I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
Section 2: In page 6, line 28 after "lost"", abandoned" inserted.
Control of Horses Bill, 1996: From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 13 are related. I suggest that we discuss them together.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
Section 9: In page 9, between lines 2 and 3, the following paragraph inserted:
"(c) by a local authority which has entered into arrangements under section 20 (10) with the authority referred to in paragraph (a) where the offence was committed within the area to which the arrangements relate, or”.
I have no objection to this amendment, but I wonder what is the reason for it. It appears an unnecessary amendment.
This amendment is consequential on an amendment in the Dáil on Committee Stage to enable one local authority to take over responsibility for another local authority.
I thought that was already included.
It was, but we did not follow it through in regard to provisions in the rest of the Bill that would be affected by its inclusion here. The amendments being moved today are consequential on amendments made in the Dáil which were well received by all Deputies in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:
Section 10: In page 9, subsection (1), line 7, after "27,", "28 (2)," inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
We now come to amendment No. 4. I observe that amendments Nos. 47 and 50 form a composite proposal. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 4, 47 and 50 together.
I move amendment No. 4:
Section 10: In page 9, line 7, after "28 (2)" inserted by amendment No. 3, ",33*" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
Section 13: In page 11, line 16, after "19", "(1)" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
Section 17: In page 13, subparagraph (ii), lines 2 to 4, all words from and including "declare" where it secondly occurs, deleted and "make a direction under subsection (3) to the adjoining authority" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
We come to amendment No. 7. Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 12, 42 and 49 are related. I suggest that we discuss them together.
I move amendment No. 7:
Section 18: In page 13, subsection (1), lines 19 to 21, "granted by the local authority for the functional area of which the control area forms part" deleted and "entitling that owner to keep the horse in the control area" substituted.
Could the Minister explain why these amendments are proposed? We seem to be writing material into the Bill to pad it out, much of which seems unnecessary. I thought these areas were already covered in the Bill.
That was our belief when the amendments were being drafted for Committee Stage in the Dáil. Subsequently, having examined the Bill, we decided that the provision had to be followed through throughout the Bill to allow for one local authority taking control of the running of another local authority or a number of local authorities. This is a feature of the Bill to maintain and is included to ensure consistency following advice from the parliamentary draftsman and discussion in the Seanad. It ensures there are no gaps in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:
Section 18: In page 13, subsection (2), lines 28 and 29, "granted by the local authority for the functional area of which the control area forms part" deleted and "entitling the owner to keep the horse in the control area" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 9, 17 and 20 form a composite proposal and amendment No. 16 is consequential on amendment No. 17. It is proposed to discuss amendments Nos. 9, 16, 17 and 20 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:
Section 18: In page 13, subsection (4), line 47, "(f)" deleted and "(1) (f), (g) or (k)" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 10:
Section 18: In page 14, subsection (5) (b), lines 8 to 10, "granted by the local authority for the functional area of which the control area forms part" deleted and "entitling it to be kept in the control area" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11:
Section 18: In page 14, subsection (7), line 16, after "accused", "who is not the keeper" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 12:
Section 18: In page 14, subsection (7), line 18, after "horse", "entitling it to be kept in the control area" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 13:
Section 18: In page 14, subsection (8), lines 22 to 24 deleted and the following substituted:
"horse being considered by——
(a) the local authority for the functional area of which the control area forms part, or
(b) another local authority which has entered into arrangements under section 20 (10) with that authority,
upon production of a receipt of the application and accompanying fee issued by the relevant authority:".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 14:
Section 18: In page 14, line 33, subsection (9) (a), line 31, after "19", "(1)" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 15:
Section 18: In page 14, line 33, after "19", "(1)" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 16:
Section 18: In page 14, line 35, "19 (j)" deleted and "19 (1) (j), or" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 17:
Section 18: In page 14, between lines 35 and 36, the following new paragraph inserted:
"(d) is transported through the area in accordance with section 19 (1) (k)."
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 21 is related to amendment No. 18 and they may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 18:
Section 19: In page 15, paragraph (f), lines 3 and 4 deleted, and the following substituted:
"(f) is brought into or kept in the area in such circumstances or for such purposes or periods as may be——
(i) prescribed generally or in relation to any particular control area, or
(ii) specified in bye-laws made by——".
