Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Oct 1996

Vol. 469 No. 3

Control of Horses Bill, 1996: Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, line 30, after "person convicted" to insert "or where the court is satisfied that the owner is unknown or cannot be found".

This amendment is in response to concerns expressed by Deputy Molloy in particular on Committee Stage. I hope this provision will allay his fears. I commend the amendment to the House.

I have no objection to the amendment. My recollection from Committee Stage is that the Minister said on a couple of occasions that certain constitutional issues were involved and advice was made available to the Government to which the Opposition did not have access. Deputy Molloy raised this matter. We were given an undertaking that the advice would be transmitted to us but I have not received it.

Unfortunately, I was not present for the earlier discussions on the matter. Has the Bill taken into account the tagging of horses because the ownership of a horse cannot be confirmed without some mark of identification?

I was given oral advice, as I pointed out. No written advice was available from the Attorney General's office. Following the oral advice, and consultation with the Attorney General's office, we agreed that this would go some way towards satisfying Deputy Molloy's concerns raised on Committee Stage. That is the reason the Deputy did not receive a written explanation.

On Deputy Clohessy's point, there is provision in the Bill for identification. On Report Stage we can only address the amendments before us.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 3 is related. It is suggested that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 be taken together. However, recommittal is necessary in respect of these amendments as they do not arise out of Committee proceedings.

I understand the Minister wishes to move to have the Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

As we are in Committee, Members may speak more than once.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 9, line 44, to delete "specified in bye-laws made" and substitute "fixed".

These amendments are to facilitate the administrative process rather than using by-laws to set fees for people who wish to look at records, etc. We thought it would improve the Bill to set fees for the review of registers of horses which were impounded. This is to improve the effectiveness of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 10, line 5, to delete "stand specified in bye-laws made" and substitute "be fixed".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 reported.

Amendment No. 4 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 4 is partly consequential on amendment No. 11 and amendment No. 9 is consequential on amendment No. 11. Therefore, it is suggested that we discuss amendments Nos. 4, 9 and 11 together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed. Recommittal is necessary in regard to amendment No. 4.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 11, to delete lines 13 to 15 and substitute the following:

"(4) Subsections (1), (2) and (3) do not apply to bye-laws made under—

(a) section 17 (3) on foot of a direction of the Minister, or

(b) section 19 (g), or

(c) section 44 which are stated in the bye-laws to be in force for a period of not more than one month.".

This amendment is to facilitate the Minister when he advises a local authority to declare part of its area a control area. It takes it outside the normal process of by-laws where it is a reserve function of the local authority. It will help make the Bill more effective in the three instances outlined in the amendment, first, where the Minister will direct a local authority to declare a control area so that provision can be made immediately for the designation of the control area, second, under section 19 — (g) a sporting event would not be held up by a local authority with a reserve function to introduce by-laws and, third, where an exclusion area is declared under section 44. I commend the amendment to the House and suggest the House accept it.

I do not have any difficulty with this amendment as it ties in with what the Minister is trying to achieve. The Minister referred to control areas but as other amendments relating to the issue are tabled I will not dwell on it at this stage.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 11, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

"(10) The provisions of section 42 (which relates to the publication of bye-laws) of the Local Government Act, 1994, shall apply to any bye-law or bye-laws made under this Act and references in that section to a bye-law or bye-laws (including the reference in subsection (6) of that section to bye-laws made under Part VII of the Local Government Act, 1994) shall be construed as including references to a bye-law or bye-laws made under this Act.".

This amendment is necessary to keep the provisions of this Bill in line with the Local Government Act, 1994. It is a technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 reported.

We come to amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 7 is related and amendment No. 8 is consequential on amendment No. 7. I suggest, therefore, that we debate amendment Nos. 6, 7 and 8 together.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 12, to delete lines 12 to 20 and substitute the following:

"17. The entire country shall be a control area.".

This is a topic we discussed at some length on Committee Stage. I am not happy about what we are doing in respect of control areas. I set out to make the country a control area. I accept the Minister is trying to accommodate my proposal and I thank him, but the Bill as framed allows local authorities to opt out rather than in. The whole country should be a control area and if a local authority wishes to opt out it should only be allowed do so by going through the tortuous process of by-laws etc. If local authorities are contiguous and do not have a control area the Minister has powers to do something about it. Is that going far enough? I do not understand the Minister's reluctance to make the whole country a control area. He could accept my amendment and also include amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

This problem seems to be concentrated in certain parts of the country. We carried out an audit of the number of wandering horses throughout the country and discovered that certain parts of the country are not affected by the phenomenon. That was the reason we decided to develop control areas. The advantage in having a control area is that resources can be targeted in those areas where the problem is most pronounced. If the entire country was a control area resources would have to be spread thinly. There are specific areas where this is a real problem.

