is not taking the risk of waiting until the horse has bolted to close the stable door.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Deputy AlanShatter, has asked me to thank the Senator for raising this matter. It provides the Minister with an opportunity to clarify the position on this important topic which the Senator has highlighted.

Before I continue, I know the House will join me, on behalf of the Minister, in expressing our deepest sympathies to the family, colleagues and friends of Garda Ciaran Jones. Garda Jones was swept away while helping members of the public under the most hazardous of conditions yesterday evening in County Wicklow. His courageous actions were in the finest tradition of the Garda Síochána.

It is important that the matter raised by the Senator is put into context. The House will be aware that, under plans agreed by the previous Government as part of its compliance with the terms of the EU-IMF agreement, Garda numbers are to be reduced to 13,500 by the end of this year and by a further 500 to 13,000 by 2014.

However, what will ultimately determine the sustainable level of Garda numbers is the level of budgetary provision that can be made for the force in the coming years, and the House will be conscious that difficult decisions will have to be made throughout the public sector to bring the public finances back into balance. This means the Garda Síochána, like every other public sector body, will have to manage with reduced resources. Therefore, the Garda Commissioner is reviewing all aspects of current policing, including the deployment of personnel, the utilisation of modern technologies and the operation of Garda stations.

It is important to state that no decision has been taken on the closure of any Garda station. What is equally important is that a reduction in public opening hours in some Garda stations, and the closure of other Garda stations, will be issues that the Garda Commissioner will have to address as part of the review. He may well have to consider whether, in appropriate cases, a better policing service could be delivered to a local community by having Garda members out on patrol rather than in a station.

The Minister will very carefully consider the outcome of this review and the Commissioner's policing plan for next year with the objective of ensuring that priority is given to the maintenance of frontline services. At the same time, the Minister can assure the Senator and the House that it is a priority for the Government to maintain Garda front-line services at the highest level possible.

On behalf of the Minister, I pay tribute to the Garda Síochána, at this particularly difficult time, for the commitment and the professionalism its members display in carrying out their duties. The Minister is confident that the Garda force will continue to maintain the confidence of the public and operate successfully as it has been doing so effectively since the foundation of the State.

I concur with the Minister of State in conveying the sympathies of this side of the House on the regrettable tragedy that occurred in Wicklow last night where, in the course of his civic responsibility to help others, a very young off-duty garda was lost. As somebody with huge respect for the gardaí and with family members in the force I concur with the Minister of State in this regard.

I am not absolutely clear on the intent of the Minister, Deputy Shatter, from the response but I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House and for putting the matter into perspective. I will convey the response to the people in the community of Kilbrittain. I hope when the matter is being considered that each Garda station will be judged on its merits.

I feel very strongly about the importance of gardaí living in the community and ask the Minister of State to take this point to the Minister, and perhaps, directly or indirectly, to the Garda Commissioner. Last night, I specifically inquired and discovered that none of the eight gardaí at the station I mentioned live in the vicinity of the town. Whether he or she is involved in the local GAA club, goes to church or meets people day to day, the presence of a garda, whether on or off duty, is critical to a community.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 26 October 2011.
Top
Share