If this amendment is agreed the existing subparagraphs (i) and (ii) become subordinate and must be renumbered (I) and (II) respectively. This renumbering will give rise to a consequential renumbering in section19(2) and (3) whereby the reference in each of these subsections to paragraph (f) (ii) will become a reference to paragraph (f) (II).
The purpose of the amendment is to give the Minister powers to exempt horses brought into a control area from the licensing requirement. The Minister has powers already to exempt horses kept in a control area under section 19 (1) (k).
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 19:
Section 19: In page 15, line 28, "2 weeks" deleted and "one week" substituted.
What is the reason for the change from two weeks to one week?
This came about as a result of consultations with the local authorities. After Committee Stage in the Seanad we sent the Bill to the local authorities seeking their advice, to facilitate them and to help them ensure they could put the licensing system in place more effectively. They decided one week would be better than two. Senator Mulcahy, among others, made a strong case to have it reduced from two weeks to one week. This will help the licensing system to operate more effectively. If the period was too long it might be used to avoid licensing the horses. The period of one week was generally agreed.
I had not realised the Bill had been sent to all the local authorities. Have any other amendments been made to the Bill consequent on discussions with the local authorities?
Many of the amendments made on Report Stage in the Seanad were inspired by feedback received from local authorities, and followed consultation between the draftsman and my officials. We have adopted an open approach with this Bill because we had no model for it. We have proceeded by way of consultation and accommodating views, including those of Deputies Kenneally and Molloy. We have come up with a good Bill having taken all aspects into consideration. The amendments put to the House today have been inspired by advice from local authorities and Senators and by the previous debates on the Bill. There will be an amendment with regard to the pounds regulations to maintain consistency with pounds legislation to avoid any possible anomaly.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 20:
Section 19: In page 15, between lines 37 and 38, the following new paragraph inserted:
"(k) (i) is being transported from outside the area directly through the control area for the sole purpose of export from or leaving the State from a harbour, port or airport, or
(ii) is being transported through the control area, having landed from outside the State at a harbour, port or airport, directly to a destination outside the area;".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 21:
Section 19: In page 15, paragraph (k), line 39, after "prescribed"
"or specified 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" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 22:
Section 19: In page 15, subsection (2), line 41, after "(j) (ii)", "of subsection (1)" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 23:
Section 19: In page 15, subsection (2), line 42, after "(j) (ii)", "of subsection (1)" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 45 are related to amendment No. 24 and they may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 24:
Section 20: In page 16, subsection (1), line 1, after "in", "or brought into" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 25:
Section 20: In page 16, line 26, "and stabled" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
Seanad amendment Nos. 27, 28, 32 and amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 32 are related to amendment No. 26. Is it agreed that they may be discussed together? Agreed.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 26:
Section 20: In page 16, subsection (6) (a), line 28, after "12 months", "stated in the licence and" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 27:
Section 20: In page 16, between lines 29 and 30, the following new paragraph inserted:
"(b) for such other period, as may from time to time be prescribed, stated in the licence and commencing on the date specified therein, or".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 28:
Section 20: In page 16, subsection (6) (b), line 30, "that period" deleted and "either of those periods" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 29:
Section 22: In page 17, subsection (4), line 42, "or" deleted and "and, where appropriate," substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I observe that amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 35 form a composite proposal. I suggest we discuss amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 35 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 30:
Section 22: In page 18, line 1, "specify" deleted and "prescribe" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 31:
Section 22: In page 18, lines 3 and 4, "so specified" deleted and "prescribed" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 32:
Section 22: In page 18, between lines 4 and 5, the following new paragraph inserted:
"(a) in respect of a licence for any period of less than 12 months as specified in the regulations,”.
This Seanad amendment has required amendment to ensure complete alignment with amendment No. 27. I move amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 32:
In paragraph (a), to delete "of less than 12 months".
Amendment to amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 32, as amended, agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 33:
Section 22: In page 18, subsection 5(c), line 10, after "licence", "made to the same authority which granted the first licence" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 34:
Section 22: In page 18, subsection (6), lines 14 and 15 deleted and "An application for a horse licence" substituted.