I hope, through the concept of control areas, we can target certain areas. Concern was expressed by a number of Deputies, including Deputy Kenneally, on Committee Stage. I consulted the parliamentary draftsman and we came up with amendment No. 7 which provides that if a local authority designates its area a control area and if horses wander in from the neighbouring local authority area, which is not a control area, that local authority can request the neighbouring local authority to declare its area a control area. If it refuses to do so the local authority can apply to the Minister who can direct that local authority to declare itself a control area.

For the purposes of this Bill that local authority can use the local authority which has a control area for administrative purposes, licensing and so on. This is a very important provision. If it becomes a national problem the whole country could become a control area. The Bill is built around the concept of control areas where there is a problem. If the State was designated a control area there would be no point in having control areas. I am here to listen, to try to improve the Bill and provide effective legislation which will have the support of the House. We will allay the fears of a number of Deputies, including Deputy Walsh, who spoke on this question on Committee Stage. Given that we have tried to accommodate Deputy Kenneally and others I ask him to accept my amendment.

On a point of information, in the event of a need to designate the entire country a control area could it be done by regulation at the request of a local authority?

The Minister has gone a long way to address the problem I raised on Committee Stage. He has done an excellent job in drawing attention to an important aspect — the ability of the State to target the areas where the problem exists, such as Tallaght where there are now more than 1,000 wandering horses. If the entire country was designated a control area it would be difficult to target the affected areas. The ability of the Minister to intervene if a local authority adjacent to another area where there is a problem fails to act is the required safeguard. The Minister has done an excellent job and has addressed the problem adequately. Deputy Kenneally's amendment, although his intention was to address what was becoming a very big problem, would dilute the targeting of resources to where the problem exists.

I do not agree that targeting all areas, and not only those where the problem is most pronounced, will result in the resources being spread too thinly. Deputy Walsh referred to Dublin where the problem is different from that in other areas. In areas outside Dublin people who own horses will move to an area which is not a control area, if there is a problem. In the past these owners moved out of areas where there were problems and returned at a later stage when the heat had died down. I cannot, therefore, accept the argument that by targeting all areas the resources will be spread too thinly.

The Minister said that a local authority can be directed at a later stage to designate an area a control area. We discussed the matter on Committee Stage and concluded that it would take approximately two months for a local authority to introduce a by-law designating an area as a control area. It would take a similar period for the Minister to make an order and for it to be operable. The formula I have put forward is more acceptable and would work much better. Having said that, I accept that the Minister listened to the points made by Deputies on Second and Committee Stages and has gone a good deal of the way in addressing the reservations expressed by me. With this in mind, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 12, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

"(2) Where a local authority has declared under subsection (1) all or any part of its functional area to be a control area and horses are regularly—

(a) straying or being brought into that control area from any area, or

(b) kept or straying into any area adjacent to the control area.

which is part of the functional area of an adjoining local authority which is not a control area and are causing nuisance, annoyance or injury to persons or damage to property in the control area, the first mentioned local authority may—

(i) request the adjoining local authority to declare that part of its functional area to be a control area, and

(ii) Where the adjoining local authority is unwilling to so declare, request the Minister to declare that part or the whole of the functional area of the adjoining local authority to be a control area.

(3) The Minister, having received a request under subsection (2) and consulted with the adjoining local authority, and where he or she is satisfied that horses in that part or the whole of the functional area concerned should be licensed having regard to the need to control the keeping of horses, the need to prevent nuisance, annoyance or injury to persons or damage to property by horses, may direct the adjoining local authority to declare by bye-laws the aforesaid part or the whole of the functional area of the adjoining local authority to be a control area.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 12, line 18, to delete "subsection (1)" and substitute "this section".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 13, line 45, to delete "(f)" and substitute "(f) or (g)*".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 10, 12, 13 and 14 are consequential on amendment No. 15. It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 together. Recommittal is necessary in respect of these amendments.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 10.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 14, lines 15 to 17, to delete "the local authority in whose functional area the control area is situated;" and substitute the following:

"(i) the local authority in whose functional area the control area is situated, or

(ii) a local authority which has entered into arrangements under section 20 (10) on behalf of another local authority in respect of that control area or part thereof, with the consent of that other authority regarding the making of the bye-laws;".

These amendments will give effect to arrangements made between local authorities for the imposition of by-laws and for licensing and other purposes where a local authority takes on responsibility for an area which is the responsibility of another local authority. These amendments follow on from amendment No. 7, which was agreed.

I do not have a problem with these amendments but I am afraid the Minister may be leaving the door open for a local authority to act in an agency capacity for all other local authorities. The Minister said that the area outside Dublin with the largest number of horses is Wexford. Given the large number of horses in its area the local authority in Wexford will have to deploy staff to deal with the registration, etc. of horses. Local authorities in other areas may decide that the staff in the Wexford local authority are experts in these matters and it would be better to pay that local authority an agency fee. Is that the aim of this provision and, if so, how will it work in practice? Will it mean that, say, Donegal County Council will be able to send all the paperwork regarding the registration of horses to the Wexford local authority? That is my reading of these amendments and I would like the Minister to clarify the position.