If this amendment is agreed, the existing numeration of the subsection is retained and the subsection will consequently continue to be numbered subsection (6) on insertion of amendment No. 34.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 35:
Section 22: In page 18, subsection (6), line 18, before "fee", "prescribed" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 36:
Section 22: In page 18, between lines 18 and 19, the following new subsection inserted:
"(7) Where an application for a horse licence is refused the local authority to which the application was made may retain such portion of the prescribed fee as may be prescribed.".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 37:
Section 22: In page 19, line 32, after "disposal", "and its nature" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 38:
Section 22: In page 19, line 33, "(where known)" deleted and "to the authority" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
We come to amendment No. 39. I observe that amendment No. 41 is consequential. I suggest we discuss amendments Nos. 39 and 41 together if that is satisfactory.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 39:
Section 22: In page 19, between lines 34 and 35, the following inserted:
"(2) Where a horse the subject of a horse licence dies other than by way of disposal, the holder of the licence shall within 14 days of the death inform the local authority which granted the licence of the death and its cause.".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 40:
Section 22: In page 19, line 35, after "who", ", without reasonable excuse," inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 41:
Section 22: In page 19, line 35, "subsection (1)" deleted and "this section" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 42:
Section 26: In page 19, subsection (1), lines 41 and 42, "granted by the local authority for the functional area of which the control area forms part" deleted and "entitling the owner to keep the horse in the control area" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 43:
Section 28: In page 20, subsection (1), line 23, after "in", "or brought into" inserted.
This amendment is for insertion after the word "in" where it firstly occurs.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 44:
Section 28: In page 20, subsection (1), line 24, after "section 19", "or as may be specified in the regulations" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 45:
Section 28: In page 20, subsection (2), line 27, after "in", "or brought into" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 46:
Section 32: In page 21, subsection (1), line 20, after "45", "or section 1 (as amended by section 46) of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, in relation to a horse" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 47:
Section 33: In page 21, before section 33, the following new section inserted:
"33. (1) An authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána who has reasonable cause to suspect that a horse is in such pain, distress or acute state of neglect or so severely injured or diseased as to be in need of veterinary attention, may require the owner or keeper of the horse, or if the owner or keeper is not readily available, a person apparently in charge or control of the horse, to immediately, or as soon as may be, obtain any necessary veterinary attention from a veterinary surgeon for the horse.
(2) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence.".
I have no problem with this amendment which seeks to insert a new section. If a garda or somebody else gets veterinary attention for a particular animal do they have the qualification to decide whether an animal needs attention and, if so, who pays for the attention? If a garda, an authorised officer or whoever makes a wrong judgment and there is a consequent cost, who pays? Is the owner of the horse liable or does somebody else pick up the tab?
The motivation behind this section was animal welfare. I have no doubt it will be well received by all the animal welfare associations. It is not confined to control areas, it will apply to the entire country. The important factor is that an authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána must have "reasonable cause" to suspect that a horse is in pain, distress or in an acute state of neglect. The authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána will advise the holder or the owner of that animal to seek veterinary attention. In the event of that person not getting veterinary attention he could be committing an offence and the horse could be confiscated from that person. It is a strong provision from the point of view of animal welfare. The owner of the horse will pay for the veterinary attention. If he did not allow the horse to get into a state of neglect he would not have to pay anything but if the horse is in need of veterinary treatment, the owner, as in all cases, will have to pay.
Is there an obligation on the Garda Síochána under this section to get whatever necessary veterinary attention is required for the animal or is it under another section? This section does not seem to place responsibility on the authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána to seek necessary veterinary attention for the animal, if the person responsible for the animal is not seeking that necessary attention. The new section which the Minister proposes to introduce gives the Garda Síochána or the authorised person the authority to request the owner or the person who is keeping the horse to seek veterinary attention for the animal. In the event of that person not seeking the attention this section does not seem to place any responsibility on the authorised person or the Garda Síochána to get it.