It will be done by agreement. If Bray, which is on the outskirts of a local authority area, has a problem which affects the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown local authority area, it can ask the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown local authority to apply its by-laws to the affected area. Local authorities will not be compelled to do this; rather it is an option which we believe will facilitate the speedy imposition of by-laws and immediately put in place a licensing system to deal with the problem. This system has not been provided for before.

We discussed the matter at length and considered the reservations expressed by the Deputy but, at the end of the day, we decided that this provision would facilitate the effectiveness of the Bill. The adoption by a local authority of the by-laws of another local authority will have to be done by agreement between both local authorities. This is probably not the way local authorities will go but it is an option for them. Deputy Lenihan, who has a legal background, may have a different view of this innovative provision but, having discussed the matter at length, I am convinced it will facilitate the taking of effective action to deal with a problem at a particular time.

The Minister is basically saying that, even though it is unlikely, the scenaric I outlined could happen. What we all want at the end of the day is effective action, and I am prepared to sit back and watch how this provision works in practice. If it does not work, obviously we will have to come back and look at it at a later stage.

The Minister mentioned Bray as an example which, of course, is an urban district. The definition of "local authority" in the Bill appears to be restricted to counties and county boroughs. I take it the Minister was referring to a county adjacent to a county borough in which case it would be more convenient for the county borough to manage the pound for the suburban area within the county, for example, the part of Meath adjacent to County Fingal or the part of Kildare adjacent to South County Dublin.

The Minister's proposal is excellent, particularly with regard to the Dublin area where there are four local authorities. It would be pointless to oblige each authority to set up a structure to deal with the problem of wandering horses. South Dublin County Council would be the ideal authority to deal with it as it has the greatest number of wandering horses. This would be an ideal arrangement to prevent duplication of services, although it might be more difficult to apply in rural areas.

I intended to cite the example of Meath and Fingal. The views of local authorities were sought when this provision was being drafted and they were enthusiastic about it. We were confident, therefore, that its inclusion would improve the Bill's effectiveness. Arrangements can be made between neighbouring councils if there is a specific problem which spills over into another local authority area. As Deputy Kenneally pointed out, people might move to an area where there are no controls and this provision will speedily rectify that problem.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 14, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

"(g) is brought into the area for the purposes of participating in a specified event on a specified day or specified days as may be permitted in bye-laws made by—

(i) the local authority in whose functional area the control area is situated, or (ii) a local authority which has entered into arrangements under section 20 (10) on behalf of another local authority in respect of that control area or part thereof, with the consent of that other authority regarding the making of the bye-laws;".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 14, lines 25 to 27, to delete "the local authority in whose functional area the horse is kept may permit by bye-laws;" and substitute the following:

"may be permitted in bye-laws made by—

(i) the local authority in whose functional area the control area is situated, or

(ii) a local authority which has entered into arrangements under section 20 (10) on behalf of another local authority in respect of that control area or part thereof, with the consent of that other authority regarding the making of the bye-laws;".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 14, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

"(2) A consent given by a local authority under paragraph (f) (ii) or (i) (ii) shall be a reserved function.

(3) Any bye-laws made under paragraph (f) (ii) or (i) (ii) shall cease to have effect in the control area or part thereof to which the arrangements under section 20 (10) related where those arrangements are terminated.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 14, to delete lines 30 to 34 and substitute the following:

"(1) Where a horse is to be kept in a control area a licence (‘horse licence') may be granted to the owner of the horse by—

(a) subject to subsection (10) (c)*, the local authority for the functional area in which the control area is situated entitling the owner to keep the horse in a control area within its functional area, or

(b) a local authority with whom arrangements have been entered into by another local authority under subsection (10) (a)* entitling the owner to keep the horse in a control area within the functional area of the authority granting the licence and the control area or such part of it of that other authority to which those arrangements relate.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 15, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

"(10) (a) A local authority may enter into arrangements with another local authority in relation to the application for and the granting of horse licences on its behalf.

(b) The entering into of arrangements under this subsection or any termination thereof shall be a reserved function.

(c) A local authority which has entered into arrangements under this subsection with another local authority shall not grant a horse licence in respect of a horse to be kept in such part of its functional area to which the arrangements relate whilst those arrangements are in force.

(d) Where any arrangements entered into under this subsection are terminated any horse licence granted whilst the arrangements were in force shall continue to be in force in respect of the control area to which the licence relates.".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are related to amendment No. 16, so amendments Nos. 16, 21 and 22 will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 18, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

"29. —It shall be unlawful for any person to—

(a) hold any horse fair, sale or mart without the express permission of the local authority for that area,

(b) sell or buy any horse to or from a person under the age of 16 years,

(c) hold any sale of horses without the presence of a local authority veterinary surgeon or a surgeon approved by the local authority for the area,

(d) hold any horse sale, fair or mart without the presence of the Garda Síochána and the ISPCA.

(e) gallop any horse at such sale, fair or mart unless provision has been made for galloping in a suitably railed or fenced area,

(f) tie any horse to any moving vehicle,

(g) drive any horse before a moving motor vehicle,

(h) overload or overcrowd any horse in any moving vehicle,

(i) gallop any mare with foal at foot,

(j) buy or sell any foal under the age of 6 months without its dam or foster mother,

(k) buy or sell any horse without a proper identification mark or without its registration papers,

(l) use any spurs, sticks or goads while riding or driving any horse,

(m) permit more than one person to ride any horse at any one time,

(n) use bits made of wire, rope or twine,

(o) sell or buy any horse which is unfit or unsound, either through illness or injury without examination of the horse and consent of a veterinary surgeon,

(p) hold any horse fair, sale or mart, where there is not a supply of clean water and suitable drinking troughs,

(q) hold any horse fair, sale or mart on cobbled streets without provision of sawdust or other suitable anti-slip agent, or

(r) ride any unshod horse on any public road.".

This amendment was proposed on Committee Stage and the Minister of State undertook to examine the position. He appears to have done that. The Department's officials have indicated that what I sought to achieve in the amendment is already enshrined in legislation. However, this amendment probably goes further. When this matter was discussed on Second Stage and Committee Stage a number of Government backbenchers were overwhelmingly in favour of the amendment. In amendments Nos. 21 and 22 the Minister is given the power to amend by-laws of local authorities. Is it the case that the controls I was attempting to introduce are not in place and that local authorities do not have the power to enforce regulations such as this? If they had such power it would not be necessary for the Minister to propose amendments Nos. 21 and 22. If they do not have the power it would be better to go further than the Minister and introduce the various conditions outlined in my amendment. Perhaps my amendment duplicates what is already included in other legislation. Would the position be more secure if it was included?

I agree with the provisions in the amendment. However, they are not matters for primary legislation. Many of the provisions are already in place in various welfare Acts, as is outlined in the table in the Bill. Local authorities can take account of these provisions in their by-laws. Including these provisions in the Bill would curtail the flexibility of local authorities in this regard. I prefer to leave such decisions to local authorities so that they can frame by-laws that would be most suitable to their own areas and difficulties.

Deputy Kenneally expressed considerable concern about this on Committee Stage and, in order to take his point on board, I have emphasised the words "fair" and "market" in the Government amendment. The amendment refers specifically to the conduct of fairs and markets by local authorities when they are framing by-laws. We have gone as far as possible to allay the fears of Deputy Kenneally with respect to fairs and the welfare issue. The table in the Bill outlines the legislation currently in place governing fairs.

I am happy with the Minister of State's amendments. By including the words "fair" and "market" he has addressed my concerns. I do not wish to hamstring local authorities when drawing up their by-laws. I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 19 is related to amendment No. 17 and amendment No. 18 is consequential on amendment No. 19. Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 21, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(4) A stray horse seized and detained under this section on three occasions shall be forfeited to the local authority in whose functional area the said horse was detained.".

This amendment applies to the fundamental sections of the Bill. If these sections do not stand up the legislation will collapse like a deck of cards. What efforts have been made to make this Bill operable? There is no point in introducing legislation if it will not be effective. There is a major problem and we must ensure that the legislation is effective.

My amendment is simple and straightforward. If an animal is impounded on three occasions the local authority can dispose of it as it sees fit. I have spoken to members of my local authority and received representations from other councillors and local authorities who were concerned about the Bill following Committee Stage. They believe it has been rendered inoperable. The Minister of State has put forward a lengthy amendment to section 39 to meet some of those fears. However, I am not convinced that it achieves its aim. It appears that we will still have to refer to section 8 of the Bill which provides that a local authority must go to court to get possession of a horse in order to make a decision on how the animal will be disposed of. We are all aware of how clogged our court system is at present and how long it takes for a case to get to court.

What I am endeavouring to achieve is much simpler. The authorised officer should be allowed make a decision on impounding and disposing of horses. The Minister's amendment will create unnecessary bureaucracy. Subsection (3) states "... (including representations to the effect that the owner of the horse was not the owner of the horse on any previous occasion when it was detained under section 36 during the aforesaid period of 12 months) ...". That provision will allow horse owners circumvent the law. If a person's horse were impounded, ownership could be transferred to the owner's wife. If it were impounded a second time, ownership could be transferred to a son or daughter and after a period of 12 months it could be transferred back into the husband's name. The Minister is creating a loophole for people to circumvent the provisions of the legislation. Subsection (4) of the Minister's amendment states, "...the person may within 7 days of such notification appeal against the decision to the judge of the District Court within whose district court district the horse is detained". This would mean the relevant local authority would have to go through the courts to have the matter resolved.