I refer the Deputy to section 38 (2) (b) which states:
The fees to be paid by the owner or keeper of such horses including fees in respect of their keep, any veterinary services and any transportation,
Amendment No. 50 also applies to this section.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 48:
Section 36: In page 22, between lines 41 and 42, the following new paragraph inserted:
"(e) posing a threat to the health and welfare of persons or other animals, or."
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 49:
Section 36: In page 22, paragraph (e), line 43, after "it", "entitling the horse to be kept in that area" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 50:
Section 36: In page 23, between lines 2 and 3, the following new subsection inserted:
"(2) An authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána may seize and detain a horse in relation to which a requirement has been made under section 33 and the person or member has reasonable cause to suspect that the necessary veterinary attention has not been or is not likely to be obtained."
Question put and agreed to.
I observe that amendments Nos. 51 and 64 form a composite proposal. I suggest we discuss amendments Nos. 51 and 64 together. Is that satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 51:
Section 36: In page 23, subsection (1), line 14, before "Whenever", "Subject to section 40," inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
Seanad amendments Nos. 52 and 59 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 52:
Section 38: In page 24, line 1, after "known", "and can be readily found" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 53:
Section 38: In page 24, subparagraph (2) (e) (ii), line 12, "the other" deleted and "another" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
Seanad amendments Nos. 54 and 56 form a composite proposal and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 54:
Section 38: In page 24, between lines 13 and 14, the following inserted:
"(f) the disposal pursuant to a direction of the local authority in whose functional area a horse is detained or of the Superintendent, as the case may be, where the release of a horse is refused under subsection (5), and the time after which such disposal shall take place,
(g) such other matters as it considers relevant.".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 55:
Section 38: In page 24, between lines 13 and 14, the following new subsection inserted:
"(3) 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 section."
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 56:
Section 38: In page 24, between lines 17 and 18, the following inserted:
"(5) A local authority or a Superintendent or a person referred to in subsection (3) may refuse to release any horse detained under section 36 where it or he or she, as the case may be
(a) is not satisfied that adequate accommodation and sustenance, or if detained under section 36 (2) adequate veterinary attention, will be provided for the horse, or
(b) has reason to believe that the horse will be cruelly treated, following such release.
(6) Where a horse is to be disposed of under subsection (2) (f) or section 39 by way of sale or auction, the local authority or the Superintendent concerned shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the horse is not sold to the owner or keeper of the horse at the time it was seized under section 36 or any person acting on his or her behalf.
(7) Where a local authority decides to destroy, or has entered into arrangements under subsection (3) for the destruction of, a horse detained under section 36 it shall endeavour to ensure that the horse is humanely destroyed.
(8) Section 8 of the Pounds (Provision and Maintenance) Act, 1935, and section 5 (3) of the Animals Act, 1985, shall not apply to horses detained under section 36.".
Question put and agreed to.
Seanad amendments Nos. 57 and 58 form a composite proposal and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 57:
Section 39: In page 24, subsection (2) (a), line 31, "charge such" deleted and "in bye-laws specify the" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 58:
Section 39: In page 24, subsection (2) (a), line 34, "as may be specified in bye-laws made by it" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 59:
Section 39: In page 24, subsection (3), line 47, after "known", "and can be readily found" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 60:
Section 39: In page 24, subsection (3), line 47, "horse" deleted and "horse," substituted.
This is a drafting amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 61:
Section 39: In page 24, subsection (3), line 48, "days" deleted and "days," substituted.
This is a drafting amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 62:
Section 39: In page 24, subsection (3), line 49, "notice" deleted and "notice," substituted.
This is a drafting amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 63:
Section 39: In page 24, subsection (3), line 50, before "notice", "first-mentioned" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 64:
Section 40: In page 25, before section 40, the following new section inserted:
"40.—Where in relation to any horse detained under section 36, after veterinary examination, it is the opinion of the veterinary surgeon making the examination that the horse is in such pain or distress or state of acute neglect or so severely injured or diseased that it would be in the interests of the welfare of the horse, or the safety, health or welfare of other animals or persons it may come into contact with, to have it humanely destroyed, the local authority in whose functional area the horse is detained or the Superintendent or a person authorised by the authority or Superintendent, as the case may be, may direct that the horse be so destroyed immediately or as soon as may be.".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 65:
Section 41: In page 26, line 1, "attempts" deleted and "offers" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 66:
Section 41: In page 26, between lines 2 and 3, the following inserted:
"(2) In this section `sell' and `sells' includes barter, exchange and other transactions by which a horse is disposed of for value.".