This is not what we set out to do. We wanted to make the legislation as simple as possible, but instead we are creating unnecessary bureaucracy. This is a fundamental section of the Bill. If we allow the legislation to pass as currently drafted, it will not work and Members will have wasted time dealing with it. The authorised officers should make decisions about disposing of horses. The Minister also referred to the necessity to put up notices and to write to the person concerned. This Bill will accommodate the perpetrators, not those affected by the problem. If a horse is impounded because the owner is not taking care of it, the onus should be on that individual to get the animal back. As this section will make the Bill unworkable, I cannot accept it.

I accept the spirit of the Deputy's amendment, which is included in the Minister's amendment. We must provide a system of appeal in this area. The onus is on the owner, not the local authority, to make the necessary representations or, if necessary, to go through the legal process to have his or her horse returned.

The three strikes clause, which was in the original legislation, was removed on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman because of the question of property and constitutional rights. We consulted Dublin Corporation and other local authorities prior to drafting this amendment and it addresses the concerns expressed on Committee Stage. It will also mean a citizen cannot be treated unfairly. The amendment strikes a balance between introducing effective legislation and ensuring people are not victimised. The parliamentary draftsman did a good job in drafting it. While I accept the Deputy's point, I am sure he will change his mind about the Minister's amendment now that he knows the horse owner, not the local authority, will have to go through the legal process to have the horse returned.

I am pleased the Minister addressed the concerns expressed by Members on Committee Stage. Local administrations and their officers were concerned that the Bill would lead to a revolving door system at the pound where horses would go in and out in a manner analogous to our general penal system. The Minister has gone some way towards meeting that concern. One could also make an analogy with the driving test. If one fails, one has a right to appeal, but the onus is on the person applying for the licence to make that appeal. The Minister has placed the onus on the horse owner to reclaim the animal when it has been impounded on three occasions.

Our amendment gives a much clearer signal about what will happen. Clear signals are necessary in this area. I am pleased the draftsman reconsidered the matter because I understood from the Committee Stage debate that the Attorney General believed it would be unconstitutional to dispose of a horse that had been seized and impounded on three occasions. Is it unconstitutional, for example, for local authorities to collect and dispose of litter? We are dealing with anti-social behaviour in this legislation. If the common good deems it necessary, the Constitution allows property rights to be delimited in the interests of social justice. In this case the common good would deem it necessary to provide for the forfeiture of a horse that has been impounded on three occasions. Our amendment gives a clear signal in that regard.

The Minister gave a detailed explanation of this complex matter. The onus to take the matter to court will rest with the horse owner. Local authorities were concerned that they would have to go to court to get permission to deal with the problem and in so doing waste a great deal of time dealing with people who have little regard for the legal process. The Minister's amendment addresses the concerns expressed on Committee Stage and the legislation will work. The onus will be on the offender to take the matter to court.

If this provision were not in the Bill, horse owners would probably go through the courts anyway. If we do not provide for a system of appeal, a court might not approve of local authorities confiscating horses. In other words, the courts could place restrictions on the manner in which the legislation works and they could decide how to deal with the problem. The Minister must be seen to be fair and he has taken the best course of action. I am sure Deputies Kenneally and Lenihan will also agree this is the best possible approach.

The Minister of State made an excellent case for the amendment and I accept his views to some extent. However, in making a judgement under this legislation, a local authority official or a superintendent would be more likely to take positive action to deal with this major problem if that person were operating on the basis of the amendment tabled by Deputies Kenneally and Lenihan rather than on the one tabled by the Minister.

I believe the Minister's proposal will be to water down the effectiveness of the Bill. The case put by my colleagues is a lot stronger and will result in a better Bill which will serve the public in a more positive way.

I listened to the Minister but he has not told me anything I do not already know. Obviously the person who is appealing must bring the matter to court but how long will it take? The horse will be dead by the time the case gets to court given the backlog in our courts system at present. The Minister spoke about red tape but, as I said, the authorised officer must write to the person, as stated in his amendment. There is a safeguard for the owner because the horse is not disposed of after the first or second occasion but after the third.

The Minister is hiding behind the parliamentary draftsman and constitutional rights. As he said, the heads of the Bill were along the lines I proposed. Again, we have not heard a reason that is not constitutional. My colleague, Deputy Lenihan, adverted to that. Unfortunately, the Bill is being watered down. I accept the Minister has tried to go a long way but the Bill, as it stands, may not be workable. He should have taken that extra step and for that reason, I will press the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 21, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

"(c) where that horse has previously been detained on two or more occasions within a period of 12 months, deal with it in accordance with section 39, or".

Amendment agreed to.

Recommittal is necessary in respect of amendment No. 18a.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 18a.

I move amendment No. 18a.