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments reported and agreed to.
The passing by the Dáil of this Stage of the Bill brings to fruition an extensive process of consultation, research and drafting. It is the end of a process on which the Government embarked in December 1994 under the programme, A Government of Renewal. The Bill gives effect to this Government's commitment in the programme to introduce legislation to control wandering horses in urban areas. It has been drafted and amended to care for the interests of the public, especially motorists, living in urban areas as well as the welfare of horses.
I reiterate that this legislation will provide a more secure and stable environment within which those who are prepared to properly maintain and control their horses, with due regard to the interests of their neighbours and other members of the community, may derive full use and enjoyment from them. There is nothing in the Bill which need impede or obstruct anyone who wishes to put in place arrangements for the enjoyment of horses by young people which are based on proper maintenance and control of animals. In addition, this legislation substantially strengthens the framework of legal protection for horses throughout the country.
I pay tribute to all those who were supportive of our efforts to have this legislation enacted, including Members of the Oireachtas, many of whom made a range of excellent contributions which have been beneficial to the Bill. I express my thanks and appreciation to the staff of my Department who worked so hard for such long hours to prepare the Bill for its passage through the Oireachtas.
I particularly want to thank Deputy Kenneally who introduced his own Bill earlier, as well as Deputies Molloy and Costello who were very helpful on Committee Stage. Senators also contributed and we effected some important changes to the Bill following advice we received in the Seanad. Agencies outside the House also deserve recognition. These include the DSPCA and the ISPCA which helped to provide invaluable advice and direction for which I thank them. Recent consultations with local authorities throughout the country were helpful in providing us with important advice, as a result of which we corrected omissions that otherwise would have rendered the Bill less effective. I recognise their interest in the Bill and their response to our call for advice.
It is an historical day for the House that we have enacted this pioneering legislation. There is nothing else like it anywhere and its framework will be copied by other countries.
I echo the comments of the Minister of State and thank him and his officials who have been most helpful throughout this long and tortuous process. It had to be so because, as the Minister of State rightly said, it is new and pioneering legislation and no one would forgive us for not discussing it fully and teasing out the various points to put the best possible legislation on the Statute Book.
When the problem of wandering horses arose recently in my constituency, I was asked when the legislation would be enforced. People were getting frustrated as the Bill went through the Seanad and the Dáil where it was amended. I recognise the necessity for all that work which improved the Bill. I hope it will become effective very soon so that something positive is done to deal with this ongoing problem.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for all their help on this matter. From a procedural point of view, we have a list of Government amendments also and I wonder if they will be incorporated in the Bill.
Yes, they were incorporated in the Bill. The most important aspect of this Bill is that we have the money to enact it. Some £2 million has been included in the Estimates to enact the legislation. We have been successful both in getting the Bill as well as the finance.
I also congratulate the Minister of State. His approach on this legislation was laudable in that he brought all the Deputies who were interested in the legislation together at drafting stage when there was an opportunity to have a considerable input. That was both wide-ranging and helpful from our point of view. I pay tribute to Deputy Kenneally who dealt with the legislation from the beginning and made a substantial contribution to it. With the passage of the legislation, we now consider its implementation. I am delighted that the local authorities have responsibility and joint funding for fees and ancillary State support.
What will become of youngsters living in urban housing estates in Ballyfermot, Finglas, Cabra and Ballymun who already own or are involved with horses?
Members are aware this scourge has caused certain parts of the city to resemble the wild west. We must consider the possibility of providing alternative projects. Dublin City Council has investigated the corral project and has been in contact with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry in connection with FÁS, the vocational education committee and the local authority acquiring land for this purpose. This is an important point because, while we prescribe substantial penalties in respect of wandering, lost or abandoned horses there is a tremendous love of horses in my area. I request the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to become involved in this matter. It seldom provides grant assistance in connection with urban matters. This issue involves the provision of support for a corral project for horses in an urban setting.