In page 22, line 4, after "detained" to insert "within such time as may be specified in the bye-laws".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 22, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

"39. —(1) A horse which has been detained under section 36 and which has previously been detained on two or more occasions within a period of 12 months under that section may be disposed of as the local authority in whose functional area the horse has been detained or the Superintendent, as the case may be, sees fit where that authority or Superintendent is of the opinion that—

(a) the owner or keeper of the horse is not exercising adequate control over the horse so as to prevent it straying, causing a nuisance, or posing a danger to persons or property, or

(b) such horse is likely to be in a public place whilst not—

(i) under adequate control, or

(ii) identifiable or capable of identification as may be required by section 28.

(2) (a) A local authority may charge such fees to be paid by the owner or keeper of a horse which is detained within its functional area and which is to be disposed of under this section as may be specified in bye-laws made by it (including fees in respect of the keeping and any transportation of, or veterinary services provided to, such horse).

(b) A local authority may recover as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction from any person by whom it is payable any amount due and owing to it under this subsection.

(3) Where a local authority or a Superintendent proposes to dispose of a horse under this section the authority or the Superintendent, as the case may be, shall display publicly a notice to that effect at the place where the horse is detained and in such other places (if any) as it or he or she sees fit and shall send a notice in writing to the owner or keeper (whose whereabouts is known) of the horse stating that at any time after the expiration of 5 days or such longer period as may be stated in the notice from the publication of the notice it is intended to dispose of the horse and the reasons for and the nature of the proposed disposal and that the owner or keeper may within that period make representations (including representations to the effect that the owner of the horse was not the owner of the horse on any previous occasion when it was detained under section 36 during the aforesaid period of 12 months) to the local authority or the Superintendent, as the case may be, against the proposal.

(4) Where a local authority or a Superintendent having considered any representations that may have been made to it or him or her under subsection (3) decides to dispose of a horse under this section the authority or the Superintendent, as the case may be, shall notify any person who has made such representations of the decision and the person may within 7 days of such notification appeal against the decision to the judge of the District Court within whose district court district the horse is detained.

(5) A decision to dispose of a horse under this section shall not take effect until after any representations under subsection (3) have been considered and the expiration of the period allowed for the appeal under subsection (4).

(6) Where an appeal is made under subsection (4) against a decision to dispose of a horse, the decision shall stand suspended until the appeal is determined or withdrawn.

(7) On the hearing of the appeal under subsection (4) in relation to a decision of a local authority or a Superintendent to dispose of a horse, the District Court may either confirm the decision or allow the appeal.

(8) A decision of the District Court on an appeal under subsection (4) shall be final save that by leave of the Court, an appeal from the decision shall lie to the High Court on a specified question of law.".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 23, line 9, after "area" to insert "and in particular may provide lands within the functional area of the local authority for the keeping of horses".

This arises out of the earlier discussion about the need for local authorities to provide corrals or some place for the keeping of horses. This amendment provides that in addition to making by-laws for the control and welfare of horses in the whole or part of its functional area, a local authority may "in particular provide lands within the functional area of the local authority for the keeping of horses."

The amendment as proposed does not suggest that there should be any obligation on a local authority to do so. It merely permits a local authority to provide lands for that purpose. If inserted in section 43, it would allow the local authority to adopt by-laws to regulate any such corral or place. The general social problem which this amendment seeks to address is the need to provide or to give encouragement to those in deprived areas who have shown a great interest in equine culture and to try to develop that in a positive and regulated fashion. That was the thinking in our party behind tabling this amendment.

We debated this on Committee Stage and I expressed my opposition to it following consultation with people in the areas most affected by the problem of wandering horses. They were adamant that there should be no place in any urban area for the keeping of horses because there is great difficulty in enforcing control. If a local authority allows for a corral, it would fall to it to police it and to ensure that it is kept properly. Attempts to provide such places would create difficulty to people living adjacent to them.

People are fearful of the consequences of having animals in urban areas and fear that it is unhygienic. A suggestion was made in Tallaght today, though I am convinced there must be some mistake, that a case of foot and mouth disease has been identified in Crumlin Hospital. It is strange that people from a rural background are suggesting the control of animals in urban areas is a problem and that some children in Crumlin Hospital have been affected by foot and mouth disease as a result of droppings from animals. I know that sounds like a wild suggestion but it was said to me by a number of people.

The keeping of animals in an urban area is unsuitable. Inserting such a provision in the Bill would create a loophole and corrals would be established. It would fall to the local authority to police them so as to ensure they were operated in accordance with various regulations and Acts. This would put further strain on a local authority. If people in urban areas wish to enjoy horses they must do so in an environment which is suitable for the horse. The local authority areas I represent do not constitute such an area. I oppose this amendment on the grounds that people have told me they do not want horses in urban areas.

This amendment was inspired by a visit I made to Deputy Walsh's constituency and by remarks made to me by my Dublin colleagues who knew of various projects set up around the city. This problem relates more to Dublin than to any other part of the country. I withdrew the amendment on Committee Stage to see if we could improve its wording. It is basically an encouragement to local authorities to try to provide ground, where possible, for properly constituted organisations in areas which will not affect anybody and where animals will be corralled. We cannot compel local authorities to provide corrals. They do not have the wherewithal to deal with such a problem. However, certain projects are operating well, are extremely well controlled and deserve to be supported. I suggest that councils issue a licence in respect of worthy projects and withdraw it in a year's time if the operation is not properly run. Encouragement should be given to the people operating such projects.

I agree with the Minister that the section is broad enough to cover the establishment of an area for the purpose intended in the amendment. Section 43 states that the local authority may make by-laws for the control and welfare of horses in all or part of its functional area. If necessary, that covers local authorities providing lands within their jurisdictions. The amendment is a legal nicety and it is not required. I agree the option covered in it should be available. The ownership and use of horses is uncontrolled and horses are widely abused, particularly by young people of virtually every age.

In my area, Dublin Corporation has embarked on proposals to provide at least one corral in the area in Ballyfermot. It has identified land and met City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee with a view to establishing a corral covering an area of 12 acres. People have requested that the area be larger, up to 20 acres, and local councillors have been involved in the discussions. It is proposed that stables be provided and that the local authority, FÁS and the vocational education committee co-ordinate their efforts in the provision of community employment schemes and education facilities in that respect. The approach is not directed at stamping out the love and care of horses that is part and parcel of the issue. It is directed at stamping out the abuse of horses while ensuring that young people in deprived areas have an opportunity to come in contact with animals, particularly horses. In that process they would be educated and trained in the care, grooming and riding of horses in controlled conditions.

There is a good deal of open space in areas, such as Ballyfermot and Finglas, that border County Dublin. People in Finglas are seeking the establishment of a corral project. The local authority should have the option to set up such projects, but they must be controlled, otherwise matters will get out of hand. It is envisaged that horses will be provided under such projects and not owned by the children, that training will be provided by FÁS and that education will be provided by the local vocational school. That would encourage youngsters into an education and training mode. Many of the young people involved with horses are drop-outs and are at risk and it would be valuable if their energies were channelled into such developments.

I share some of the concerns expressed by Deputy Walsh, but each local authority should be able to reserve the right to pursue the option set out in the amendment in consultation with its councillors and with people in localities where the problem of wandering horses and abuse of them is endemic. We are all aware of those areas in the county and city. The wishes of Deputies Kenneally and Lenihan are encompassed in section 43. I agree with the wording in it and welcome the exploration by my local authority of the prospect of providing an area where young people can be properly educated in the handling of horses.

I agree with the principle of providing land for corral and other projects in areas experiencing the problem of wandering horses, but it is not necessary to provide for that in legislation as local authorities can do so under existing arrangements. As Deputy Costello pointed out, section 43 allows local authorities to approve the setting up of corral projects. If the provision was included in the Bill, it could be used against local authorities. It could be abused and could leave local authorities open to court action and unreasonable requests. Local authorities experiencing this problem will have to respond to the needs of their communities. If there is a need to provide proper corral projects for young people to pursue their interests, local authorities should provide them and should be supported as much as possible by the State.

However, providing for that in legislation is unnecessary and it could put an unfair onus on local authorities. For that reason I reject the amendment, but I agree with the aspiration and motivation behind it. I hope local authorities will provide these facilities when the full impact of this Bill is felt. It is tough effective legislation and there must be a response to the problem.

I accept the Minister's point that there are many judicial decisions where the word "may" was interpreted as meaning "shall" or "must" and that is an understandable concern. On that basis and on the basis of the interpretation of the section given in such an authoritative manner by Deputy Costello and confirmed by the Minister we will not press the amendment.

I agree with Deputy Costello that the problem concerns children in deprived areas, some of which are experiencing the drugs problem at its most intense. Any activity that can give a spark of hope to the younger populations in those areas must be encouraged. That is why my party tabled this amendment. While I appreciate Deputy Walsh's concerns, there is a good deal of vacant land in local authority areas of Fingal and South County Dublin and, as Deputy Costello stated, in parts of the functional area of Dublin Corporation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 23, line 14, after "public place" to insert "(including a market or fair)".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 23, line 18, after "horse" to insert "in any place (including a market or fair)".

Amendment agreed to.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 23.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 23, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

"(c) specify the measures to be taken by the owner or keeper of a horse to prevent a nuisance being caused to persons occupying any premises adjacent to or in the vicinity of the place where the horse is usually kept.".

I tabled this amendment in response to a number of letters I received from people concerned about the potential nuisance of horses being kept by their neighbours. Those concerns were very clearly expressed in the correspondence I received and, with the parliamentary draftman, we drafted this response. It will enable local authorities to specify how people should keep their horses, even if they are being legitimately kept in their backyards. It is a necessary amendment which will strengthen the effectiveness of the Bill and I recommend it to the House.

It is very sensible of the Minister of State to respond so positively to the genuine fears which some people expressed. I fully support this eminently sensible provision.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported.