I congratulate the Minister of State and Deputies Kenneally and Molloy for their work on this important Bill. The Minister of State stressed that the welfare of animals will be catered for but he also referred to the public, motorists and people living in urban areas. I am glad the Bill will soon be enacted, as I am sure are Deputies who live in urban areas, because it provides for registration, confiscation and severe penalties, which people want introduced as a matter of urgency. The Minister of State should now consider progressing the issue of the identification of animals.
I am glad £2 million has been provided in the Estimates to implement these decisions. If there is a lack of finance, problems will occur. I urge the Minister of State to consider the start-up date. It would be better if this legislation can be brought into operation sooner rather than later. Local authorities and the Garda often confiscate horses but they are released on to the streets to cause further trouble more rapidly than prisoners from Mountjoy Prison. I congratulate the Minister of State and also Deputy Kenneally for introducing the initial Bill. The legislation introduced by the Minister of State is comprehensive, well drafted and a great deal of work went into its framing. I congratulate those involved and we look forward to speedy implementation of these new measures early next year.
Silence might indicate something so I will join with colleagues in making a number of brief comments. I appreciate the great care and attention displayed by the Minister of State and his officials in constructing this legislation, which, I hope, will be brought into immediate effect. I am glad the Minister of State indicated that financial provisions have been made in the Estimates for 1997 to make funding assistance available to local authorities to implement the Bill. Previous attempts to deal with the problem of wandering horses, particularly in urban areas, have not been very successful.
It is appropriate that there should be effective legislation to curb wandering horses because of the threat to the lives of residents in urban areas and the possibility for maltreatment of animals. I hope that, between the authorised persons and the Garda, difficulties will not again arise with regard to their ability to round up horses where that is required. Fears about the personal safety of officials or gardaí involved inhibited this work in the past. There were also questions regarding whether adequate insurance cover was provided for such individuals in respect of any injuries they might receive during the course of their operations.
Problems may remain but I urge the Minister of State to bring the Bill fully into effect at the earliest opportunity. Will he inform us, at his earliest convenience, with regard to the allocation of £2 million provided in the Estimates for 1997 and the circumstances in which local authorities will have access to such funding? I hope the Minister of State's expectations will be fulfilled when the operation of the Bill is reviewed.
I am deeply interested in this legislation because parts of my constituency are wracked with the problem of wandering horses. I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, for introducing the legislation and for sticking to his task during the past two years. My constituents must contend with this problem on a daily basis and I do not know why they were obliged to wait so long for this legislation. This problem arose in the early 1980s but previous Governments were not quick to expedite matters. It is outrageous that it took such a long period to place this legislation on the Statute Book. One must conclude that the horse industry, which is a very powerful vested interest, exercises some strange power over many Members of the House.
I hope the legislation works. The parks superintendent in my area has reservations regarding the roundabout way that licensing, etc., will apply in certain areas. With the provision of funding in the Estimates, I hope that, under the Bill's provisions, the parks superintendent, his staff and the Garda will have access to resources to take action in respect of open spaces and parks, such as Stardust Memorial Park in Coolock, which is being wrecked by wandering horses. This has been an appalling saga but I congratulate the Minister of State for sticking to his task so well.
I congratulate the Minister of State and his officials for their excellent work in bringing forward this legislation. It was stated that the Bill is unique because there is nothing similar on the Statute Book. Perhaps it will provide a framework for future legislation of this type. It is important that we have created precedents which may help to resolve similar problems in the future. The Minister of State engaged in an extensive consultation process, particularly with local authorities, Deputies and organisations outside the House, and the Bill is all the better for it.
The difficulties in the constituency of Dublin South-West highlight this problem and it is estimated that there are approximately 1,000 wandering horses in Tallaght and Clondalkin, which is frightening. I congratulate Deputy Kenneally who, as the Opposition spokesperson on this issue, has been consistently positive in respect of the Bill and made a major contribution to it. Wandering horses on the C Ring route in Dublin south west pose a frightening threat to motorists at night time. The legislation must be implemented as soon as possible so that this problem can be dealt with.
I congratulate the Minister and all those involved in the preparation of the legislation and I look forward to its speedy implementation.
I thank Deputies for their words of praise, particularly for the officials who deserve them.