I observe that recommittal is necessary in respect of amendment No. 24. I further observe that amendment No. 25 is cognate and amendment No. 26 is related. I suggest, therefore, we discuss amendments Nos. 24 to 26, inclusive, together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 24 to 26, inclusive.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 23, line 22, before "area" where it firstly occurs to insert "place or".

This amendment is purely for editorial purposes.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 23, line 25 before "area" to insert "place or".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 23, line 25, after "area" to insert "at any time or at such times as may be specified in the bye-laws."

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 24 to 26, inclusive, reported.
Bill reported with amendments.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I take the opportunity to thank Members for their co-operation in dealing with this Bill. The House has had a major influence on its drafting and final outcome. The Bill has been enhanced and strengthened as a result of the amendments made during the debate. While I have not accepted all proposals for change, I have considered each of them carefully and I have made sure to draw upon any which were amenable to insertion in the Bill, either on practical or legal grounds. I like to think that I have accommodated Deputies to the fullest extent possible. I thank the House for its positive and constructive support of the Bill.

I also put on record my appreciation of the support and advice received from the local authorities, resident associations, travelling community, equestrian groups and the farming community. The extensive level of consultation with such a wide cross section of our society reflects the complexity of the difficulties encountered with wandering horses. This consultation process was of great benefit in the drafting of the Bill. I have already commenced a consultation process in relation to the means of horse identification appropriate under the legislation and in relation to the drafting of by-laws to be introduced by the local authorities.

I believe this Bill addresses two principal issues, namely, the protection of persons and property from the dangers of wandering horses and also the welfare of horses. On the implementation of the provisions of this Bill the risks to motorists and pedestrians will be much reduced. Coupled with this, the Bill reflects the onus on horse owners to take greater responsibility for their horses by not exposing their animals to the dangers of motorways and to provide adequate accommodation for their horses without hindrance to other persons.

I look forward to bringing this Bill to the Seanad without delay as early enactment is desirable to alleviate this escalating problem of wandering horses, principally in urban areas. I assure those who have supported the Bill that the legislation, when enacted, will be vigorously enforced. This is in everybody's interest.

I thank my officials who have worked very hard for the past year and a half on this legislation. Last March two officials and I received a blank sheet of paper and were told to put this legislation in place. It was a difficult task. This is pioneering legislation in many ways and it took a long time to produce a framework for it. We produced this Bill in record time.

I also thank the parliamentary draftsman who was very patient. He followed the debate and listened to the contributions by Deputies on all sides. As a result, we have a better Bill. I thank Deputies for their worthwhile contributions, especially Deputy Kenneally who introduced his own Private Members' Bill, and the Minister, Deputy Proinsias De Rossa.

I wish to express my thanks for the generous way in which all Deputies approached this Bill. We worked together very effectively during the private briefing and on Second and Committee Stages. The Bill has been agreed by the House and I hope it will be effective.

I am glad we have finally reached this stage. This matter has been a bugbear for a considerable period. Nobody was doing anything about the problem, which is what inspired me to draft my Private Members' Bill. I compliment the Minister of State on all the work he has done. As he said, he began with a blank sheet of paper and it was a difficult task.

This is the first time I have been so closely involved with any legislation. I do not agree with everything in the Bill but most of the points we put forward on Second and Committee Stages were seriously considered and taken on board by the Minister of State where he could do so. We were also given the courtesy of being brought through the heads of the Bill at the drafting stage. The Bill contains 47 sections and one can clearly see from the number of amendments tabled on Committee and Report Stages that a great deal of thought and consideration was put into it by everybody concerned.

I hope the necessary resources will be put in place to ensure the effectiveness of the legislation. Otherwise, our work over the past months will have been useless. I hope we do not have to return to make further changes to the Bill.

I thank the Minister of State for all his help and courtesy throughout the entire debate. I also thank the Deputies on all sides of the House who contributed. The Minister of State's officials were extremely helpful. I thank everyone who was involved. I hope the Bill will be passed by the Seanad fairly quickly.

I too pay tribute to the Minister and his work on this excellent, well researched Bill, the provisions of which will address the serious problem of wandering horses nationwide. He has done an excellent job in the manner in which he accommodated, wherever possible, any reasonable argument and his crucial, prior consultation with local authorities, residents' associations and everybody with a vested interest in its provisions which also reflect the extremely hard work of his officials.

Deputies Kenneally and Lenihan consistently put forward excellent proposals, with which we may not always have agreed, but our common interest was to address and endeavour to solve the problem. We need only await the passage of the Bill through the Seanad when, I have no doubt, our constituents, particularly mine in Dublin South-West — where the problem is particularly acute — will be glad to note its final passage through both Houses. I look forward to its provisions being implemented and to experiencing some respite from this serious problem in urban and other areas. It was an eye opener to note from the study that Wexford is hardest hit, with 800 wandering horses, demonstrating how difficult this problem has become within a short time.

We shall all be thanked in future years for introducing this Bill because of the effectiveness of its provisions, brought about through the co-operation of everybody involved.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share